The Forced War

When Peaceful Revision Failed
 

By David L. Hoggan

Page III

Chapter 15: The Deterioration Of German-Polish Relations    355

Beck’s Inflexible Attitude 355 — Hitler’s Cautious Policy 357 — Bonnet’s Coolness toward Poland 358
— Beck’s Displeasure at Anglo-French Balkan Diplomacy 360 — The Beck-Gafencu Conference 362 —
The Roosevelt Telegrams to Hitler and Mussolini 365— Hitler’s Assurances Accepted by Gafencu 369 —
Gafencu’s Visit to London 371 —Hitler’s Friendship with Yugoslavia 373 — Hitler’s Reply to Roosevelt
of April 28, 1939 374 — Hitler’s Peaceful Intentions Welcomed by Hungary 378 — Beck’s Chauvinistic
Speech of May 5, 1939 379 — Polish Intransigence Approved by Halifax 386

Chapter 16: British Policy And Polish Anti-German Incidents     387

Halifax’s Threat to Destroy Germany 387 — The Terrified Germans of Poland 388 —Polish Dreams of
Expansion 390 — The Lodz Riots 391 — The Kalthof Murder 392 —The Disastrous Kasprzycki Mission 394
— Halifax’s Refusal to Supply Poland 395 —Halifax’s Contempt for the Pact of Steel 397 — Wohlthat’s Futile
London Conversations 398 — Polish Provocations at Danzig 402 — Potocki’s Effort to Change Polish
Policy 406 — Forster’s Attempted Danzig Détente 407 — The Axis Peace Plan of Mussolini 409 —
The Peace Campaign of Otto Abetz 410 — The Polish Ultimatum to Danzig 412 —Danzig’s Capitulation
Advised by Hitler 413 — German Military Preparations 415 —Hungarian Peace Efforts 416 — The Day of
 the Legions in Poland 418 — The Peaceful Inclination of the Polish People 419

Chapter 17: The Belated Anglo-French Courtship Of Russia    421

Soviet Russian as Tertius Gaudens 421 — Russian Detachment Encouraged by the Polish Guarantee 422
— The Soviet Union as a Revisionist Power 422 — The Dismissal of Litvinov 424 — Molotov’s Overtures
Rejected by Beck 426 — A Russo-German Understanding Favored by Mussolini 428 — Stang’s Mission to
Moscow 430 — Hitler’s Decision for a Pact with Russia 431 — The British and French Military Missions 433
—The Anglo-French Offer at the Expense of Poland 435 — The Ineptitude of Halifax’s Russian Diplomacy 446

Chapter 18: The Russian Decision For A Pact With Germany        449

The Russian Invitation of August 12, 1939 449 — The Private Polish Peace Plan of Colonel Kava 450
— The Polish Terror in East Upper Silesia 452 — Ciano’s Mission to Germany 452 — The Reversal
of Italian Policy 457 — Italy’s Secret Pledge to Halifax 458— Soviet Hopes for a Western
European War 460 — The Crisis at Danzig 462 — Russian Dilatory Tactics 464 —
The Personal Intervention of Hitler 467 — The Complacency of Beck 468 — Ribbentrop’s Mission
 to Moscow 469 — Henderson’s Efforts for Peace 472— Bonnet’s Effort to Separate France from
Poland 475 — The Stiffening of Polish Anti-German Measures 478 — The Decline of German
Opposition to Hitler 480 —  Hitler’s Desire for a Negotiated Settlement 480

Chapter 19: German Proposals For An Anglo-German Understanding     483

Chamberlain’s Letter an Opening for Hitler 483 — Hitler’s Reply to Chamberlain 485 —
The Mission of Birger Dahlerus 486 — Charles Buxton’s Advice to Hitler 488 — The Confusion
of Herbert von Dirksen 489 — Hitler’s Appeal to the British Foreign Office 491 —
Polish-Danzig Talks Terminated by Beck 493 — Confusion in the British Parliament on August 24th 495
— The Roosevelt Messages to Germany and Poland 497— The German Case Presented by Henderson 500
— Kenfiard at Warsaw Active for War 501 — The August 25th Göring Message to London 503
— Hitler Disturbed about Italian Policy 504 — Hitler’s Alliance Offer to Great Britain 505 —
Hitler’s Order for Operations in Poland on August 26th 507 — The Announcement of the Formal
Anglo-Polish Alliance 508 — Military Operations Cancelled by Hitler 509

Chapter 20: The New German Offer To Poland     513

Halifax Opposed to Polish Negotiations with Germany 513 — The Polish Pledge to President Roosevelt 514
— Hitler’s Failure to Recover Italian Support 516 — Halifax Hopeful for War 517 —
British Concern About France 520 — The Hitler-Daladier Correspondence 522 — Hitler’s Desire for Peace
Conveyed at London by Dahlerus 524— Kennard Opposed to German-Polish Talks 526 — The Deceptive
British Note of August 28th — Hitler’s Hope for a Peaceful Settlement 535 — New Military Measures
Planned by Poland 537 — The German Note of August 29th 539 — The German Request for Negotiation
with Poland 540

Chapter 21: Polish General Mobilization And German-Polish War    545

Hitler Unaware of British Policy in Poland 545 — Hitler’s Offer of August 30th to Send Proposals to
Warsaw 547 — Hitler’s Sincerity Conceded by Chamberlain 548 —Henderson’s Peace Arguments
Rejected by Halifax 549 — A Peaceful Settlement Favored in France 551 — The Unfavorable British
Note of August 30th 552 — The Absence of Trade Rivalry as a Factor for War 555 — The Tentative
 German Marienwerder Proposals 557 — Hitler’s Order for Operations in Poland on September1st 561
— Beck’s Argument with Pope Pius XII 562 — Italian Mediation Favored by Bonnet 563 —
The Marienwerder Proposals Defended by Henderson 565 — The Lipski-Ribbentrop Meeting 566 —
 The Germans Denounced by Poland as Huns 568

Chapter 22: British Rejection Of the Italian Conference Plan
And The Outbreak of World War II        571

The German-Polish War 571 — Italian Defection Accepted by Hitler 571 — Polish Intransigence
Deplored by Henderson and Attolico 572 — Hitler’s Reichstag Speech of September 1, 1939 573 —
 Negotiations Requested by Henderson and Dahlerus 576 —Hitler Denounced by Chamberlain
and Halifax 578 — Anglo-French Ultimata Rejected by Bonnet 579 — Notes of Protest Drafted
by Bonnet 580 — The Italian Mediation Effort 584 — Hitler’s Acceptance of an Armistice and
a Conference 585 — The Peace Conference Favored by Bonnet 586 — Halifax’s Determination to
Drive France into War 588 — Ciano Deceived by Halifax 591 — The Mediation Effort Abandoned
by Italy 593 —Bonnet Dismayed by Italy’s Decision 594 — British Pressure on Daladier and
Bonnet 595— The Collapse of French Opposition to War 596 — The British and French Declarations
of War Against Germany 597 — The Unnecessary War 599

Conclusion    601
Appendix     609

Source
Biography of the Author

Not available:
Notes    621
Bibliography    646
Index    685

[355]
Chapter 15


THE DETERIORATION
OF GERMAN-POLISH RELATIONS


Beck’s Inflexible Attitude

The increased tension in German-Polish relations after March 31, 1939, was a consequence of the Polish decision to occupy the foremost place in Halifax’s encirclement front. Beck knew perfectly well that Halifax hoped to encompass the destruction of Germany. The British Foreign Minister had considered an Anglo-German war inevitable since 1936, and he came into the open with his anti-German policy on March 17, 1939. Beck knew that Hitler would regard Polish acceptance of the British guarantee as a stinging blow. Beck had taken his decision against Germany with a full understanding of the consequences. There might have been some improvement in German-Polish relations after his return from London to the continent on April 7, 1939, but he precluded this possibility by pursuing a rigidly hostile policy toward Germany. This development reached an early climax in Beck’s speech to the Polish Sejm on May 5, 1939. The Polish Foreign Minister distorted the record of recent events in this speech. He ignored the German suggestions for further negotiation made by Weizsäcker to Lipski on April 6, 1939, and by Hitler publicly in his speech to the German Reichstag on April 28, 1939.1

There was no further negotiation for a German-Polish agreement after the British guarantee to Poland for the simple reason that Beck refused to negotiate. It is significant that after the British guarantee Halifax never exerted any genuine pressure on Poland to negotiate with Germany. A German-Polish understanding would have been a great disappointment to Halifax. He was counting on Poland to provide the pretext for the British preventive war against Germany.2

Rumanian Foreign Minister Gafencu told German Minister Fabricius at Bucharest on April 7, 1939, that Beck intended to force the British to recognize Poland as an equal partner in their aggressive plans. Beck had informed Gafencu that the Anglo-Polish agreement would be equivalent to the recognition of Poland as one of the Great Powers. He assured his Rumanian colleague that [356] Poland would refuse to do business with Great Britain on any other basis.3

The Tilea hoax continued to embarrass the Rumanian Foreign Minister. He admitted to Fabricius that he did not trust either Tilea or the British. He had considered recalling Tilea, but he did not dare to do so for fear of British retaliation. He decided to solve the problem by sending Secretary-General Cretzianu of the Rumanian Foreign Office on a special mission to London. This was a clever move which enabled him to act through a man he trusted, in dealing with the British on important questions. Gafencu was furious with a Bucharest newspaper which had audaciously Chargéd that King Carol was involved in Tilea’s intrigue at London. Gafencu assured Fabricius on April 14, 1939, that there was not the slightest truth in this Chargé.4

The Poles were quick to take advantage of their new relationship with Great Britain after Beck’s visit to London. Polish Ambassador Raczynski came to Halifax on the evening of April 6, 1939, to lodge a protest about the allegedly anti-Polish treatment of Danzig and the Corridor in large sections of the British press. It seemed that Great Britain was now receiving most of Poland’s friendly protests previously directed to Berlin. Halifax was not particularly concerned about this situation, because he possessed great skill in evading friendly protests. He was delighted to learn from British Ambassador Kennard at Warsaw a few days later that the German Ambassador to Poland was demoralized by the recent events in Europe. Moltke confessed to Kennard that he was literally sickened by the complete wreckage of German-Polish relations, which had been built carefully and laboriously after 1933. He admitted that he was totally pessimistic about the future, and that he believed a German-Polish understanding had become a sheer impossibility.5

The unwarranted indiscretion of Moltke to Kennard offers a further proof of the shortcomings of the German Ambassador to Poland. Moltke was despised by the British and the Poles because he was an incompetent diplomat, and because he constantly excused himself from responsibility for the official acts of the Government which he continued to serve. The situation was no different with Schulenburg at Moscow, Welczeck at Paris, Mackensen at Rome, or Dirksen at London. The result was a severe handicap on the conduct of German foreign policy during a difficult period.6

Moltke spoke to Kennard about his fears on April 7, 1939. This would have been an appropriate date to summarize the impact of recent developments in a confidential report. Many things had taken place between March 9th, when the Slovak crisis became acute, and April 6th, when Beck departed from London. German-Polish disagreement about a general settlement was evident to the entire world. The Poles had rejected the German proposals and undertaken emergency military measures directed exclusively against Germany. Poland had obtained an unrestricted British blank check against the Germans. Beck was momentarily successful in excluding the hated Russians from the British coalition. The Germans in Poland were subjected to increasing doses of violence from the dominant Poles. The old courtesy had begun to fade entirely from the official intercourse between the Polish and German Governments. Things were far worse than at any time during the period of the Weimar Republic, because of the British intervention policy. The British blank check outweighed, in [357] Polish minds, the fact that Germany in the meantime had become a colossus of strength compared to Poland.7


Hitler’s Cautious Policy

The British Guarantee did not mean that a German-Polish war was inevitable. Hitler was exceedingly reluctant to take military action against Poland despite the Polish challenge and the rejection of German friendship. This was not altered by the fact that he knew Germany could win an easy military victory over the Poles. World War I, despite Germany’s military defeat, had proved that German soldiers in both defensive and offensive operations could cope successfully with equal numbers of enemy troops from any country in the world. Although the German program of military preparation was less intensive than that of Great Britain, in proportion to the industrial capacity of the two countries, her activities in this sphere far outstripped the feeble efforts of the Poles. The ratio of fighter aircraft between Germany and Poland in 1939 was 10:1, and the ratio in armored vehicles was 12:1.8

Poland had more trained soldiers in reserve than Germany, but the Germans were superior in the decisive infantry-age bracket of trained young men from twenty to twenty-two years of age. The superior Polish cavalry was more than outweighed by German mechanized strength. Germany and Poland were both easy countries to invade, but this had become a German advantage. The Poles were ahead in the important sphere of military planning, because they had never ceased to prepare for a German-Polish war, but their plans were faulty. The Germans were rapidly devising an effective offensive campaign strategy against Poland.

The reasonable certainty of victory over Poland did not persuade Hitler that a German-Polish war was a good idea. He regarded such a conflict as a highly unwelcome alternative to a German-Polish understanding. Hitler at first assumed that the Soviet Union would not aid the Poles in the event of a German-Polish war, but he soon concluded that it would be militarily irresponsible for Germany to trust in his political intuition. He had been wrong about the Polish attitude toward Germany, and he might be wrong about their attitude toward Russia. He issued an order to General Keitel on April 11, 1939, to draw up Polish war plans with the possible immediate intervention of Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union clearly in mind. Keitel was advised that in this situation the first objective would be a lightning victory over Poland, while employing strictly defensive tactics against the three Great Powers. It was obvious that this was not an adventure to be embarked upon lightly, particularly since Germany had not placed herself in readiness for any major war.9

It was likely that the Poles would seek to provoke Germany into attacking them. Unlike Germany, they could not expect to achieve any of their objectives in a major war through their own efforts. Their hope of ultimate victory rested with distant foreign Powers. The Polish leaders were far more enthusiastic about a German-Polish war than Hitler ever was, but considerations of high policy suggested the wisdom of a role which was at least passive in appearance.

Poland was counting on the support of Halifax for the realization of her [358]  program at the expense of both Germany and Russia. It was conceivable that Halifax could lead Great Britain into a war which began with a surprise Polish invasion of Germany, but the Polish leaders knew that France and the United States were also of decisive importance to British policy. The Poles knew that Halifax would never support Poland unless he could drag France into war. This policy was dictated by the simple fact that Halifax did not believe Great Britain could win a war against Germany without the parcipation of France. The Poles also knew that it would be difficult for President Roosevelt to arouse the American people against Germany unless it was possible to maintain that Poland was the innocent victim of German aggression.

Polish provocation of Germany after March 31, 1939, was frequent and extreme, and Hitler soon had more than a sufficient justification to go to war with Poland on the basis of traditional practices among the nations. Nevertheless, Hitler could not justify German action, unless he believed that he was prepared to meet the consequences. He hoped to avoid war with Great Britain, and he knew that he would run a grave risk of an Anglo-German war if he invaded Poland. It was for this reason that German-Polish relations became progressively worse over a long period before they produced a conflict. Hitler, who was usually very prompt and decisive in conducting German policy, showed considerable indecision before he finally decided to act, and to face the consequences. He did not abandon his hope for a negotiated settlement with Poland until he realized that the outlook for such a settlement was completely hopeless.


Bonnet’s Coolness toward Poland

The first major Polish diplomatic move, after the retun of Beck from London, was an attempt to improve Polish relations with France. Polish Ambassador Lukasiewicz called on Bonnet on April 8, 1939, after his return from Brussels and his conferences with Beck. The French Foreign Minister, who had strongly supported the original Halifax proposal for a Four Power pact, admitted with obvious reluctance that Beck had been able to have his own way at London. Lukasiewicz insisted on immediate negotiations to augment Franco-Polish collaboration. Bonnet seemed to agree, and he conveyed the fatalistic attitude that he had no real choice in the matter.10

Bonnet had no intention of permitting negotiations with the Poles to occupy the crucial place in his program. He had received a report from French Ambassador Noël which indicated that Marshal Smigly-Rydz was delighted with the new situation created by the British guarantee. The Poles expected the French to match the British blank check without hesitation, but Bonnet was far more interested in bringing the British and Russians together. He decided to relegate Franco-Polish negotiations to Warsaw, rather than conduct them personally at Paris. This was contrary to the intention of Beck who hoped that Lukasiewicz would be able to negotiate a new Franco-Polish agreement with Bonnet. Beck detested the French Ambassador at Warsaw, who had previously been a police official in Paris. He regarded him as an altogether unsavory individual. He would have insisted on the recall of Noël had he realized that the [359] French Ambassador had sought to overthrow him in 1936. Noël had attempted to make a French loan to Poland conditional on the dismissal of Beck. His motive was the alleged pro-German attitude of the Polish Foreign Minister. His plan failed because the French Government refused to accept it.

Bonnet’s own attitude toward Noël was scarcely less unfavorable than that of Beck. The fact that he was retained at Warsaw is eloquent testimony of Bonnet’s attitude toward Poland. The situation was especially crass when one considers that Polish Ambassador Lukasiewicz at Paris was Beck’s best diplomat. Ultimately Noël turned author, and he wrote a book which contained a number of bitter and unjustifiable Chargés against Bonnet, who had ample opportunity to regret his decision to retain Noël at the Warsaw post.11

The disagreement between Bonnet and Beck about the suitable place for Franco-Polish negotiations produced a delay which was welcomed by the French Foreign Minister. Daladier and Bonnet were soon preoccupied with the Russian question, and with Anglo-French diplomacy in the Balkans. Lukasiewicz concluded with disgust that France was more interested in promoting her special Balkan interests than in collaborating with Poland.12

Daladier and Bonnet were not unmindful of the fact that the Polish population in the northern French industrial area had increased to almost 200,000 in recent times. The economic depression in Poland continued unabated, and Polish laborers emigrated in increasing numbers to foreign industrial areas. There was some concern in France lest the Polish Government request the return of Polish reservists for military service in Poland. Bonnet instructed Noël to discuss this question at Warsaw. He hoped that a special Polish corps might be organized in France for service in the Maginot line under French leadership. This idea also appealed to the Polish leaders. It meant that a separate Polish military force would remain in action against the Germans after a possible defeat of Poland, provided, of course, that France ultimately agreed to go to war on behalf of the Poles.13

The report of Noël about the elation of Marshal Smigly-Rydz over the new situation created by the British guarantee was accurate. The Marshal was gratified to receive a telegram from Beck on April 6th announcing that the entente with England had been solidified. Smigly-Rydz told the Polish diplomats at the Bruehl Palace that the Germans were in “a trance” and that an immediate war was quite possible. He assured them with satisfaction that such a war would mean the end of Germany. He did not deny that Germany might defeat Poland initially, but he emphasized to the diplomats that the Germans were unprepared for a general war.

Lukasiewicz was less sanguine than Smigly-Rydz about the position of the Western Powers following the British guarantee. He discussed the situation with American Ambassador Bullitt on April 9, 1939. He said that he hoped France would attack Germany from Belgium in the event of war, but he was pessimistic about the future course of French policy. Bullitt and Lukasiewicz also discussed their recent meeting with Beck. The American Ambassador told Lukasiewicz that he had given President Roosevelt extensive information about Beck’s analysis of the situation. Beck had claimed that basically Hitler was a timid Austrian who might be expected to avoid a war against determined and strong opponents. He said that “it should be obvious now to Hitler that threats to [360] Poland would get Germany nowhere.” These exuberant remarks seemed less convincing to Lukasiewicz after his conversation on the previous day with Bonnet.14

Bullitt was dissatisfied with the attitude of the French leaders, and he was inclined to blame what he considered the unwarranted complacency of American public opinion. He complained to President Roosevelt in a report on April 10, 1939, that the American public was not aware of the alleged direct threat to the United States from Germany, Italy, and Japan. He hoped that Roosevelt could do something to arouse the American people. His complaint was the decisive factor in persuading President Roosevelt to deliver sensational and insulting public notes to Mussolini and Hitler on April 15, 1939, after the Anglo-French guarantees to Rumania and Greece. Bullitt complained that Daladier was unresponsive to the attempt of Lukasiewicz to secure the same blank check from France which had been presented to Poland by England. Kennedy reported to Roosevelt from London on April 11, 1939, that Halifax was still pretending to entertain an idealistic hope for peace. Kennedy naturally supposed that it might be worthwhile for the British Foreign Secretary to announce to the world that peace was still possible, but Halifax claimed that to do so would convince everyone that he was “burying his head in the sand.” These remarks illustrate the method by which Halifax sought to convince people that he was merely the prisoner of larger events. 15


Beck’s Displeasure at Anglo-French Balkan Diplomacy

The Italian occupation of Albania on April 7, 1939, furnished the pretext for the Anglo-French Balkan diplomatic activity which was highly unwelcome to the Poles. Bullitt had the impression that Beck was basically more friendly toward Italy than toward France. The Polish leaders were convinced that the Italian move in Albania threatened neither Great Britain nor France, and they suspected that the British and French leaders were well aware of this fact. The reaction to the Italian move was very pronounced in such distant places as Washington, D.C., London, Moscow, and Paris. Winston Churchill impulsively suggested on April 9, 1939, that the British should retaliate against the Italians by occupying the Greek island of Corfu. Corfu was directly adjacent to the Albanian coast at the entrance of the Adriatic Sea.

The suggestion of Churchill, which was rejected by the British Government, had an odd sequel. The London News Chronicle claimed on April 12, 1939, that the German Government planned an immediate invasion of Holland if British forces landed at Corfu. The British press had taken the lead of Halifax in suggesting that Germany had sinister designs against Holland. It was hoped that these rumors would be useful in arousing the American public. The Dutch had an extensive colonial empire in the East Indies, and the American leaders professed to fear that these islands would fall under Japanese control if Hitler occupied the Dutch homeland. The German press indignantly denounced the latest irresponsible British rumors.16

President Roosevelt was doing everything in his power to increase alarmist sentiment in the United States. He announced at Warm Springs, Georgia, on [361] April 9th that he might not return for his annual autumn health cure, because it was quite possible that the United States and the European countries would be involved with the problems of a major European war by that time. Fortunately, much of the reaction to this statement in the United States was extremely hostile, and many foreign observers concluded that this was merely an expression of wishful thinking on the part of the American president.17

The blustering of Churchill, the rumor-mongering of the British press, and the alarmist statements of Roosevelt were welcome to Halifax, who was seeking to extend the British encirclement of Germany. He believed that British commitments in the Mediterranean might be useful in intimidating Mussolini. He had discovered that the Rumanians objected to the transformation of the anti-Soviet Polish-Rumanian alliance into an anti-German alliance, but that they welcomed the prospect of an Anglo-French guarantee. Halifax hoped that this might be useful in postponing revisionist actions of the Russians, Hungarians, and Bulgarians against Rumania. Relations between Italy and Greece had been unfavorable for many years, and serious disputes between the two countries antedated World War I. The recent Italian move into Albania gave the two countries a common land frontier, and the Greek Government was quite willing to accept support in the form of a guarantee from Great Britain and France. Yugoslavia preferred to rely on direct assurances from Italy, and Halifax was unable to persuade the Yugoslav leaders to accept an Anglo-French guarantee. This was evident by April 13, 1939, when the Western Powers proclaimed their guarantees of Rumania and Greece. The Albanian Constituent Assembly had presented the crown of the Albanian kingdom to King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy on the pervious day.18

The Germans were extremely pleased by the refusal of the Yugoslav Government to accept a guarantee from the Western Powers. The Germans offered to issue an official statement stressing the importance of a strong Yugoslavia for the maintenance of peace and stability in the Balkans. Yugoslav Foreign Minister Cincar Markovi~ expressed his gratitude on April 14, 1939, for Germany’s offer, but he asked Germany to refrain from openly taking this step. He argued that favorable official publicity for Yugoslavia in Germany would weaken the position of the Cvetkovic~ Ministry in Yugoslav domestic politics. It was exceedingly important at the moment for Yugoslav politicians to appear to be independent of foreign influences. Prince Regent Paul was seeking to pursue a policy of complete neutrality toward the Axis and the British encirclement front. 19

Anglo-French diplomacy in the Balkans was ostensibly an answer to Italy’s action in Albania, but it affected the interests of the Soviet Union and Poland. The guarantee to Rumania seemed to imply Anglo-French support for Rumanian rule in the former Russian territory of Bessarabia. The Soviet Union had announced as early as March 22, 1939, that the British desired them to guarantee Rumania and Poland. Polish Ambassador Lukasiewicz at Paris discovered, at the time of the Anglo-French guarantee to Rumania, that the Western Powers were asking the Russians to follow their example. The Poles hoped that the Rumanians would refuse to request or accept a Russian guarantee.20

An important conference on Polish policy toward Russia had taken place at [362] the Bruehl Palace in Warsaw on April 12, 1939. Polish Ambassador Grzybowski had returned to Warsaw from Moscow to plead for limited collaboration between Poland and the Soviet Union. Beck was shocked to learn that Grzybowski advocated a Polish-Soviet understanding at the expense of the Baltic states. The Polish Ambassador argued that a new age of imperialism was replacing the Wilsonian era of self-determination. He recalled that the Baltic states, during the greater part of the 18th century, were divided between Poland and Russia, after Peter the Great of Russia succeeded in winning a window on the Baltic Sea at Swedish expense. Grzybowski believed that the Soviet Union would accept a new partition plan. Russia would seize Estonia, Poland could take Lithuania, and Lativa might be partitioned between the Poles and the Russians. Grzybowski argued that this plan would exclude Germany from any role in the region of the Baltic states.

Beck denounced this proposition. The plan of joining with the Soviet Union to carve up the anti-Bolshevik Baltic states was anathema to him. Grzybowski was advised to place no trust in any assurances from Soviet Foreign Commissar Litvinov. He was instructed to watch for indications that the Soviet Union was seeking to conclude a deal with Germany. Beck was convinced that any British attempt to win an alliance with the Soviet Union would be futile2l


The Beck-Gafencu Conference

Beck wished to confer with Rumanian Foreign Minister Gafencu to obtain a new assurance that there would be no collaboration between Rumania and the Soviet Union. He knew that Gafencu was about to depart on a peace mission to Berlin, Rome, Paris, and London. Gafencu, who was planning to go to Berlin by train, did not care to pass through Hungarian territory, because of the prevailing bitterness in Rumanian-Hungarian relations. His route would lead from Bucharest to the Polish frontier to Germany by way of Moldavia and the Bukovina, and from the Polish frontier by way of Lwow and Krakow. Beck suggested attaching his private salon-car to the Orient Express train on the evening of April 16th, after it crossed the Polish frontier. This would enable the two diplomats to discuss their problems during the night while they traversed the poverty-stricken southern Polish countryside. The transit meeting suggested by Beck was reminiscent of the famous conference between the Serbian and Bulgarian Premiers on the train from Belgrade to Nish before the outbreak of the 1912 Balkan War.22

Gafencu welcomed the conference because he wished to talk to Beck about Germany. He was convinced that the policy of Beck toward Germany was the principal threat to peace in Europe, and he hoped to exert a moderating influence on the Polish Foreign Minister. The two diplomats met on the evening of April 16th with a cordial exchange of greetings, but it seemed to Gafencu that Beck was nervous and under great strain. He assumed that this was the natural result of the events of the past few weeks and of the uncertainty about Poland’s future. Gafencu asked Beck to discuss Polish policy toward Germany, before turning to Rumanian affairs. Beck responded by declaring that Hitler’s proposal for the return of Danzig was at the bottom of the trouble between [363] Poland and Germany. He assured Gafencu that he would frustrate Hitler’s Danzig aspirations. He confided that for many months he had led Hitler to believe that he would accept the German annexation of Danzig. He added, “if he counted on me to give it to him, he was mistaken. I am the last person who would abandon Danzig.”23

Beck claimed that his English policy was an effective answer to Hitler’s plans. The British guarantee meant that the so-called Free City was in a state of protective surety, regardless of what happened there at any given moment. Beck claimed that Poland would have been content to remain at peace with Germany had Hitler refrained from asking for any Polish concessions. He denied that he welcomed the idea of war with Germany for its own sake.

Gafencu was unable to believe this last assertion. He noted a strongly combative element in Beck’s personality, which nullified the normal human conciliatory tendencies. Gafencu was astonished to learn that Beck had counted on Hitler to rupture diplomatic relations with Poland permanently when he learned of the British guarantee. This would have seemed the logical German move to Beck. The continued German interest in an understanding with Poland suggested the possibility to Beck of a German retreat. It seemed possible that Hitler would guarantee the existing German-Polish frontier without receiving Polish concessions in the Danzig and superhighway questions. Gafencu, on the other hand, doubted that there was even a remote possibility of this.24

Beck was soon aware that Gafencu did not sympathize with his policy toward Germany. He realized that Gafencu was seeking to influence him. Beck had received a challenge on his German policy from Polish Ambassador Lipski at the railway station in Berlin on his trip home from London. Lipski had carried out instructions with the Germans by insisting that the British guarantee was not contrary to the 1934 Polish-German Pact, but he confided to Beck that he did not believe this himself. The 1934 Pact was clear in stating that the recognition of existing alliance obligations did not imply the recognition of future alliances. A declaration of Russian support to Germany would have been quite unacceptable under the Pact. Beck’s entire conversation with Lipski at Berlin was consumed by an inconclusive argument over this point. 25

Beck hoped to convert Gafencu into acceptance of his policy toward Germany. He resented the suggestion that there were still many alternatives in dealing with the German situation. He responded with a lengthy analysis of the fundamental features of Polish foreign policy, and he claimed repeatedly that his major moves were based on instructions from Pilsudski in 1934 and 1935. Gafencu waited until Pilsudski’s equilibrium theory was discussed before he interrupted Beck. The equilibrium theory called for Polish liberty of action based on identical relations of aloof detachment with the Germans and with the Russians.

Gafencu doubted if this so-called perfect equilibrium had existed in practice after 1934. Everyone knew that Poland had been far more friendly with Germany than with Russia. Beck denied this, and he claimed that it was a question of appearance or reality. He noted that the Polish attitude toward Germany had always been extremely reserved under the surface. Beck added that his own Polish patriotism had never been tarnished by Germanophilia, and he claimed that his Soviet policy was based on concrete facts, namely, animus [364] against the Soviet system, rather than Russophobia. He denied that he was hostile toward the Russian people, “but I know Russia and I do not allow myself to be guided in this connection by the illusions of the west.”

Gafencu refused to accept Beck’s exposition. He suspected that Beck was strongly attracted to the Germans, repelled by the Russians, and not detached in his attitude toward either people. He considered that the recent moves by Beck on the diplomatic chessboard were incompatible with the basic attitude of the Polish Foreign Minister. Gafencu was certain that Beck was not outspokenly and violently anti-German, in the sense of the National Democrat disciples of Dmowski. He was positive that Beck had great personal admiration for Hitler.

Beck failed to convince Gafencu that his German policy was justifiable, and he changed the subject. He condemned Western policy toward the Soviet Union, and he described it as a degeneration from the realistic cordon sanitaire (containment of Russia), to the fantastic policy of mutual assistance, which encouraged Russian intervention in every direction. Beck argued that it was unnecessary to join the anti-Comintern front to oppose the spread of Bolshevism. He preferred to combat the Third International unofficially by denying its very existence. Beck admitted that he favored the cordon sanitaire and the exclusion of Russia from European affairs. Beck believed that the frontier of Europe was situated wherever the eastern Polish frontier happened to be at the moment. The Russo-Polish non-aggression pact was consistent with this policy, because such pacts stopped at the frontiers. They were treaties of delimitation rather than cooperation. He discussed the Russian problem at great length with Gafencu, and he was relieved to receive the positive assurance that Rumania would refuse to participate in a mutual assistance front with the Soviet Union.

Polish-Rumanian solidarity against Russia was extremely important to Beck. He did not object when the conversation drifted back to Germany, after having obtained the important assurance about Russia from Gafencu. Beck complained that Hitler had allowed nearly five years to elapse after the 1934 Pact before introducing his proposals for a general settlement in October 1938. He claimed that the Poles would have been justified in expecting him never to raise the Danzig issue had he waited much longer. Beck again admitted that he had pretended to favor the project of a general settlement between Germany and Poland without making any of the concessions expected from him.26

It was early morning by this time, and the Polish farmers of the surrounding countryside were about to begin their daily toil. Nevertheless, Gafencu had no desire to end the conversation. He had visited Warsaw six weeks earlier, and he had established friendly relations with Beck. Rumania and Poland had been allies for years, and they were close neighbors, with a common Eastern European perspective. Beck occupied the key position in a crisis of the greatest importance for the entire European continent. Gafencu hoped to exert a moderating influence on Beck which might be useful in avoiding a new disaster for Europe. He feared that Europe was drifting into war, and he regarded it his most important diplomatic task to oppose this development.

Beck and Gafencu discussed their previous meeting, before the British guarantee to Poland. Gafencu recalled that Beck had said that “all explanations given me by Hitler since 1935 (death of Pilsudski) have been just and true, and have never been contradicted by the facts. I have spoken with him man to [365] man, and as soldier to soldier; he has always held to the engagements he has taken, and he has never broken one with me even to this day.”27

Beck had shared Hitler’s attitude toward Rumania’s Czecho-Slovak ally, and had said that “Czechoslovakia has always seemed to me to be a caricature of the Austria of the Habsburgs. Everything in this state was improper and provisional.” Gafencu reminded Beck that he had also been critical of many aspects of British policy.28

Gafencu informed Beck of reports he had received from Rumanian Ambassador Franassovici at Warsaw after the Polish rejection of the German proposals. The Rumanian envoy had studied a map of the Baltic region with German Ambassador Moltke. The two diplomats had speculated about how they might describe the Danzig problem to some complete outsider. The territory of Germany on the map was shown in yellow, and that of the Free City in blue. Moltke suggested that Hitler was prepared to recognize all existing Polish rights at Danzig, and that therefore it was an affair of colors. Would Danzig remain blue on the map, or would Hitler be permitted to paint it yellow? Franassovici suggested that the Danzig problem was a combination of colors and subtle nuances.

Beck was not amused by the attempt of Gafencu to present the Danzig problem in a lighter vain. He exclaimed: “If they touch Danzig, there will be war!” Gafencu countered boldly by asking if the sudden change in Polish policy had caused Beck to consider resigning his post. Beck replied that he would never resign, because no other man in Poland knew enough about Polish policy to take his place. He claimed that Hitler would be unable to rid himself easily of the belief that a strong Poland was an asset to Germany, and this would be especially true if Beck remained at his post. Beck contended that Hitler could not be single-minded about retaliating against Poland, because he did not wish to open the gates of Europe to the expansion of the Soviet Union. Beck added that Hitler, unlike the Weimar Republic leaders, was fully aware of the danger from Bolshevism. Gafencu suspected that the argument of Beck was insincere and false, but he was unable to think of an effective reply.29

Beck insisted that he was still willing to give one assurance to Hitler: Poland would never accept an alliance with the Soviet Union. The Rumanian Foreign Minister knew that Beck was sincere in this statement. It seemed a tragedy to him that Beck’s intransigence prevented an understanding between the anti-Bolshevik regimes of Germany and Poland. He knew that his own effort to influence the attitude of Beck had failed. Beck, on the other hand, was satisfied with the transit conference. He had received a new assurance that Rumania would never accept a Russian guarantee. He was pleased when Russian Foreign Commissar Maxim Litvinov repeated on April 19, 1939. that the Soviet Union would not guarantee Rumania and Poland.30


The Roosevelt Telegrams to Hitler and Mussolini

The British expected some lively developments at Danzig after their guarantee to the Poles. They did not realize that Hitler had ordered the Danzig authorities to go to extreme lengths in seeking to conciliate the Poles. British Ambassador [366] Kennard heard on April 12, 1939, that Lipski had returned to Warsaw from Berlin. He suspected that this might indicate some new development of major importance in the Danzig question. He asked Beck for the latest news about Danzig, but he was told that nothing had changed.31

The quiet at Danzig began to annoy Kennard. He called at the Polish Foreign Office ten days later to insist that Great Britain was “entitled” to receive.:

information about any new steps at Danzig. He noted that the Germans were blaming Great Britain for the deadlock at Danzig, and he claimed that the British were ‘somewhat anxious” about the situation. Kennard was told once again that there was nothing to report. The Germans had requested the return of Danzig; and a transit corridor to East Prussia. The Polish diplomats believed that the Germans expected Lipski to appear some day with “proposals of a detailed nature.” Kennard was not told whether or not such proposals would actually be presented to the Germans by Poland.

The evasive vagueness at the Polish Foreign Office irritated Kennard. He’ complained to Halifax, and he noted with malicious satisfaction that there were objections to Beck in Polish financial circles. It was known in Poland that Beck had said nothing about British economic assistance during his visit to London. He had proudly emphasized Poland’s alleged preparedness and strength. The Polish financiers regarded this as an unpardonable and expensive blunder.32

Beck was waiting impatiently for Hitler’s response to Polish acceptance of the British guarantee. He wondered if Hitler would abrogate the 1934 Pact, which Poland had violated by accepting the guarantee. He did not realize that Hitler had no intention of increasing Poland’s sense of self-importance by devoting a special public message to this matter. Hitler knew that the repudiation of the Pact would be a step of major importance which could scarcely be confined to an official communiqué and a few reports in the newspapers. This problem was unexpectedly resolved for Hitler by President Roosevelt. The American President responded to Bullitt’s suggestion for an important move to influence American public opinion by committing a colossal diplomatic blunder, which played directly into Hitler’s hands.

Roosevelt disclosed to the American public on April 14, 1939, the contents of telegrams to Mussolini and Hitler which were received in Rome and Berlin on the following day. Roosevelt sought to create the impression that Germany and Italy were exclusively responsible for every threat to European peace. He presented himself as an unselfish peacemaker, who had expended much thought and energy to devise a plan to remove the danger of war. This peace plan required Germany and Italy to declare that they would abstain from war under any and all circumstances for ten to twenty-five years, and to conclude non-aggression pacts with a large number of states, of which several had no independent existence other than in the imagination of the American President33

The Roosevelt message met with a vigorous response in the German press. The German journalists wondered if the United States would agree not to attack Haiti or Santo Domingo within the next twenty-five years.34 Joseph Goebbels addressed three questions to the American public on April 17, 1939. He wondered if they recognized that Roosevelt was similar to Woodrow Wilson in his desire to promote a permanent policy to American intervention throughout the world. He asked if the American people recognized that Roosevelt’s [367]

recent message was a new maneuver to destroy the American neutrality laws, rather than to promote world peace. He inquired if they realized that Roosevelt had advocated a common American front with Bolshevism since his Chicago Quarantine speech in October 1937. The German press announced on April 17th that Hitler would answer President Roosevelt for the German people in a speech to the German Reichstag on April 28, 1939. This step had been agreed upon by Hitler and Ribbentrop in a special conference on the previous day.35

Hitler was presented with an opportunity to deal with the Poles as a secondary factor in a general situation. He planned to devote the greater part of his message on the Pact with Poland to a careful criticism of the American President and to a criticism of English policy. He also intended to abrogate the 1935 Anglo-German naval treaty. Hitler ordered the German press to abstain from criticizing the Poles during the period before he delivered his speech.

Marshal Göring was on a visit to Italy from April 14th until April 16, 1939. He had instructions from Hitler to discuss the total context of Italo-German relations. Ribbentrop was somewhat uneasy about the Göring official mission at this crucial stage when he was seeking to promote an Italo-German alliance. He was relieved to learn later that the Göring mission was completely successful.36

Göring discussed the Roosevelt telegrams with Mussolini and Ciano on April 16, 1939. He told Mussolini that it was difficult to avoid the impression that the American President was mentally ill. Mussolini criticized the factual text of the telegrams. It was ridiculous to request Germany and Italy to conclude non-aggression pacts with Palestine and Syria, which were British and French mandates rather than independent states. Mussolini was interested in improving Anglo-Italian relations, and he elected to react publicly to the American challenge in a minor key. A brief initial expression of indignation was followed by Mussolini’s speech at Rome on April 29, 1939. The Italian leader merely denounced the alarmists who sought to disturb international relations, and he emphasized that Italy was peacefully preparing for the International Exposition in Rome scheduled for 1942. The privilege of delivering a detailed reply to the American President was left entirely to Hitler.37

The difficult situation between Germany and Poland was a touchy subject in the conversations between Göring and the Italian leaders. Göring did not attempt to minimize the seriousness of the situation, and he complained that “England had deviated from her old line … (and) now obliged herself in advance to render support (to Poland, Rumania, and Greece), and that under conditions which could be determined by the other partner.” Mussolini declared that in the existing dangerous situation it was important for the Axis Powers to revert to passive policies for an indefinite period. This seemed to be the only way to cope with the warlike attitude of the British Government. Göring hoped that it would be possible to settle German differences with Poland by peaceful negotiation, and he predicted that Roosevelt would have little chance for reelection in 1940 if the basic European situation remained unchanged. He admitted that an increase in provocative Polish measures against Germany might force German action against Poland. It was evident that the problem of Poland had become the problem of Europe at this hour.38

Ribbentrop was encouraged by the Göring visit to press for a separate [368] Italo-German alliance. The first official discussion of such an alliance took place in May 1938, when Hitler visited Italy. The original plan was to extend the anti-Comintern Pact into an alliance by including the Japanese. It became increasingly evident as time went on that the Japanese were unwilling to proceed this far. The Japanese feared that such an alliance might involve them in difficulties with Great Britain at a time when they were seriously committed in China. The German and Italian attempts to mediate between Japan and Nationalist China in 1938 were unsuccessful. Ribbentrop telephoned a last special appeal to the Japanese for an alliance on April 26, 1939, by way of German Ambassador Ott in Tokyo. The reply to this appeal was negative as expected, and Ribbetztrop proceeded to concentrate his efforts on a separate Pact with the Italians. He knew that this was a difficult project, because many Italians doubted the wisdom of an alliance connection with Germany. He also knew that the Italian leaders might seek to impose reservations which would deprive the alliance of its fall effect.39

The Roosevelt message of April 15, 1939, was helpful to Ribbentrop in improving German contacts with a number of countries. Ribbentrop also had the satisfaction of knowing that the British were not pleased by the crudeness of the Roosevelt telegrams. Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes, the British Chargé d’Affaires in Berlin, declared quite candidly at the German Foreign Office on April 17, 1939, that the British regarded Roosevelt’s messages as “a clumsy piece of diplomacy.” Bullitt at Paris attempted to appease Roosevelt by placing the unsavory situation in a positive light. He claimed that Daladier had been “encouraged” by the latest move of the American President.40

Ribbentrop dispatched instructions on April 17, 1939, to the German envoys in the countries named by President Roosevelt, with the exceptions of Great Britain and France and their possessions, and Poland and Russia. The envoys were to inquire if these countries believed themselves threatened, and if their Governments had authorized President Roosevelt’s plan. The German Government knew that they would receive negative answers to both questions, but in coping with Roosevelt they required explicit confirmation of these assumptions.

The British were actively pursuing their policy against Germany in the period of the Roosevelt messages. Polish Ambassador Potworowski reported to Beck from Stockholm on April 15, 1939, that the British were putting pressure on Sweden to join them in blockading Germany during a future war. The Swedes resented the British attempt to dictate their policy, but it was evident to Beck that England was preparing her future blockade of Germany with single-minded energy. Halifax was employing sphinx-like silence as a weapon against his critics in the British House of Commons. He ignored Chargés that Poland and Rumania would never permit Soviet troops to operate on their territory, and that the guarantees extended to those countries rendered impossible a treaty with Russia. Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs Rab Butler refused to reply to a direct question on April 18. 1939, about the role of Danzig in the British guarantee to Poland. Only one speaker in the House of Commons contended that Poland and Rumania alone had sufficient troops to cope successfully with the Germans. The House as a whole found it quite impossible to accept such a contention.41


Hitler’s Assurances Accepted by Gafencu

Rumanian Foreign Minister Gafencu met Ribbentrop and Göring at Berlin on April 18, 1939. He was much impressed with the skill and ease of Ribbentrop in discussing difficult problems. The German Foreign Minister reminded Gafencu that he was in Chargé of the recent negotiation with Poland, and he attached decisive importance to the correction of existing abuses at Danzig and in the Polish Corridor. Göring was particularly concerned about the British attitude toward Germany. The Rumanian Foreign Minister agreed with him that the encirclement policy had definitely gained the upper hand in Great Britain. Gafencu hoped to modify this situation by revealing Hitler’s willingness to discuss new arrangements on the Czech question with the British. Gafencu admitted to both Ribbentrop and Göring that he was unable to bring any encouraging news about the Polish attitude after his meeting with Beck.42

Gafencu met Hitler on April 19, 1939, and he was much impressed with the German Chancellor. He noted that Hitler’s manner of speaking man-to-man immediately inspired his confidence, although Hitler made no attempt to convey an unusual impression. He found a magnetism in Hitler’s words which conveyed moral inspiration and the aspirations of the mass of the German people. Gafencu was happy to speak with Hitler as a friend rather than an opponent, because “one does not speak with a man but with a million men.” Gafencu opened the discussion with a lengthy recapitulation of his recent meeting with Beck. He tried to slant his remarks to create the impression with Hitler that Poland’s intentions toward the Reich were still pacific in nature.

Hitler in reply greeted Gafencu as a representative from one of the succession states of the Habsburg Empire. The collapse of Austria-Hungary had brought large numbers of Rumanians beyond the old frontier under the rule of Bucharest. Hitler asserted that he would have intervened vigorously in the Habsburg-Serbian negotiations, which followed the murder of Franz Ferdinand and his wife by Serbian conspirators, had he been head of the German state in 1914. He added that he would have proposed the partition of the Dual Monarchy’ as the best means of avoiding a general war. He told Gafencu that Polish hopes for independence, and Serbian and Rumanian territorial aspirations, would have received unexpected support from Germany in 1914 had he determined German policy. Hitler’s animosity toward the earlier Habsburg nationalities state had existed since his early youth, and there was no reason to suspect that he was insincere in making these statements.

Hitler asked if there was any truth in the Chargé that Rumania feared his intentions toward her were hostile. Gafencu replied that no Rumanian had any reason to believe that this was the case. Hitler criticized Beck for accepting the English guarantee, and he complained that he would “never be able to understand the change which has intervened in the attitude of Poland.” He admitted that he intended to denounce Poland’s policy toward Great Britain as an intolerable violation of the 1934 Pact. He said that he “would never have signed the accord under these conditions, (and) therefore I attach no more importance to this accord. I have shown the best intentions toward the Poland of Pilsudski. I have respected its frontiers and all the absurd arrangements of Versailles. I have prevented the press from protesting against the scandalous fashion in which the [370] German minority is treated.” He contrasted the attacks against Germany in Polish journals with German restraint, and he produced for the Rumanian diplomat a bundle of Polish newspapers and magazines containing such attacks.43

Hitler admitted that he intended to make public the German proposals to Poland of October 24, 1938. He predicted that historians one day would recognize these proposals as “an act of unbelievable generosity,” and not a one-sided proposition detrimental to Poland. He spoke of his fundamental policy of securing Anglo-German cooperation, and he insisted that frightful consequences would follow from any Anglo-German war. He noted with prophetic insight that “we would all, in the end, conquerors and conquered, lie under the same ruins; and the only one who would profit would be Moscow.” Hitler noted that he was sometimes accused in Germany of being an impenitent admirer of the British Empire, and he admitted that this was true. He complained that only an inhuman fate would compel him to envisage a conflict with the British. Hitler added that he had been “a great Anglophile from his earliest youth.”44

Gafencu received much inspiration from Hitler for his talks with the British, but he feared that things looked bad for Poland. He was convinced that no amount of Polish defiance would compel Hitler to abandon the German National Socialist community of Danzig. He hoped that at London he would find some sign of a willingness on the part of the British to revert to a moderate and helpful policy. This was unfortunately impossible with Halifax at the helm. The British Foreign Secretary was receiving with satisfaction a number of reports which indicated that Poland was increasing her war preparedness, and that the German people were not enthusiastic about Hitler’s foreign policy.

Kennard reported from Warsaw on April 23, 1939, that the Poles were planning further mobilization measures, and Beck was requesting British financial assistance. This Polish démarche followed a conference at the Polish Foreign Office on April 21, 1939. Lipski, who was still in Warsaw, predicted that Hitler would disclose the points of the German offer to Poland in his speech to the German Reichstag. He believed that Hitler would place the chief emphasis of his remarks on Polish acceptance of the British guarantee. Lipski believed that it would be wise for Polish propaganda to anticipate this move, and to insist that Poland had desired to negotiate and had submitted counter-proposals.

Beck merely had contempt for the suggestion of his Ambassador. He argued that this would be equivalent to taking a defensive position, and that it would create the worst possible impression in Great Britain. He intended to do just the opposite. He would avoid words about the earlier negotiations with the Germans, and seek instead to increase the tempo of Polish military preparation. Jan Szeinbek was inclined to share the moderate views of Lipski. He mentioned that Hermann Göring had shown exceptional courtesy to his wife, Countess Isabelle Szembek, at San Remo in Italy a few days earlier. This courtesy amounted to a demonstration, because Göring at the time was accompanied by a group of the highest Italian military officers. Beck refused to attach any particular importance to such minor points of courtesy.45

Beck asserted to Kennard on April 23, 1939, that Ribbentrop was seeking to persuade Hitler to stiffen the German attitude toward Danzig, and that [371] additional Polish military measures were therefore necessary. He wanted British financial support. He confided to Kennard that Hitler’s offer to Poland was basically not unattractive, and that the British were fortunate that Poland had resisted German blandishments. He suspected that it was Germany’s fundamental aim to enlist Poland in a crusade against the Soviet Union, and he noted that this might have separated Poland completely from the Western Powers. He failed to contemplate the possibility that British policy would lead to the creation of a Communist Poland which would have no friendly contacts with either Great Britain or France.

British Chargé d’Affaires Ogilvie-Forbes reported on the same day that the Germans were apathetic in the face of the latest crisis; they were saturated with crises and desired to be left in peace. He noted that there had been no unusual public enthusiasm on the occasion of Hitler’s fiftieth birthday on April 20, 1939- This was true despite the fact that the largest troop parade in the history of Berlin had taken place on that day.46


Gafencu ‘s Visit to London

Halifax was encouraged by the recent reports from Warsaw and Berlin, and he was looking forward to the arrival of Gafencu at London on April 24, 1939. He hoped to out-maneuver Beck by persuading the Rumanian diplomat to apply to the Soviet Union for protection against Germany. He had made it clear in advance that the Tilea hoax would not be accepted as a subject for discussion-Halifax had heard that Gafencu was a pleasant and attractive person with whom it was easy to negotiate.

The British Foreign Secretary experienced a series of unpleasant surprises. Gafencu refused to wear his harness in the Russian question, and he took the initiative in proposing a plan of his own for the solution of current European differences. Gafencu was touring Europe in April 1939 in the interest of conciliation rather than war. He believed that the chief obstacles to a settlement of European differences lay in Great Britain and Poland. He was receiving much encouragement and support from Germany for his peace plan, and he was prepared to present it in Great Britain with energy and vigor.

The British at the first conference on April 24, 1939, immediately raised the question of the extension of the Rumanian-Polish alliance against Germany. Gafencu expressed astonishment that the British adhered to this plan. Beck had made perfectly clear that it was unacceptable to Poland. He added for good measure that Rumania saw no reason to support this British plan. He informed the British that their plan conflicted with his own foreign policy, which included a program to improve Rumanian relations with Germany. He explained that this was especially necessary, since the elimination of Rumania’s Czecho-Slovak ally had produced a bad effect on Rumanian public opinion, and it was undeniable that Germany had played an important role in Czech developments. He informed the British that he had placed special emphasis on this point in conversation with Göring at Berlin.

The Rumanian diplomat began to describe his discussion with Hitler. He spoke enthusiastically of the German Chancellor, and declared that he was [372] “like a force of nature.” Gafencu told the British that Hitler was also “very human.” He pointed out that Hitler had not forgotten for a moment that his Rumanian guest was proceeding on to England. The German leader had said nearly everything with a British audience in mind. Above all, Hitler had successfully conveyed the impression to Gafencu that he was “incensed against Poland.” Gafencu observed casually that he had criticized adversely a number of Hitler’s remarks, but that the German Chancellor had invariably accepted this in good spirit. Gafencu confided to Halifax that he was now convinced the German-Polish situation was absolutely hopeless. He warned that Beck would order Poland to fight if the Germans touched Danzig. On the other hand, Hitler was understandably angry at the British for their Eastern European intervention, despite the Munich accord. This situation was dangerous for the peace of Europe, and it was necessary to arrange a solution of differences with all possible speed. Gafencu said that he had developed a plan which would meet the requirements of this ticklish situation.

The Rumanian Foreign Minister announced triumphantly that the German leaders were in complete agreement with his plan. This included a new Bohemian settlement, which could be devised in such a way as to reduce tension in other questions. It would pave the way for a general settlement. Gafencu then declared bluntly that the British should introduce negotiations by telling the Germans that all future concessions to them depended upon their willingness to make concessions at Prague.

Needless to say, Gafencu’s British hosts did not like this proposition at all. The events at Prague in March 1939 had been one of the pretexts used by Halifax to make difficulties for Germany. He did not favor a new settlement at Prague which would extricate them from these difficulties. Halifax at once inquired “whether, as a matter ef practical politics, M. Gafencu thought that it was likely the Germans would restore Prague.” Gafencu replied that it was indeed likely, since he had the support of the German leaders for his peace plan. He made it painstakingly clear that he was not envisaging the overthrow of Slovakia, but he asserted that the Germans might be expected to permit the establishment of a different regime in Bohemia-Moravia. Sir Alexander Cadogan remarked acidly that “the restoration of Prague would hardly be a compensation to Poland.” Gafencu assured Cadogan mildly that he was under no illusions himself on that score. On the other hand, it seemed to him that the Germans, at least as far as the Western Powers were concerned, would be entitled to consideration in Danzig and the Corridor if they made concessions in Bohemia. Gafencu hoped to anticipate further objections by adding that only the argument that Hitler was seeking a war could be raised against his plan.

Gafencu expressed his rejection of this argument in eloquent terms. He concluded by stating flatly to his hosts that “Hitler did not want war.” Cadogan did not dispute this, but he made the banal comment that “men who must have successes were very dangerous.” Gafencu responded with a further vigorous defense of his plan. He insisted that the world wished for some alternative to a hopeless deadlock. He believed that this desire could be met if the Germans were at least offered some proposition on which they could negotiate. Gafencu concluded, after this conversation, that he had failed to impress his British hosts with the need for keeping the peace.47

[373]
A further conversation took place the same afternoon at the Prime Minister's office in the House of Commons. Gafencu again presented Hitler's views. He mentioned that the German Chancellor had discussed the immediate origins of World War I, and that he had been very critical of German policy. Hitler had explained that he did not object to the Anglo-French guarantee of Rumania, provided, of course, that the Russians were not permitted to participate in it. Germany and Rumania were not immediate territorial neighbors, and there were no problems in German-Rumanian relations. Hitler had said that Great Britain, France, and Germany had a common interest in saving Europe, and that the Soviet Union was a great menace to Europe.

Chamberlain was not pleased by these remarks. He told Gafencu that Great Britain was determined to secure an alliance with the Soviet Union, and he argued that this move was necessary for the realization of genuine collective security. Gafencu retorted that the Soviet Union could not be a reliable member of a collective security front. The disagreement between Gafencu and the British leaders was profound, and the Rumanian Foreign Minister failed to influence Chamberlain and Halifax. A third and final meeting between Gafencu and the British leaders on April 25, 1939, failed to modify this situation. Halifax carefully refrained from confiding any detailed information about his next moves to his Rumanian guests.48
 

Hitler's Friendship with Yugoslavia
 
Yugoslav Foreign Minister Aleksander Cincar-Markovic, Gafencu's Little Entente colleague, arrived in Berlin on April 25, 1939, at a very important time for the Yugoslavs, who were seeking German assurances of support against possible Italian pressure. This was a delicate matter from the standpoint ofItalo-German relations, and Weizsäcker was annoyed that Belgrade had created the impression that German initiative was responsible for the visit. The initiative had actually come from Yugoslavia. The German capital was familiar territory to the Yugoslav diplomat. He had been Yugoslav Minister to Germany from 1935 to February 1939, when Prince Regent Paul had forced the resignation of the Stojadinovic Government. Cincar-Markovic was recalled to Belgrade to take the portfolio for foreign affairs in the new Government of Dragisa Cvetkovic. Cvetkovic was decidedly a lesser figure than Stojadinovic, but the change did not indicate a new departure in Yugoslav foreign policy. Regent Paul emerged as the leading figure in the Yugoslav Government. Both Stojadinovic and Regent Paul had favored a friendly policy toward Germany, and Cvetkovic and Cincar-Markovic agreed to continue this policy.

Cincar-Markovic explained to Ribbentrop on April 25, 1939, that Regent Paul had decided on a policy of close friendship with Germany at the time of the conclusion of the anti-Comintern Pact and the ideas which inspired it. But they feared that it would not be possible for the Yugoslav Government to adhere to the Pact in the immediate future because of public opinion in Yugoslavia.40

Hungarian territorial revisionism was one of the principal topics in the discussion between Cincar-Markovic' and Hitler on April 26, 1939. Hitler made no secret of the fact that he was dissatisfied with Hungary. Hitler was disgusted [374] with the claim that Hungarian Premier Bela Imredy, who had advocated close cooperation with Germany, had been forced to resign dn February 15, 1939, because it had been discovered that his ancestry was partly Jewish. Hitler assured Cincar-Markovid that the real reason was that the big landowners in Hungary feared Imredy’s reform program. It seemed to Hitler that almost any country in Europe was more progressive than Hungary. He claimed that the Germans of the Banat, which had been Hungarian territory before 1919, would rather remain in Yugoslavia than come under Hungarian rule again. He added that his interest in the German minorities had been a principal reason why he had protected Slovakia against Hungary. He told Cincar-Markovi6 that the current arrangement for a German protectorate in Bohemia-Moravia was no necessity from the German standpoint. It was a provisional solution resulting from the recent crisis in that area. Hitler told the Yugoslav diplomat that there were no problems for Germany to settle in the West, South, South-East, or in any quarter other than Danzig and the Polish Corridor. He promised that Germany would oppose Hungarian expansion at Yugoslav expense, and that Italy would support Germany in this policy. Hitler referred contemptuously to the British policy of peddling territorial guarantees in South-Eastern Europe. He compared the British leaders to brush salesmen. The Yugoslav Foreign Minister was pleased with the assurances which he received from Hitler, and his visit was regarded at Belgrade as a great diplomatic success.50


Hitler’s Reply to Roosevelt of April 28, 1939

British Ambassador Henderson appeared rather pessimistic when he called at the German Foreign Office on April 27, 1939. He had returned to Berlin the previous day, after having been compelled to remain forty days in England at the insistence of Halifax, who had waited until April 20, 1939, before announcing in the House of Lords that Henderson would soon return to Germany. Henderson admitted to Weizsäcker that he had suffered a great loss of prestige at the British Foreign Office. The reaction there toward the reports he had sent home before the March 1939 Czech crisis was distinctly negative. He complained that the task of defending recent German policy had been rendered difficult by Hitler’s various earlier statements that he did not intend to seize purely Czech-populated territory. This situation was not changed by Hitler’s willingness to negotiate about the current situation at Prague, because the British Government was unwilling to do so. Weizsäcker complained about the British guarantee to Poland, and he declared that it was “the means most calculated to encourage Polish subordinate authorities in their oppression of Germans there. Consequently it did not prevent, but on the contrary, provoked incidents in that country.” Henderson submitted a formal statement about the British announcement of April 26, 1939, that peacetime military conscription had been established in Great Britain. The French leaders had requested the British to take this step as early as April 1938, and the German leaders had recognized for some time that the British were planning to introduce formal conscription to supplement the 1938 National Service Act. Weizsäcker told Henderson that the British note would receive formal acknowledgement, but that nothing would be [375] done before Hitler’s speech on the following day. He told Henderson that the text of Hitler’s speech had gone to press. The printed text of the speech was delivered to the Diplomatic Corps in Berlin before Hitler addressed the Reichstag.51

Hitler had received considerable American advice for the preparation of his speech. Some of this had reached him by way of the American press, and the rest by means of private communication to the German Embassy in Washington, D.C. The German Government was especially grateful for the suggestion of General Hugh Johnson, who had administered the National Recovery Act for President Roosevelt. Hitler had received through Hans Thomsen, the German Chargé d’Affaires in Washington, D.C., the detailed suggestions of General Johnson on April 24, 1939. Hans Dieckhoff, the last German Ambassador to the United States, had also made a number of suggestions. Dieckhoff worked at the German Foreign Office in Berlin after his permanent return from the United States in November 1938. He made no secret, in his conversations with the Diplomatic Corps at Berlin, about his fear of American intervention in the event of a new European war, and he expressed this concern in his suggestions to Hitler on April 25, 1939. He was convinced that President Roosevelt intended to invade Europe with powerful American forces in the course of any future war, and he added: “I do not believe that there are elements in the USA which have courage enough or are strong enough to prevent this.” Hitler was impressed by this warning, but he continued to hope for American neutrality in any possible future European conflict.52

The German Foreign Office on April 27, 1939, completed the preparation of notes to be delivered at noon on April 28th in London and Warsaw. The notes announced German abrogation of the 1934 non-aggression Pact with Poland and of the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Pact. The note to the Poles, which contained a review of recent German-Polish difficulties, was more than twice the length of the note to London.53

Kennard surveyed the Polish scene for Halifax on April 26, 1939. He claimed that Poland might have fought Germany without British support, but he assured Halifax that the Poles after they received the British guarantee believed it was “absolutely fundamental” to fight Germany. The German note announcing the abrogation of the 1934 Pact with Poland was delivered at Warsaw early on the morning of April 28, 1939. Beck’s immediate reaction was one of unbridled scorn. He noted that the Germans still envisaged the possibility of negotiation with Poland. He declared to his subordinates that Hitler was seeking to solve his problems by diplomacy, and he vowed that he would not permit Poland to be imposed upon in this way. Beck had anticipated Hitler’s address on April 28th by persuading the Polish military authorities to declare a state of alert and danger of war for the Polish Navy based at Gdynia.54

French Ambassador Coulondre at Berlin discussed the situation with Lipski. The French Ambassador complained that the European scene was very confused, and that this was due in no small measure to the fact that the British in their diplomacy rushed abruptly from one extreme to another. Lipski described in detail the German offer for a settlement which Poland had rejected. Coulondre and Lipski agreed that the German offer was remarkably generous. Coulondre hoped to discover the true motive for Polish policy, but the Polish Ambassador merely mentioned that it was the avowed purpose of the Polish leaders never to be dependent on either Moscow or Berlin.55

The day of Hitler’s greatest oratorical performance had arrived. The German Reichstag assembled on the morning of April 28, 1939, under the presidency of Marshal Hermann Göring. It received a good-humored speech from Hitler, which American Chargé d’Affaires Geist described as his “lighter vein of oratory.” The Reichstag reciprocated this mood, and Geist noted that many of Hitler’s remarks were received with “malicious laughter.” The laughter seemed malicious to Geist because it was at the expense of the American President.56

Hitler carefully left the door of negotiation open toward both Great Britain and Poland. He made it clear that he intended to remain moderate in his future negotiations with these two states. He began his remarks by referring briefly to Roosevelt’s telegram. He explained the German disillusionment in council diplomacy, which was the inevitable heritage of the’ deceitful mistreatment of Germany at Versailles. He had a formula which enabled Germany to participate in all negotiations with renewed confidence. This formula was a healthy determination to protect German national security. Hitler admitted that he did not believe Germany ever should negotiate again when she was helpless.

He analyzed and explained many of his principal domestic and foreign policies from 1933 until the German occupation of Prague in March 1939. He treated the prelude to the occupation of Prague at great length. He pointed out that deviations from the Munich conference program began at an early date. The Czechs and Hungarians in October 1938 appealed solely to Germany and Italy to mediate in their dispute although at Munich it had been decided that mediation was the obligation of the Four Powers.

Hitler placed special emphasis in the latter part of his speech on the failure of the United States to emerge from the world economic depression under Rooseveltian leadership. He announced that Germany was responding to Roosevelt’s initiative of April 15, 1939, by proceeding to conclude non-aggression pacts with a number of neighboring states. But he ridiculed the idea of non-aggression pacts with states on different continents, or with so-called states which actually did not enjoy independence. Ridicule was Hitler’s chief weapon, next to facts and statistics, in his reply to Roosevelt. He had been genuinely amused by Roosevelt’s telegram, and he succeeded in avoiding the impression that he was personally angry with the American President. Hitler made it appear that Roosevelt’s constant efforts to provoke him had been mere slaps at the water of the vast Atlantic ocean which separated the two countries.57

The German Chancellor paid glowing compliments to the British Empire, and he stressed his desire for permanent Anglo-German friendship. He revealed that he had decided with reluctance to abrogate the Anglo-German Naval Pact. He suggested that British resentment toward recent German foreign policy successes might have prompted the British leaders to select Poland as an obstacle to place against Germany.

Hitler devoted less than a tenth of his speech to Poland. He explained that he respected Polish maritime interests, and that this had prompted him to proceed with extreme moderation in the Corridor question. He praised Marshal Pilsudski for his desire to improve German-Polish relations. Hitler explained that in 1934 [ 377] the two states had renounced war as an instrument of national policy in their relations. This was in accord with the terms of the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. The pact had recognized one significant exception to this declaration on behalf of Poland. The Poles were allowed to maintain military obligations to France which were directed exclusively against Germany.

Hitler mentioned the many important questions which had not been settled either by the 1934 Pact or by his own efforts for a more comprehensive German-Polish agreement. He described in detail all the points of his offer for a general settlement with Poland. He declared that the Polish counter-proposals offered no basis for an agreement. They envisaged no change in the existing unsatisfactory situation with the exception of the suggestion to replace League authority at Danzig with a German-Polish guarantee. The German Chancellor regretted Poland’s decision to call up troops against-’Germany, and to reject the German offer. He deplored Polish acceptance of the British guarantee. He announced that Germany was no longer willing to offer her October 1938 proposals as the basis for a settlement of differences with Poland. He explained that he was abrogating the 1934 Pact with Poland, which he had offered to extend for twenty-five years, because the Poles had violated it by accepting the British guarantee. He remarked that no non-aggression pact could survive a unilateral departure from its provisions by one of the contracting parties.

Hitler declared that the abrogation of the Pact did not mean that Germany would refuse to assume new contractual obligations toward Poland. He insisted that, on the contrary, “I can but welcome such an idea, provided, of course, that these arrangements are based on an absolutely clear obligation binding both parties in equal measure.” Hitler avoided treating the Polish issue as the climax of his remarks. The principal theme throughout the speech was his reply to President Roosevelt, which he sub-divided into twenty-one principal points. He created the impression that such momentous decisions as the repudiation of important pacts with Great Britain and Poland were an anti-climax compared to his debate with the American President.

The immediate reaction to Hitler’s speech in Poland was hostile, although French Ambassador Noël observed that Hitler was pressing for negotiations rather than closing the door.58 The Polish Government announced that Beck soon would reply to Hitler in the Polish Sejm. Polski Zbrojna (The Polish Army) described Hitler’s abrogation of the 1934 Pact as a tactical blunder. One Polish editor claimed that Hitler’s speech gave the Polish press a moral basis to attack Germany without restraint. Wild rumors accompanied Hitler’s announcement of his proposals to Poland. It was claimed in Warsaw that the Germans had demanded a superhighway corridor through Polish West Prussia over fifteen miles in width instead of the actual 5/8 mile. The Gazeta Poiska claimed that Poland would have to go further in Danzig than she had done in the past. One million Polish soldiers under arms by the beginning of summer was considered a minimum necessity. The Dziennik Narodowy (National Daily), a National Democratic paper, asked whether or not Danzig really wished to return to the Reich. It was suggested that possibly a handful of Nazis in the Free City were making all the noise. A rumor circulated that Poland had decided to establish a protectorate in Danzig based on the model of Bohemia-Moravia. The Kurier Warszawski (Warsaw Courier) expressed the general sentiment that Hitler [378] would not ask anything of Poland if he were really a generous person.59

This time the German press retaliated. Joseph Goebbels had received permission to unshackle the press after the Reichstag speech. It was hoped that the German press, and an aroused German public opinion, would be effective weapons in inducing the Poles to negotiate under the less friendly circumstances which prevailed after the British guarantee. Goebbels himself began the campaign in Der Angriff (The Assault) with a commentary on the Polish press, entitled: “Do they know what they are doing?” The article was studded with citations, and its main thesis was that irresponsible Polish journalists were violating the precepts of Pilsudski. Hans Fritzsche, who was one of Goebbels’ chief assistants in the newspaper campaign, later recalled that “each larger German newspaper had for quite some time an abundance of material on complaints of the Germans in Poland without the editors having had a chance to use this material.” When the restrictions were removed, “their material now came forth with a bound.”60

American Ambassador Bullitt at Paris refrained from reporting the reactions of Daladier and Bonnet to Hitler’s speech, but he claimed that Secretary-General Alexis Léger at the French Foreign Office had denounced Hitler’s oratory in sharp terms. The German Embassy in Paris reported on April 29, 1939, that the moderate tone of Hitler’s speech had produced a reassuring effect on the French leaders. Chargé d’Affaires Theo Kordt also reported from London that Hitler’s speech had ‘produced a conciliatory effect in England. American Ambassador Biddle at Warsaw submitted a report to Washington, D.C., on April 28, 1939, which contained a tortuous attempt to square the circle in the face of Hitler’s logic, and to support the Polish stand against Germany. German Chargé d’Affaires Thomsen reported the American press reaction to Hitler’s speech on April 29, 1939. He expressed his personal fear that the Western countries would make an irresistible effort to produce a new World War out of the Danzig-Corridor problem. President Roosevelt read the English translation of Hitler’s speech on April 28, 1939. Hitler’s ridicule threw Roosevelt into a violent rage and produced undying hatred of Hitler personally. This personal factor was added to the other motives which prompted Roosevelt to desire the destruction of Germany. Roosevelt had been doing everything possible to promote war in Etirope before Hitler’s speech. Now his personal hatred of Hitler might cause him to make some mistake even more foolish than the telegrams of April 15, 1939, to Hitler and Mussolini. He did not have the support of the American public for his war policy, and it was possible that a few more blunders might lead to the total failure of his policy61


Hitler’s Peaceful Intentions Welcomed by Hungary

Hungarian Minister-President Paul Teleki and Hungarian Foreign Minister Istaviin CsAky arrived in Berlin for a four day visit with the German leaders on April 29, 1939. Ribbentrop conferred with the Hungarian guests on the afternoon of April 29th. The German Foreign Minister was uncertain about the preservation of European peace, but he assured them that peace was desired by Germany, and that it was at least probable that a peaceful settlement of European [379] difficulties could be achieved. He assumed that the Hungarians would stand with Germany and Italy in the event of a European conflict, and he was told by the Hungarian leaders that this assumption was correct. Ribbentrop sought to deprecate the possible role of the United States in a European conflict. The participants in the discussion knew that American military intervention had been the decisive factor in World War I, and that this had been disastrous for both Germany and Hungary. Ribbentrop predicted that the United States would refuse to send her soldiers into a new European war.

The German Foreign Minister emphasized the insignificance of Polish military strength, and he noted that Germany could win a quick victory over Poland in any conflict. Ribbentrop did not wish the Hungarians to believe that he considered their program of territorial revision as necessarily completed, but he suggested that they required time to consolidate their gains from Czechoslovakia. He urged Hungary to adopt conciliatory policies toward Yugoslavia and Rumania, but he was forced to conclude that Foreign Minister Csaky remained hostile toward both countries. It was evident that constant vigilance would be required to prevent the outbreak of a local conflict in the Balkans.62

The discussion had proceeded for more than an hour when the group was joined by Hitler, Hungarian Ambassador Doeme Sztajay, and German State Secretary Otto Meissner. Hitler jokingly told his guests that Germany and Hungary had- come one step nearer to paradise in 1939. He was referring to the territories which the two countries had acquired in March 1939. Hitler hoped that it would be possible to solve the dispute with Poland peaceably. He observed that it was the honor of the soldier to serve by shedding his blood, but the glory of the politician to settle a dispute without recourse to bloodshed. “One must be prepared,” Hitler said, “but the greatest merit in the eyes of history was to achieve success without having to resort to the last expedient.”

Hitler discussed the importance of the United States and Russia in world affairs. He knew that the Hungarian leaders, who had experienced Communism in their own country, greatly feared the Soviet Union, and he hoped to reassure them. He spoke of “the colossal power of Russia in 1914 as compared with a weak Russia today.” Hitler was convinced that the gigantic recent purges had reduced the strength of the Soviet colossus. Hitler spoke moderately about Poland and he insisted that uninterrupted access to the sea was a vital and legitimate Polish requirement. He said that Europe needed a breathing space and a quiet period. He welcomed a period of protracted peace, and he was convinced that time was on the side of Germany and Italy. It was evident to his guests that he hoped to solve the Danzig dispute by diplomatic methods.


Beck’s Chauvinistic Speech of May 5, 1939

Italian Ambassador Attolico informed Weizsäcker at the German Foreign Office on April 29, 1939, that Italy was willing to exert pressure on Poland for a reasonable settlement of German-Polish differences. The German State Secretary acknowledged this offer with gratitude, but he feared that an Italian démarche at Warsaw would be pointless. The Ciano visit of February 1939 had revealed that Italian prestige in Poland was very low. Beck was inclined to [380] dismiss Italy contemptuously as a vassal state of Germany. The Hungarian leaders on May 1, 1939, repeated their earlier offer to mediate between Germany and Poland. Marshal Göring advocated the acceptance of this offer, but Ribbentrop favored its rejection. He noted that Gafencu had failed to influence the attitude of Beck in April 1939, and he did not believe that the Hungarians would be more successful.

The German Foreign Office was embarrassed a few days later by the démarche of Lithuanian Minister Skirpa. The Lithuanian diplomatic intervention was in a direction opposite to the Italian and Hungarian steps. Skirpa frankly stated that he regarded a German-Polish war as inevitable, and that he was instructed by his Government to request German support for the recovery of the ancient Lithuanian capital of Wilna from the Poles. He was told that friendly relations with Lithuania were of great importance to Germany, but that the German Reich was in no position to assume a commitment to Lithuania at Wilna.63

German Ambassador Moltke remained at Berlin during the first days of May 1939, but he returned to Warsaw on May 4th. Beck was scheduled to reply to Hitler’s speech of April 28th on the following day. Jozef Lipski, the Polish Ambassador to Germany, did not care to return to Berlin. He hoped that Hitler’s abrogation of the 1934 Pact and the current press war between the two countries would motivate Beck to accept his resignation, which he had formally submitted on May 1, 1939. Lipski informed Beck that it was impossible for him to remain at Berlin under existing circumstances. Beck responding by ordering the unfortunate Polish diplomat to return to Berlin.

Beck was displeased by a visit of Professor Jan Kucharzewski to the Polish Foreign Office at this time. He knew that Kucharzewski, who had collaborated with Germany as a member of the Polish Regency Council in World War I, favored a German-Polish agreement. Kucharzewski was keenly aware of the Bolshevist threat to Poland, and he feared that a conflict with Germany would be permanently fatal to Poland. Kucharzewski claimed that British support to Poland was unreliable, and he solemnly announced that British Ambassador Kennard had informed him that it would be difficult to bring England into a German-Polish war over Danzig. Beck refused to accept this statement. Kennard was contacted and confronted with the exact day and hour of the alleged remark. The British Ambassador insisted that Professor Kucharzewski had presented a distorted version of his remarks. The attempt of Kucharzewski to moderate the response of Beck to Hitler was unsuccessful.64

The Poles received word on May 3, 1939, that Vyacheslav Molotov had succeeded Maxim Litvinov as Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs. Beck was not inclined to deduce important implications from this change. The initial reaction at the Polish Foreign Office was one of pleasure that the Polish-Jew Litvinov had been driven from his post. Neither Molotov nor Stalin was a Jew, although they were both married to Jewesses. It was known at Warsaw that Molotov was very close to Stalin, but the Poles had long since concluded that Joseph Stalin was the dominant force in the conduct of Soviet foreign policy.65

The Polish Foreign Office prepared for the Beck speech of May 5, 1939, by instructing its diplomatic missions throughout the world to criticize the Hitler speech of April 28, 1939. The diplomats were permitted to present the false [381] claim that Hitler had attempted to enlist Poland for an invasion of the Soviet Union. The actual fact that Germany had invited Poland to join the anti-Comintern Pact was to be presented as a mild indication of the true scope of the German offer for collaboration against Russia. Beck wished to counteract repeated German references to the policy of Pilsudski. The Polish diplomats were empowered to inform foreign Governments that Pilsudski had always regarded an ultimate Polish-German war as inevitable. The emphasis on this Pilsudski prognosis from earlier days ignored the extraordinary flexibility which had characterized the policy of the deceased Marshal. Pilsudski had been dead for four years, and it was manifestly impossible to say what he would have done in the current situation.66

Beck had one central purpose in delivering his speech before the Polish Sejm on May 5, 1939. He wished to convince the Polish public and the world that he was able and willing to challenge Hitler. Beck knew that he was inaccurately accused of having been pro-German in his conduct of Polish policy. There was considerable excitement in Poland, and there was a danger that he might be assassinated by some hot-headed fanatic if he failed to produce the desired impression of unlimited defiance of Germany. He knew that Halifax had succeeded in creating a warlike atmosphere in Great Britain, and that it was completely unnecessary for him to take a moderate line toward Germany in the interest of appeasing British opinion. He could safely assume that he could go as far as he pleased without displeasing London. Beck wished to take an uncompromising attitude which would effectively close the door on further negotiations with Germany.

Beck prepared his speech with great care, and he was completely successful in creating the effect which he desired. The diplomatic loge was occupied to the last seat, press representatives were present from the entire world, and Premier Slawoj-Skladkowski and the entire Polish leadership were in attendance. Loudspeakers were placed throughout the streets of Warsaw for the first time, and thousands of ordinary Polish citizens were gathered about them to hear Beck’s address.

The Polish Foreign Minister began his remarks with the observation that it had been many weeks (i.e. since March 12, 1939) since he had publicly discussed the foreign policy of Poland. He had withheld a declaration until the major problems had assumed their true shape and significance. He believed it safe to say that affairs had at last reached a decisive point. He wished to analyze the situation in relation to certain fundamental concepts of Polish policy. His Government favored contacts between states which were simple and direct. He personally favored bilateral pacts over multilateral treaties, and he welcomed this trend in the policies of states everywhere. He cited the Anglo-Polish agreement on British support to Poland as a successful example of this type of pact. Great Britain had agreed to fight for Poland, and Poland would support Great Britain in any conflict. He wished “Polish public opinion to know that I found, on the part of the British statesmen, not only a profound knowledge of the general political problems of Europe, but also an attitude towards our country such as permitted me to discuss all vital problems with frankness and confidence and without any reservations or doubts.” He did not confide to the Sejm that he regarded the British proposal for an anti-German Polish-Rumanian alliance as a [382] foolish plan. He did not admit that he had failed to convince the British leaders that Poland was justified in refusing the pro-Soviet alliance plan of Halifax. He did not confess his own misgivings over the British demand for Polish commitments to a number of lesser states. He did not concede that Poland was worried by British reluctance to provide extensive military supplies. In the upshot, he presented the Sejm with a distorted picture of current Anglo-Polish relations.67

Beck claimed that common Anglo-Polish interests rested on the solid foundation of a complete lack of aggressive intentions by either Power. This was an inversion of the facts, because Beck knew that the British were seeking a pretext to launch an assault on Germany, and that Poland welcomed the prospect of an Anglo-German war. He argued that the British guarantee to Poland had been used by Hitler without justification as a pretext to scrap the 1934 Pact. He alleged that the motive of Hitler was that the 1934 Pact had outlived its usefulness for Germany. This was another inversion. The fact was that Hitler placed great value on German-Pelish cooperation and wished to improve the understanding begun by the Pact, whereas the Pact was no longer useful to Beck because the British were prepared at last to attack Germany. Beck failed to indicate why Hitler supposedly believed that the Pact was no longer useful. He claimed instead that Hitler had wantonly destroyed one of the pillars of European peace.

Beck declared sanctimoniously that it had been justifiable to conclude the Pact in 1934 because “an endeavor to oppose evil is always the best expression of political activity.” This was unlimited hypocrisy. Beck was the willing accomplice of the British war policy, and war was undoubtedly the greatest evil of the modern age. Beck made the astonishing claim that Hitler had only press reports as the source of his knowledge about the British guarantee. This ignored the statements by the British leaders in Parliament, the official Anglo-Polish communiqué of April 6, 1939, and the conversations between German and Polish diplomats at Warsaw and Berlin on the same date. Beck claimed that Hitler’s failure to consult with Great Britain and Poland about the motivation for their policy indicated insincerity and bad faith on the part of Hitler. This arrant nonsense was received with enthusiasm by the Sejm.

Beck mentioned that Poland had submitted a formal note in reply to Hitler’s abrogation of the 1934 Pact. This note was presented to the German Foreign Office a few minutes before Beck began his speech. It claimed that Poland for years had sought to clarify Danzig difficulties caused by the role of the League of Nations. It claimed that Germany had evaded these efforts. The note contained a quotation from Hitler’s speech of February 20, 1938, to the effect that Poland respected the German character of Danzig and Germany respected Polish economic rights at Danzig. Hitler had also claimed that cooperation between Germany and Poland had removed the poison from the atmosphere of German-Polish relations. The note added that Germany had first raised the Danzig question after the Munich conference. It was claimed that Germany had sought to impose a time limit on German-Polish negotiations about Danzig on March 21, 1939. This untrue Chargé was followed by the assertion that the British guarantee to Poland was compatible with the 1934 Pact. The Germans were warned that they would be held responsible for a violation of the 1928 [383] Kellogg-Briand Pact if Anglo-German and Polish-German conflicts resulted from the dispute at Danzig.68

Beck made the astonishing claim that there was nothing extraordinary about the British guarantee to Poland. He described it as a normal step in the pursuit of friendly relations with a neighboring Power. This was in sharp contrast to the statement of Sir Alexander Cadogan to Joseph Kennedy, that the British guarantee was without precedent in the entire history of British foreign policy.

Beck spoke about Danzig with great feeling. He claimed that the Versailles treaty had restored normal conditions in the Baltic area by creating the Free City regime. He claimed that Polish supremacy at Danzig was the fulfillment of an ancient historical tradition. Beck considered that the 1919 peace treaty arrangements for Germany in the East were fair and just, and that Hitler had no justification to propose any changes. He intimated that Hitler’s proposals were an artificial and sinister cover for different German aspirations. He found it necessary to ask the question: “What is the aim of it all?”

Beck made the false assertion that Danzig was free, and therefore not a legitimate object of German concern. He suggested that the prestige factor was involved, and that Germany was deliberately seeking to humiliate Poland. Beck claimed that Hitler was actually seeking to exclude Poland from the Baltic “from which Poland will not let herself be barred!” This remark was a deliberate falsehood. Beck knew perfectly well that Hitler respected and encouraged Polish maritime aspirations.

Beck declared proudly that he would talk about Pomorze (region by the sea, i.e. Polish West Prussia). He refused to use the word ‘Corridor’, because it “is an artificial invention, for it is an ancient Polish land, with an insignificant percentage of German colonists.” One can only wonder at the temerity and disregard for historical accuracy of this remark. Polish West Prussia was colonized by Germans when it belonged to non-Polish West Slavic tribes and heathen Bo-russians, and there had never been a Polish settlement within the region before the coming of the Germans. The majority of the province was still German at the last pre-World War I census in 1910, although there had been a considerable infiltration by Polish settlers in recent years. The percentage of Poles in West Prussia in 1910 was considerably less than 35% and the Polish majority of 1939 was obtained by the ruthless expulsion of the German element, and by the arbitrary confiscation of German land. Hitler’s generosity in agreeing to recognize permanent Polish rule over this ancient German territory received no recognition whatever from Beck. The Allied victors in 1919 naturally refused to allow a plebiscite in the region, because a German victory in such a plebiscite would have been inevitable. Beck made the ridiculous claim that the Polish Government had been amply generous in allowing for German facilities of transportation and communication through this area. He saw no necessity for concessions which would have provided adequate German transit facilities to East Prussia.

Beck claimed that Germany had not offered one real concession to Poland, but had merely presented demands. This was another inversion, because Hitler’s October 1938 offer for a settlement was actually heavily slanted in favor of Poland. Polish Ambassador Lipski had conceded that only Hitler could have made such a generous offer. Beck denied these facts, and he proceeded to raise [384] the crucial question of his speech: “Where is the reciprocity?” Beck claimed that various points of the October 1938 offer mentioned by Hitler on April 28, 1939, had never been made, and were merely irresponsible inventions of the German Chancellor. He was calling Hitler a liar for a speech in which there was not one single distortion of fact, whereas his own address was studded with impudent lies from beginning to end. Beck admitted that Hitler had offered to recognize the existing frontier of Poland, but he adopted a position unprecedented in European diplomatic annals by claiming that such guarantees were absolutely worthless.

Beck insisted ominously that Hitler had assaulted the fundamental honor of Poland with his proposals. This statement depended entirely on his distorted version of the actual facts. He explained that agreements between sovereign states had to be based on exchange. This was true, but Beck was wrong in arguing that Hitler had ignored this basic fact. Beck claimed that Hitler was seeking to degrade Poland into a mere vassal of Germany. He declared that defiance of Hitler was the minimum requirement of Polish honor. He added that “the motive for concluding such an agreement would be the word ‘peace’, which the Chancellor emphasized in his speech.” Beck conceded that some people might prefer peace to national honor. He wished the Polish nation to know that “peace is a valuable and desirable thing. Our generation, which has shed its blood in several wars, surely deserves a period of peace. But peace, like almost everything in this world, has its price, high but definable. We in Poland do not recognize the conception of ‘peace at any price.’ There is only one thing in the life of men, nations and States which is without price, and this is honor.”69

The stirring climax of Beck’s speech produced wild excitement in the Polish Sejm. Someone screamed hoarsely: “We do not need peace!,” and pandemonium followed. Beck received a tremendous ovation when he finally descended from the tribune. He had made many Poles feel completely single-minded in their desire to fight Hitler. This feeling resulted from the ignorance which made it impossible for them to critize the countless flaws and falsehoods in Beck’s oratory. The Polish Foreign Minister himself believed that he had successfully closed the door against further negotiation with the Germans.

Beck’s contemptuous attitude toward his sudden personal popularity created some confusion in the evaluation of his true position.70 The French and German diplomats at Warsaw discovered that Beck angrily tossed an entire sheaf of congratulatory telegrams into the wastebasket on May 6, 1939. This was supposed to prove that Beck was acting against his own will in defying Hitler. The opposite is true, because the Sejm speech by Beck was a triumph of the will. Beck personally was strongly attracted to the Germany of Hitler, and he never changed his attitude. He challenged Germany because he was obsessed with the fantastic notion that the destruction of Germany and Russia would be in the interest of Poland. Beck’s speech was a victory of mind over heart, and it was a tragedy that Beck’s thinking was distorted by illusions and false axioms. This did not change Beck’s indignation toward the herd of Dmowski disciples and fanatics who had no feeling toward the Germans except blind hatred and rage. These were the people most emotional and enthusiastic about the Sejm speech, and Beck knew this perfectly well.71

There was a tremendous contrast between the speeches of Hitler and Beck. [385] The German Chancellor avoided giving the impression that Germany had been insulted by Poland, and there was no fanatical declaration about German honor having been compromised by Poland’s rejection of the German offer. Hitler avoided any deviation from the facts in presenting his case. He knew that he could stand squarely on the record in presenting the German position. Hitler made it clear that he favored new negotiations with Poland. Beck used the national honor theme to preclude the possibility of a negotiated settlement.

Hitler received a critical analysis of the Beck speech from the German News Agency (DNB) on the evening of May 5, 1939. This report contained several important points. It was false of Beck to claim he did not know the full details of the German offer. Beck had concealed the friendly and peaceful nature of the German approach, and that the threat of war was introduced by Poland when she rejected the German plan. Beck failed to point out that the exception made for the Franco-Polish alliance in the 1934 Pact was limited and specific. It offered no justification for Polish acceptance of the British guarantee. It was inaccurate of Beck to claim that German diplomats were not available for discussions at any time after Beck returned from London. Beck himself had claimed that Polish interest in Danzig was exclusively economic in nature, and he had failed to explain that these considerations received full weight in Hitler’s October 1938 offer. Beck admitted that Hitler offered to guarantee the Polish frontier, and this precluded a German attempt to exclude Poland from the Baltic. Hitler had offered to conclude a new Pact with Poland in his speech to the Reichstag. Beck claimed that this offer was not concrete, but this was not true, and Germany was prepared to discuss it with Poland at any time.72

Stanislaw Strzetelski, the Polish Conservative leader, later complained that the Polish nation was in a trance after Beck’s claim that he was defending Polish national honor against Hitler. Strzetelski himself had sent one of the congratulatory telegrams to Beck, in an initial outburst of enthusiasm. He noted that the Polish nation, with the exception of a few individuals, had decided that it would be an excellent thing to fight the Germans. Strzetelski concluded after some reflection that this attitude was unrealistic, because Poland had not the slightest chance of victory in such a war.73

The Beck speech was a serious blow to the prospects for peace in Europe, and it was widely recognized as such. King Carol of Rumania concluded that the Beck speech had made war inevitable. He told German Minister Fabricius on May 6, 1939, that Rumania would remain neutral in the German-Polish war which he expected in the near future. He promised Fabricius that an event such as the ill-fated Rumanian military intervention against Austria-Hungary in 1916 would never be repeated.74

Weizsäcker attempted to discourage an alarmist attitude in his circular to the German diplomats abroad on May 6, 1939. He dismissed the Beck speech as an “insignificant pronouncement by a weak Government.” He noted that Beck had displayed deplorable lapses of memory about German-Polish relations, and he admitted that the speech offered no help for an understanding. He conceded that it contained no echo whatever of Hitler’s April 28, 1939, offer for an agreement with Poland.75

French Ambassador Noël at Warsaw hated Beck, and he misconstrued the import of Beck’s speech. He claimed to Bonnet that the speech marked the [386] collapse of Beck’s earlier foreign policy. He mistakenly believed that Beck had delivered his speech with great reluctance under pressure from the other Polish leaders. British Ambassador Kennard had predicted that Beck would make a sharp speech, and he noted to Halifax after it was over that it would be interesting to evaluate its repercussions. The Polish press of all shades of opinion was proud of the performance of the Polish Foreign Minister. The Conservative Czas (The Times) presented an unconsciously ironical editorial on May 6, 1939, entitled “Contrast.” It compared “the calm and reasonable speech” of Beck wish the allegedly extremist arid excitable speech of Hitler on April 28. 1939.76


Polish Intransigence Approved by Halifax

The situation between Germany and Poland had deteriorated rapidly during the brief span of six weeks from the Polish partial mobilization of March 23, 1939, to the Beck speech of May 5, 1939. American Ambassador Kennedy reported from London that the British were aware that Polish intransigence had7 increased since the British guarantee. He did not indicate that they expected or withed to combat this trend in any way. The Poles were inclined to dismiss people who were moderate toward Hitler as cowards. Polish Ambassador Raczynski went on a visit to Paris from London after the departure of Rumanian Foreign Minister Gafencu from the British capital. Raczynski told American Ambassador Bullitt that Gafencu had worked for a peaceful settlement at London merely because he was frightened of Hitler. Fear was considered to be the only motive which prompted certain diplomats to work for peace. Bullitt agreed with Raczynski and Lukasiewicz that Bonnet was the leader of the fight for peace in France, and he promised to do what he could to discredit the French Foreign Minister with Premier Daladier. He reported with satisfaction to President Roosevelt on May 6, 1939, that Daladier was allegedly increasingly distrustful of Bonnet. Bullitt hoped that Daladier would replace Bonnet with Champetier de Ribes, who advocated war. There was no chance that this would happen, but the report of Bullitt illustrates the optimism of the warmongers after the Beck speech.77

The German-Polish crisis had entered an acute phase. The Polish chauvinism incited by Beck produced numerous incidents which were an immediate menace to peace. The British leaders knew that Beck would not have adopted a position of provocative and uncompromising defiance without their blank check to Poland, but they refused to admit that they had any obligation to exert a moderating influence on Polish policy. They were inclined to encourage Polish intransigence in the hope that they would soon have the conflict which they required for their planned assault on Germany. Beck was their accomplice. They were displeased with his attitude toward the Soviet Union, but they applauded the tenacity with which he opposed Hitler’s efforts to resume negotiations with the Poles. They had reason to be confident after May 5, 1939, that Poland would never negotiate with Germany again. They still had many problems to face in promoting war, but the Polish attitude toward Germany was not among them.

[387]
Chapter 16


BRITISH POLICY AND
POLISH ANTI-GERMAN INCIDENTS


Halifax’s Threat to Destroy Germany

Germany was the deadly enemy of Poland according to the Beck speech of May 5, 1939. The Polish public received the impression that the German attitude precluded a peaceful settlement of German-Polish differences, and that war with Germany was inevitable. There were still more than one million citizens of German extraction in Poland at that time, and these people were the principal crisis victims during the following weeks. The British public was told again and again that the grievances of the German minority in Poland were largely imaginary. The average British citizen was completely unaware of the terror and fear of death which stalked these miserable people. Ultimately, many thousands Of them paid for the crisis with their lives. They were among the first victims of the Halifax war policy.1

Halifax responded to the Beck speech by warning Germany officially that the British Empire would fight with the aim of destroying the third Reich whenever Hitler made an attempt to rescue Danzig from the clutches of Poland. British Ambassador Henderson delivered this threat at Berlin on May 15, 1939. The German Government had been aware for several days that this step was coming. The instructions to Henderson had been used previously by Halifax to intimidate Italy. The Italians informed German Ambassador Mackensen at Rome of the exact content of these instructions several days before the Henderson démarche at Berlin. This ominous British threat to destroy National Socialist Germany on behalf of the Poles reinforced a commitment which President Benes had vainly attempted to secure for Czechoslovakia the previous year.2

[388]
The leaders of the German minority in Poland repeatedly appealed to the Polish Government for mercy during this period. Senator Hasbach, the leader of the conservative German minority faction, made two public appeals for Polish moderation in March 1939. He argued that Poland would strengthen her political position and her cultural mission in the East with a better minority policy.3 Dr. Rudolf Wiesner, the leader of the rival Young German Party, addressed an appeal to Premier Slawoj-Skladkowski from Bielitz, East Upper Silesia, on May 25, 1939. He complained about the current wave of mass arrests of the members of his organization, and he submitted a long list of individuals who had been arrested for no apparent reason. He informed the Premier that he was asking for protection on the basis of the loyal attitude of his group.4

The Central Office for the German Ethnic Community explained to Ribbentrop at Berlin on June 30, 1939, that most of the arrests were based on alleged insults to the Polish state. They cited a few typical examples. Georg Walter was sentenced to imprisonment for seven months at Toruri (Thorn) for having allegedly greeted a friend with “Heil Hitler!” The farmer, Kasirnir Behrend, was sentenced at Konitz to imprisonment for six months because it was claimed that he had said Hitler should receive Danzig and West Prussia without war. The laborer, Erich Schiewe, was sentenced to imprisonment for six months at Czarnikau because allegedly he had criticized the economic depression in Poland. Heinrich Mroczkowski was severely beaten at Neustadt because he had been heard speaking German at a public place. The situation was such that no German could feel safe from possible denunciation and arrest. These measures might have found some excuse against a recalcitrant minority, but they were senseless when applied against the docile and thoroughly intimidated German minority in Poland.5

Polish Premier Slawoj-Skladkowski presided over the Department of Interior. The immediate responsibility for alleged security measures against the German minority rested with Interior Department Ministerial Director Waclaw Zyborski. He consented to discuss the situation on June 23, 1939, with Walther Kohnert, one of the leaders of the German minority at Bromberg. Zyborski admitted that the Germans of Poland found themselves in an unenviable situation. He claimed that Adolf Hitler was to blame for their plight, and that he had further damaged their prospects by abrogating the 1934 Pact with Poland. He criticized Hitler for his Danzig and East Prussian transit proposals, which were allegedly “demands without any foundation.”

Zyborski claimed that the Poles in Germany were badly treated, and that the Germans in Poland were disloyal. Kohnert vigorously denied both Chargés. He suspected a fact, later confirmed, that German espionage agents in Poland were almost exclusively Jews and people of Polish stock. He pointed out that none of the persons mentioned as spies in the Polish press were of German ethnic origin. He hoped that the Poles in the Reich also were also largely excluded from Polish espionage operations. He knew that the situation of the Poles in Germany was favorable, and that reference to their lot was a poor excuse for the merciless persecution of Germans in Poland.

Zyborski flatly Chargéd that Kohnert and his friends were under the influence [389] of German National Socialism, and he argued that “you know as well as I do that National Socialism is no Weltanschauung (philosophical viewpoint), but a state concept.” He cited a Polish proverb in accusing the German minority group of “lighting a candle for God (i.e. Poland), but also lighting a candle for the devil (i.e. Germany).” This was another way of saying that their loyalty to Poland was merely a pose. Zyborski added that the struggle which had been coming for a long time had arrived, and that he liked a struggle. He ended the lengthy conversation by stating frankly that his policy required a severe treatment of the German minority. He made it clear that there was no way in which the Germans of Poland could alleviate their hard fate. They were the helpless hostages of the Polish community and the Polish state.6

Rudolf Wiesner made another futile appeal to Premier Slawoj-Skladkowski on July 6, 1939. He referred to the waves of public violence against the Germans at Tomaszow near Lodz, May 13-15th, at Konstantynow, May 21-22nd, and at Pabianice, June 22-23, 1939. He protested the confiscation of the German Turnverein (sport club) hall at Pabianice on June 23rd. A Polish mob had attacked the building on the previous evening and destroyed many of its furnishings. The Polish flag was hoisted from the roof, and local Polish officials gave patriotic speeches to the mob within the building. The police confiscated the library of the club. An attack against the Pabianice German Gymnasium (secondary school) had resulted in property damage and the destruction of books. The local Young German Party Office had been attacked and destroyed. Similar attacks had taken place against the local Church Choir Club, the Baptist Church Hostel, and the Christian Trade Union. The Keil Bookshop had been attacked, and its stock of German books was completely destroyed. Wiesner noted that this was the third major outrage of its kind within the Lodz district in a matter of weeks, and he had waited in vain for disciplinary action against the offenders. Wiesner was directing his report on the affair at Pabianice to the highest Polish authority in the hope that he would receive an assurance about disciplinary action against future similar outrages. This hope was in vain, and the appeal of Wiesner produced no result. The leaders of the German political groups were forced to recognize that they possessed no influence with the Polish authorities despite their loyal attitudes toward Poland. It was “open season” on the Germans of Poland with the approval of the Polish state.7

The Polish authorities at this time were closing German business enterprises in Polish cities and confiscating a large number of community buildings owned by the Germans. It is for this reason that the property factor often came to the fore in the diplomatic exchanges, which consisted of Polish rejections of futile German protests. This did not change the fact that human suffering was the main feature of the situation. One need only imagine the scene at Pabianice on June 22, 1939, when the Bibles and old hymn books of the United Brethren fundamentalists were destroyed by a Polish mob. There was no way in which Germany could retaliate. Mob action against the Polish minority was impossible because of the impeccable atmosphere of public law and order in Germany. The single demonstration against the Jews in German cities on November 10, 1938, had been denounced throughout Germany, and it was obvious that nothing of this kind would ever be repeated. It was said that a Polish girl of sixteen could walk the streets of any German border city after midnight in [390] complete safety, but a German woman of eighty-five was not safe on the streets of a Polish city at 2:00 in the afternoon.

The atmosphere of terror for the Germans in Poland continued unabated after the excesses in May 1939. Throughout the country the Germans were told: “If war comes you will all be hanged.” Unfortunately, this prophecy was later. fulfilled in many cases. The famous bloody Sunday in Torgau on September 3, 1939, was accompanied by similar massacres elsewhere which brought a tragic end to a long martyrdom for many people. This catastrophe was anticipated by many Germans during the long months before the outbreak of war. The Germans of Poland loved their native districts, but a point is reached when the most fanatical devotion to a particular landscape is overcome. This situation was reflected by the flight, or attempted escape, of increasing numbers of Germans. The feelings of these Germans were revealed by a desperate slogan: “Away from this hell, and back to the Reich!”8


Polish Dreams of Expansion

The outrages against the German minority were accompanied by a public campaign for the annexation of German territory to Poland. Poiska Zbrojna (The Polish Army) on May 6, 1939, celebrated the rebirth of the Polish spirit of westward expansion from the 11th and 12th centuries. The Illustrowany Kurier at Krakow claimed that an alleged 900,000 Poles in West Upper Silesia were suffering from German oppression. The Polish population expert, Jozef Kisielewski, claimed that there were nearly two million Poles in France, and 870,000 Poles in the Soviet Union. The Gazeta Poiska asserted on May 10, 1939, that East Prussia was becoming Polish in character because the Germans in the area were migrating to the West while the Polish population remained and multiplied. It was regarded as a misfortune for East Prussia that the area was still part of the German Reich. The Kurjer Warszawski on May 17, 1939, published a map which claimed that large stretches of German territory had sizable Polish minority populations. Polska Zbrojna suggested on May 27, 1939, that the outcome of the plebiscite in South East Prussia would have been different in 1920 had it not been for the Russo-Polish war in progress at that time, and for alleged German terror tactics. The Kurier Poznanski claimed on June 11, 1939, that Jan Sobieski would have seized East Prussia as early as 1688 had he not been frustrated by the Polish nobility and by foreign policy difficulties. The Illustrowany Kurier on June 29, 1939, criticized Lloyd George for the 1919 borders which were allegedly unfair to Poland, and it was suggested that future opportunities would permit the improvement of the Polish western frontier. It was evident that the Polish leaders had more attractive motives for war with Germany than the mere frustration of German aspirations at Danzig.9

Polish annexationist maps were posted along major thoroughfares in Polish cities. These maps were marked with Polish flags on German cities as far westward as Stettin. They often announced; “We are not looking for war! But, if war is forced on us, we shall take back the ancient Polish territory inhabited by Poles.” Crowds would assemble around these large map placards to discuss “the new prospects thus opened up for Poland.” The idea of expansion was [391] not unwelcome to many citizens of a state which contained largely undeveloped national resources and millions of dissatisfied Ukrainians and White Russians. 10


The Lodz Riots

The wave of riots in the Lodz area, which furnished the basis for the appeal of Wiesner to Premier Slawoj-Skladkowski, began on May 13, 1939. Tomaszow Mazowiecki, the central point of the first riots, was a city of forty-two thousand inhabitants with a minority of three thousand Germans. Many Germans were injured and one woman was killed in two-day riots which damaged or destroyed most of the German property in the area. The Polish factory owners were compelled to disChargé their German employees. A series of violent incidents took place during the same period in Poznan province and in East Upper Silesia.

Weizsäcker vainly appealed to Henderson and Coulondre at Berlin for the Western Powers to exert pressure on Poland to prevent the repetition of these outrages. Coulondre merely said that France was willing to advise the Poles in general terms to be cautious. Henderson admitted that he personally had no sympathy for Polish policy, but he warned Weizsäcker that German intervention in Poland would lead to the military defeat of Germany by Great Britain and France. Weizsäcker exclaimed scornfully that “the British guarantee to Poland was like offering sugar to an untrained child before it had learned to listen to reason!”

It was noted in Berlin that the German language press in Poland was not permitted to report incidents agsinst the German minority. The movements of German journalists in Poland were restricted after the opening of the press campaign in Germany against Polish excesses. The German Foreign Office concluded that their own consular representatives were the sole reliable source of news about the many anti-German incidents in Poland. The Poles were also aware of this situation, and an increasing number of German consular representatives was arrested during the following months. The German Foreign Office discussed anew the possibility of retaliating against the Polish minority in Germany, but it was decided on May 15, 1939, that this possibility should be rejected as harmful, futile, and unwise.11

The Germans were forced to conclude that attempts to arouse sympathy for the German minority in the West or to exert indirect pressure on Poland were ineffective. The only alternatives were direct intervention or passive acquiescence in the final elimination of the German minority. There were many indications that hostility toward Germany was increasing simultaneously in Great Britain and the United States. Chargé d’Affaires Thomsen sent word from Washington, D.C., on May 17, 1939, that President Roosevelt had told the Senate Military Affairs Committee that it would be a very good thing if both Hitler and Mussolini were assassinated. The situation in France was less unpromising. Ambassador Welczeck reported on May 20th that French Foreign Minister Bonnet had assured him on the previous day that he maintained his firm belief in the advantages of Franco-German cooperation. Bonnet declared that he was not folding his hands in his lap, and that he was working actively on a plan to preserve the peace. Official circles in the United States and Great Britain were [392] more or less in step with Polish fanaticism, whereas France was obviously reluctant to go along with it.12


The Kalthof Murder

The Polish anti-German incidents of this period were not confined to the German minority in Poland. A crucial incident occurred at Kalthof on the territory of the Free City of Danzig near the East Prussian frontier on May 21, 1939. The arrogant behavior of the Polish customs inspectors at Kalthof had aroused the indignation of the local German inhabitants, who staged a protest demonstration on May 20th. The Polish customs authorities at Kalthof reported to the Polish High Commissioner’s Office at 5:00 p.m. on May 20th that they feared an attack on Polish installations. Polish High Commissioner Chodacki was attending a social affair in Gdynia when this report arrived. Counselor Perkowski, the president of the Polish railroad company in Danzig, had been left in Chargé of affairs at the Polish High Commissioner’s Office. He requested the Danzig police to intervene, and they agreed to deal with the trouble.

Perkowski decided later to conduct a personal investigation. He set out for Kalthof with an assistant, and with his chauffeur, Zygmunt Morawski, a former Polish soldier. The group discovered that the scene was quiet when they arrived at Kalthof, and that the Polish customs officials had gone to their homes.

Perkowski had ordered Zygmunt Morawski to remain in their automobile, which was parked several hundred yards from the customs house. The Polish driver left the bright lights on in the parked car. A Danzig car returning from East Prussia soon approached from the opposite direction. The driver, Grübnau, stopped to request the Polish car to turn down its lights. Morawski responded by killing Grübnau with a shot from his pistol.

The incident itself would not have been so unusual had it not been for the incredible conduct of Polish High Commissioner Chodacki. He had been contacted at Gdynia and had returned to Danzig. A telephone call from Perkowski reported the murder of Grübnau shortly after his arrival. Chodacki ordered the Poles to proceed to Tscew (Dirschau) on Polish territory, and to remain there until he gave them permission to return. Morawski had hurried to the Polish frontier on foot without waiting for these instructions. Perkowski and his assistant went to the railway station, which was near the customs house, and boarded a train for Poland. The murder of Grübnau had taken place at 12:50 on the morning of May 21, 1939.

Chodacki presented a note to Danzig Senate President Greiser on May 21, 1939, in which he protested the German demonstration at Kalthof. He referred to the murder of Grübnau without offering an apology. He demanded compensation for minor damages suffered by Polish installations. He claimed that the Danzig police were tardy in proceeding against the demonstrators, and that the Polish officials had received insufficient police protection. Greiser reminded Chodacki that the League of Nations, and not Poland, was the sovereign Power at Danzig, and he demanded that Perkowski, his assistant, and the Polish chauffeur return to Danzig for trial. Chodacki haughtily declined, and he was sustained in this action by Beck. It was obvious that the Poles in Danzig [393] considered themselves above the law, and that they treated with contempt the effort of the Danzig authorities to exercise jurisdiction in the territory.13

Hitler was incensed by this incident in which an innocent German was killed on Danzig territory without Polish apologies of any kind. He sent a personal wreath to Grübnau’s funeral. Marshal Göring warned British Ambassador Henderson that Germany would soon intervene effectively in Danzig despite Polish and British opposition. Henderson replied sadly that the Poles would regard German intervention in Danzig as a threat to their independence, and that Great Britain would come to the immediate support of Poland with her entire armed forces. The Kalthof incident was discussed in the British Parliament on May 24, 1939. Chamberlain restricted his comment to the observation that a Danzig citizen had been killed, and that the League Committee of Three was investigating the affair. He did not claim that the League would undertake actual measures to deal with the incident.

The Danzigers responded to the Kalthof affair and other incidents by organizing small units of unofficial militia, reminiscent of the Freikorps (volunteer corps) German formations of the Napoleonic and Weimar Republic periods in Germany. Kennard claimed that nearly four thousand Danzigers were participating in this activity by the end of June 1939. Chodacki received support from Beck on June 5, 1939, to increase the number of Polish inspectors in military uniform at Danzig. He claimed that neither the League of Nations nor any other authority could limit Poland’s freedom of action in this question. 14

German Ambassador Moltke on May 23, 1939, responded to the increased tension between Germany and Poland by advocating the abandonment of the Danzigers by Germany. He claimed to have assurances that Jozef Beck would renew conversations with the Germans if Hitler would permanently renounce Danzig. Moltke argued that Germany had made many other sacrifices of former German territory, and that Danzig was not worth a war. He was convinced that Great Britain would favor a German-Polish understanding following a definitive German retreat at Danzig. 15

Moltke believed that peaceful relations with Poland were impossible unless Germany made all the concessions and recognized that Poland would make none. Hitler was convinced that friendly relations with Poland on this one-sided basis were an impossibility. It would be the same the other way around if Germany demanded the restoration of the 1914 frontier as the basis for an understanding with Poland. He refused to contemplate the possibility of abandoning the Danzig community. A Polish state which refused to contemplate the realization of legitimate German aspirations at Danzig could never be relied upon as a friendly neighbor. This view was shared by Pierre-Etienne Flandin, the former Premier of France. He told German Ambassador Welczeck on May 23, 1939, that a rigid Anglo-French policy in support of Poland at Danzig would be fatal for peace, and he complained that Germany and Italy were much more in favor of peace than the British leaders.16

League High Commissioner Burckhardt informed the Germans that Halifax had said at Geneva on May 21, 1939, that the British would fight for Poland in any German-Polish war regardless of the origins of the conflict. Burckhardt contradicted the position of Moltke by confiding to Ribbentrop at Berlin on June 1, 1939, that Jozef Beck did not favor further diplomatic talks with [394] Germany. He had said, when pressed by Burckhardt, that he might be willing to consider new talks when conditions became more calm. It seemed obvious that this was a safe way of avoiding talks by confusing cause and effect.17


The Disastrous Kasprzycki Mission

Collaboration between the Anglo-French combination and the Poles remained surprisingly sterile during this period of excitement in Poland and at Danzig. Great Britain and France could have done many things for Poland in both the military and economic spheres had they really desired to do so. The Poles made every effort to secure effective cooperation with their Western Allies. They discovered that this was neither as easy nor as rewarding as had been their earlier dealings with the Germans.

Beck persuaded Bonnet in early May 1939 to negotiate with a special Polish mission at Paris. Lukasiewicz told Bonnet that Poland desired a new political protocol for the Franco-Polish alliance, which would tighten the French commitment to Poland. Beck wired Lukasiewicz on May 12, 1939, that the Polish Council of Ministers desired immediate action on a proposed 2 billion franc French loan to Poland. He added that General Tadeusz Kasprzycki would arrive in Paris on May 14th or 15th as the personal delegate of Marshal Smigly-Rydz for negotiations with the French military men. He wanted Bonnet to know that Poland wished to secure maximum coordination with France in her military effort against Germany. Beck informed Lukasiewicz that a French commitment to go to war on the Danzig issue was an absolute necessity. The French were under no obligation to do this, and Bonnet was opposed to assuming the commitment.

Lukasiewicz learned on May 13, 1939, that France was not prepared to advance Poland more than the 135 million francs provided by the Franco-Polish subsidy agreement of 1936. Daladier suggested that France might be willing to do more for Poland in 1940, but the Polish Ambassador, who expected war with Germany in 1939, did not believe that the French Premier was sincere in this offer. Lukasiewicz warned Daladier with some bitterness that the Germans in Paris were closely following this negotiation.

General Kasprzycki arrived at Paris on May 14, 1939. He explained to Lukasiewicz that he wished France to agree to a major offensive against Germany, with or without Italian participation in the war as the ally of Germany. He was instructed to confide that Poland was weak in artillery, and needed immediate French aid. Kasprzycki discovered with surprise and considerable suspicion, during the following few days, that the French military men promised him everything asked except the artillery. General Vuillemin, the French Air Force Commander, promised that French aircraft would operate from Polish bases in the event of war. General Gamelin, the French Army Commander-in-Chief, promised that France would concentrate her major military effort against Germany under all circumstances. The French military men promised on the second day of conferences that a heavy offensive to smash the German Siegfried line would be launched on the seventeenth day after [395] French mobilization. The French promised to employ nearly three quarters of the entire French Army in this operation.19

Bonnet was raising difficulties on the political sector by May 17, 1939. He claimed that Lujasiewicz was wrong in asserting that the British blank check to Poland contained a specific assurance that the British would fight for Poland at Danzig. The British had informed him that they had engaged in no political discussions with the Poles since the Beck visit, and that they had assumed no specific commitment at Danzig. This ignored the fact that the British had accepted repeated declarations by Beck that any German move at Danzig would constitute a threat to Polish independence. Bonnet claimed, without any real justification, that the Poles had said earlier that collaboration with the Soviet Union would be necessary after the outbreak of war, and he insisted on Poland assuming an immediate commitment to the Soviet Union in the interest of preventing, war. Bonnet hoped to make Beck’s position of refusing to collaborate with the Russians appear preposterous.20

Daladier, Bonnet, Gamelin, Kasprzycki, and Lukasiewicz were among the prominent members of the special conference on May 17, 1939. The main problem was the question of the Danzig commitment. The French Cabinet had approved a formula on May 12, 1939, which excluded Danzig. Bonnet was obviously reluctant to accept the new protocol with the Danzig commitment, but the Poles hoped that he would eventually change his mind. They were not clearly informed that the French would refuse to regard military commitments as binding without the new political protocol. This protocol was never accepted by Bonnet in the period before the outbreak of World War II.21

The Poles admitted on May 17, 1939, that they did not have the necessary military supplies to resist the Germans successfully. They required immediate military aid from France and Great Britain. Daladier evaded the problem by claiming that the Soviet Union would be the most advantageous source of military supplies for Poland. Lukasiewicz and Kasprzycki warned the French that they never expected to receive aid in the form of war material from the Soviet Union. The new conditional French military commitment to Poland was forwarded to Warsaw on May 18, 1939, and approved the following day at both Warsaw and Paris. It provided that France would mobilize instantly upon the outbreak of war between Poland and Germany, and it stipulated that the major offensive against Germany could come on the fifteenth day of mobilization, which was two days earlier than the original French offer. The refusal of Bonnet to sign the political protocol with the Danzig commitment meant that France had not yet actually assumed new military obligations to Poland. The Poles elected to ignore this fact, and they continued to base their military planning on the disastrous and false assumption that there would be a major French offensive against Germany.22


Halifax’s Refusal to Supply Poland

Colonel Adam Koc arrived in England at the head of an economic mission early in June 1939. Koc had founded the Polish OZON (Camp of National Unity), but his efforts on behalf of the new State Political Party were largely [396] unsuccessful. General Stanislaw Skwarczynski succeeded to the leadership of OZON shortly after an unsuccessful attempt had been made to assassinate Colonel Koc. Koc was selected to lead the mission to England because of his expert knowledge of commerce and banking. He was known as an energetic and determined negotiator. He requested an immediate British grant of 60 million pounds for the purchase of war material by Poland in foreign markets. The British suggested that they might grant Poland 8 million pounds provided that purchases were made exclusively on the British market. 23

Koc sent Jan Wszelaki, the commercial counsellor at the Polish Embassy, to American Ambassador Kennedy with the request that the United States exert pressure on the British. Kennedy appeared to be well-informed about the situation, but he offered no encouragement. He promised to intercede with Halifax and Chamberlain, but he confided that the British and French were not inclined to share their war material with Poland. The Poles were discouraged by the apparent inability of the United States to use her influence in securing tangible advantages for them. This situation contrasted with the lavish promises of Bullitt to Lukasiewicz at Paris in the past. The conversation between Kennedy and Wszelaki took place on June 16, 1939. President Roosevelt boasted to French Minister of Education Jean Zay, on the same day, that he would have made trouble for Hitler at the Munich conference in 1938 had he been present at the head of an American delegation.24

Sir John Simon was in Chargé of British economic negotiations with the Poles, and Koc complained to Warsaw that he was unable to make any impression on him. Koc was stunned when Simoa revealed that he intended to persuade the French to supply 40% of the niggardly 8 million pounds. Negotiations dragged throughout the summer, and Koc journeyed back and forth between Poland and England. Simon stubbornly refused to allow Poland to use any part of the British share of the credit for the purchase of other than British war material. In the up-shot, Poland received no war material on British credit before the outbreak of war with Germany. Koc complained that the British were coldly indifferent to the desperate military plight of Poland.

The negotiations between the Poles and the Anglo-French combination were a complete failure from the standpoint of tangible results. The three Governments were careful to conceal this fact from the public. The arrival of General Sir Edmund Ironside at Warsaw on July 17, 1939, received much publicity which was calculated to convince the public that military collaboration between Poland and the Western Powers was fruitful and successful. General Ironside was the Inspector-General of the British Army. Marshal Smigly-Rydz gave a rare special interview to the Warsaw correspondent of the English News Chronicle on the day Ironside arrived in Poland. The Polish Marshal declared that his country was prepared to fight even without allies if Germany touched Danzig. He added with special emphasis that Poland woud be fighting for her independence if she fought for her position at Danzig. He declared that every Polish man and woman of whatever age would be a soldier in the event of war.25

Ironside asked Beck on July 19, 1939, at a conference attended by Smigly-Rydz and Kennard, what Poland would do if Danzig proclaimed an Anschluss with Germany. Beck was evasive in his response to this hypothetical question. He stressed the need for Three Power unity in responding to the Germans, and [397] he gave Ironside the impression that Poland would demand an explanation for any German action at Danzig before attacking Germany.

The Poles exhibited their bravery with reckless abandon at Polish Army maneuvers attended by General Ironside. The British Commander later noted with satisfaction that he “had seen a divisional attack-exercise under a live barrage, not without casualties.” The British General privately disagreed with British policy in the question of credits to Poland, and he would have preferred to see the Poles receive effective and substantial aid. He agreed to describe the military preparedness of the Poles in glowing terms to the English public after his return to England. He claimed that the Polish Army was in fine condition, and that its morale was excellent. He did not stress the deplorable lack of modern military equipment which he had discovered in Poland.26

It was apparent behind the scenes that Great Britain and France had concluded that Poland was expendable, although General Gamelin hoped that the Poles in the event of war would be able to resist the Germans for several months and thus render impossible major German offensive against France in 1939. Sir William Strang visited Poland in May and June 1939 accompanied by Gladwyn Jebb, private secretary to Sir Alexander Cadogan. Strang, the chief of the Central Division of the British Foreign Office, had little sympathy for Poland. He believed that the Czech cause in 1938 was more worthy of support than the Polish cause in 1939. His critical attitude toward the Polish frontiers was more severe than that of Hitler, and he considered that these frontiers were “over-extended.”

Strang personally believed that a close alliance between Great Britain and the Soviet Union would be worthwhile even if it was concluded at the expense of Poland. He was inclined to subordinate every other consideration to the destruction of Germany. He believed that “Europe had to expel the foul infection of Nazism from her system,” and that war was the best means to accomplish this objective. The purpose of his mission was to confirm the hope that Poland would be willing to foment this allegedly necessary conflict with the Germans. He was quite content to envisage the prospect that Poland herself, despite her sacrifices, would emerge from such a conflict with diminished territory.27


Halifax’s Contempt for the Pact of Steel

Halifax continued to pursue the objective of isolating Germany and obtaining the greatest possible number of allies for Great Britain. A British alliance with the Soviet Union was his principal objective after the guarantee to Poland, but he did not lose sight of the position of Italy. Halifax refused to be discouraged by the conclusion of a formal alliance between Germany and Italy at Berlin on May 22, 1939. He regarded Mussolini’s step in concluding the alliance as a logical reply to the British guarantees to Rumania and Greece, but he had reason to believe that the Italian commitment to Germany was conditional on the preservation of peace, and that it would be possible to separate Italy and Germany in the event of war. The Pact of Steel, as the new Italo-German alliance was called, demanded publicly that the two nations stand together whenever [398] one of them, despite peaceful intentions, became involved in a conflict.28 Halifax knew that the Germans and Italians had exchanged assurances, prior to the signing of the Pact, that they would seek to avoid every conflict. Ciano and Ribbentrop had carefully arranged the details of the treaty in conferences at Milan on May 6-7, 1939. It was agreed that neither Germany nor Italy was prepared for a major war, and that it was in the interest of the two Powers to avoid a conflict. The Germans promised the Italians that they had no ambitions in the Mediterranean area. Mussolini approved the text of the treaty on May 17, 1939. Halifax was aware, when the Pact was signed in Berlin, that this fair-weather alliance need not imply that Great Britain would have to contend with Italian participation in an Anglo-German war. Halifax knew that Mussolini hoped to repeat, in 1939, his successful performance as mediator in 1938 between the contending factions. The role of Mussolini as mediator worried Halifax more than the possibility that Italy would become involved in war. 29

The Germans received an important assurance on June 7, 1939, that they had no reason to worry about the policy of Turkey, the old ally of Germany in World War I. The British and Turks had concluded a mutual aid Pact for the Eastern Mediterranean on May 12, 1939, which was reminiscent of the British-Triple Alliance Mediterranean status quo agreement of 1887. The Germans were worried about an ominous article in the Pact which provided that Great Britain and Turkey were to be allies in any disputes in which either of them became involved. German Ambassador Papen was instructed to obtain clarification about the Turkish attitude. He was able to report on June 7, 1939, that Turkey would not intervene against Germany if the British attacked Germany in response to a German-Polish conflict. He had received this categorical assurance from President Inonu. The Turkish President added that his policy of alignment with the British was directed solely against Italy. It did not apply to Germany.30


Wohlthat’s Futile London Conversations

There was unfounded speculation during the early summer of 1939 that Great Britain and Germany might settle their differences despite the conflict of interests between Germany and Poland. The German Foreign Office sent Adam von Trott zu Solz, a former German Rhodes scholar, on a special fact-finding mission to England from June 1-8, 1939. Trott spent a week-end at Cliveden as the only German among thirty guests, including Halifax and Philip Kerr, Lord Lothian. It was known at this time that Lothian, who had undertaken an important propaganda mission to the United States early in 1939, was scheduled to succeed Sir Ronald Lindsay as British Ambassador at Washington, D.C. Trott discovered that Lothian and Halifax were not in complete agreement, and that Lothian still hoped for peace. Trott discussed Anglo-German relations with Halifax for three hours, and he concluded that Halifax, in contrast to Lothian, accepted the inevitability of an Anglo-German war. The British Foreign Secretary assured Trott with pride that the British public had arrived at an “emotional readiness for war.” He obviously derived special satisfaction from this claim. He declared that “British confidence in German sincerity” had lessened “after Munich.” He did not follow the official British propaganda line [399] that German policy during the March 1939 Slovak crisis had been the decisive factor in creating the alleged official British distrust of Hitler. Trott noted that Lord Astor, who declared frankly that Hitler was a truly great man, was saddened by the apparently hopeless situation produced by the Halifax policy.

Trott conferred with Prime Minister Chamberlain on June 8, 1939. He noted that Chamberlain, in addition to Lothian and Astor, was more moderate about Germany than Halifax, but he was unable to conclude that this fact held out any hope for the future. Chamberlain confided that the extension of the British guarantee to Poland on March 31, 1939, had been personally displeasing to him, although he blamed Hitler for this British move. He gave the impression that Halifax was completely in Chargé of British policy, and that his own attitude was one of fatalism and resignation.31

The Trott mission to England did not receive newspaper publicity, but there was wild speculation about the visit of Helmuth Wohlthat to England the following month. Dr. Wohlthat, who had conducted the German trade mission to Rumania in March 1939, was known to be a close friend of Hjalmar Schacht, who maintained important contacts with British financial and official circles. Newspapers in Great Britain, France, and the United States claimed that Wohlthat, in his capacity as Commissioner of the German Four Year Plan, hoped to conclude a gigantic financial deal with Great Britain. It was asserted that Wohlthat’s presence in England, as a delegate to the London international whaling conference, was a mere blind to conceal the true purpose of his mission. It was not surprising that these rumors produced a strong impact on the Poles, at a time when British financial recalcitrance blocked substantial foreign aid to Poland. Halifax noted with cool detachment on July 17, 1939, that Polish Ambassador Raczynski “Was distressed to the point of incoherence.”32

Wohlthat signed the 1939 international whaling agreement for Germany on July 21, 1939. The Daily Telegraph and the News Chronicle continued to assert during his visit that Great Britain had offered a substantial loan to Germany. The climax came on July 23, 1939, when the Sunday Times (an entirely different newspaper from the London Times) asserted that Wohlthat had rejected a sensational British proposal for an Anglo-German understanding. Chamberlain issued an official démenti in Parliament on July 24, 1939, but speculation continued unabated about the alleged major importance of the Wohlthat visit.33

There were conversations between Wohlthat and the British leaders, and German Ambassador Dirksen hoped that the British would make an acceptable proposal for a settlement of Anglo-German differences.34 This hope was destroyed by the recalcitrant British attitude. The conciliatory attitude of Sir Horace Wilson, the personal assistant of Prime Minister Chamberlain, aroused false hopes. Wohlthat and Wilson engaged in a rather meaningless general conversation at the British Foreign Office on July 18, 1939. The principal English spokesman in these negotiations at London was Secretary Sir Robert Hudson of the British Department of Overseas Trade. Hudson declared flatly on July 20, 1939, that Great Britain would never return any of the former German colonies to the Reich. Wohlthat was startled by this categorical statement because Hitler had no intention of pressing for the return of the former German colonies. He asked Hudson why the British “were forming an allied front in the East.” [400] Hudson replied that “we expected to win if war broke out but we were anxious to secure that result as speedily and as certainly as possible.” Hudson noted that Wohlthat “made rather a face at this.”

Wohlthat asked Hudson why Great Britain was opposed to a strong Germany. Hudson responded with the usual explanation “that it had always been this country’s policy never to allow any continental power to secure military preponderance in Europe.” Hudson agreed that Anglo-German economic cooperation would result in mutual prosperity, but he insisted that Great Britain would not cooperate unless Hitler abandoned German aspirations at Danzig.35

Wohlthat submitted his report to the German Foreign Office on July 24, 1939, after his return to Germany. He pointed out that his meetings with Hudson and Wilson were promoted by German Ambassador Dirksen, and that the formal initiative for the meetings was taken by his British hosts. Wohlthat emphasized that he was fully aware of the rapid deterioration of Anglo-German relations. He noted that Chamberlain had stated publicly on July 10, 1939, (actually July 1st) that the status quo at Danzig was just and fair, and that German aspirations there were unjustifiable. Wohlthat knew that this position was contrary to the bulk of articulate comment on the Danzig question in Great Britain during recent years. He also knew that Halifax was using the balance of power theory to justify British hostility toward Germany.

Wohlthat believed that his conversations at London had thrown new light on British attitudes. There were those who believed that war was inevitable, but there were men like Horace Wilson who hoped that Halifax’s pursuit of the balance of power policy would not necessarily lead to war. The tragedy of this situation was that ultimate decisions rested with Halifax. Wilson in the meantime rationalized his own attitude by claiming that Halifax would do everything humanly possible to keep the peace. This faith in Halifax led men who ostensibly opposed war to justify the war that might occur rather than to oppose its outbreak.

Wilson admitted that the British had attended the Munich conference merely because they were not prepared for war at that time. He added that the British now considered themselves ready for war. This meant that chances for conciliation were reduced rather than increased by British military preparations. Wilson boasted that British readiness for war was much greater than was realized either by Germany or the British public.

Wilson conceded that Hitler hoped to avoid a World War over Danzig. He hoped that Hitler would draw the logical conclusion that he could not simultaneously hope to have Danzig and to avoid such a war. The only solution was Hitler’s abandonment of Danzig. Wilson professed to believe that an Anglo-German understanding could be achieved if Hitler renounced further foreign policy objectives and accepted the status quo at every point. Wilson believed that bilateral negotiations between Great Britain and Germany would be more successful than Four Power negotiations which included Italy and France. He wished Hitler to pledge himself to a policy of non-aggression toward all nations of the world. He believed that the question of the former German colonies should be evaded. He hoped that it would be possible to reduce armaments, and to conclude a profitable trade agreement. He wished Germany to collaborate with Great Britain in financial questions, and to abandon her barter trade policy. [401] Wohlthat noted that Hudson was more explicit than Wilson about the colonial question. The British Trade Secretary confided that the British Government did not wish Germany to recover any colonial territory. He spoke vaguely of a possible “colonial condominium” which would enable the British to keep watch over any German activities permitted overseas.

Wohlthat reported that Sir Joseph Ball, the Director of the Research Department of the Conservative Party, suggested that Chamberlain might call national elections for November 14, 1939, if Hitler retreated at Danzig. The British leaders made it clear on every occasion that they would not consider an understanding with Germany unless Hitler conceded an Anglo-Polish diplomatic triumph at Danzig. Hitler and Ribbentrop believed that such a retreat would be a disaster for Germany, and would fail to resolve the conflict in German-Polish relations. The British might be expected to support Poland against Germany in the resulting hopeless situation. Hitler suspected that the British were aware that he could not possibly accept their terms, and that the entire negotiation was an elaborate British attempt to split and confuse the German diplomats. Ribbentrop was particularly disgusted with Dirksen, and he believed that the German Ambassador had become the unwitting dupe of British policy.

This impression was confirmed for Ribbentrop by a report from Dirksen on July 24, 1939. Dirksen claimed that a responsible minority of British leaders continued to favor a peaceful settlement with Germany. He did not know if the British were sincere about an agreement during the recent negotiation, but he believed that Hitler’s willingness to abandon Danzig might force their hand. He suggested that this step might enable the British Government “to feel strong enough” to acquaint the British public with Germany’s desire to reach an agreement. This statement conveyed an almost pathetic acceptance of Halifax’s clever propaganda argument that he was the mere prisoner of larger events. Dirksen believed that the British leaders might cooperate in reducing German-Polish tension if Hitler accepted the Polish position at Danzig and in the Corridor transit question. He plaintively concluded that an agreement with the British was a far more worthwhile objective than a new war. This statement reveals the full extent to which he had become the prisoner of British propaganda. He was suggesting that the failure of Hitler to accept the British terms would mean that war was the actual objective of Hitler’s policy.36

It was obvious to Ribbentrop that Dirksen’s usefulness at London was nearly over. The German Ambassador was no longer a reliable representative of German interests. Ribbentrop had suggested as early as July 14, 1939, that he would like to discuss the current situation with Dirksen when the latter came home in August on leave. The Wohlthat episode caused him to wonder if this would be worthwhile. He was especially annoyed because Dirksen failed to submit a detailed report about the conversations between Wohlthat and the British leaders. Wohlthat admitted that he had gone over each conversation with Dirksen at London. Wohlthat was not a diplomat, and his report lacked the analytical substance which one could expect from a German Ambassador at London. Ribbentrop on July 31, 1939, finally demanded a detailed report from Dirksen, and the German Ambassador complied the same day.

The Dirksen report of July 31, 1939, contained the odd assertion that the [402] talks between Wohlthat and the British leaders were not primarily political in nature. This was directly contrary to the substance of Wohlthat’s report. Dirksen claimed that Wohlthat had adopted a “purely receptive” attitude during the conversations. He had refused an offer from Wilson to have the British proposals confirmed by Chamberlain, because this would not be “within his province” as German delegate to a whaling convention. Ribbentrop could not fail to note that this was an odd place to draw the line after Wohlthat and Dirksen had agreed to the talks in the first instance. Dirksen failed to offer the careful recapitulation of the talks which Ribbentrop had requested.37

Weizsäcker informed Dirksen on July 31, 1939, that Marshal Göring had read the Wohlthat report before Ribbentrop received it. It was understandable that Ribbentrop was annoyed, that as German Foreign Minister he was not the first person to learn of important political conversations at London. Weizsäcker complained to Dirksen that Wohlthat had apparently failed to ask the obvious question about the connection between the British proposals to Germany and the current British negotiations at Moscow. The Wohlthat report did not indicate what effect, if any, successful Anglo-German negotiations would have on British efforts to enlist the Soviet Union in an encirclement front against Germany. Weizsäcker insisted that Dirksen should send Ribbentrop a detailed report on these matters as quickly as possible.

Dirksen submitted a second disappointing report on August 1, 1939. He claimed that a question from Wohlthat about the British encirclement policy would not have been consistent with the purely receptive attitude he had advised Wohlthat to assume. This raised the question of whether or not conversations in the proper sense of dyadic communication had actually taken place. Dirksen had the “impression” that the British had sought to be constructive in their contacts with Wohlthat. He referred vaguely to the desirability of a solution of the Danzig question, but he failed to analyze the implications of a German retreat at Danzig. He expressed no firm opinion about the actual possibilities for an agreement with the British. He claimed that the private report of General Ironside about the military situation of Poland might encourage a British desire for an understanding, because the report had been “not too favorable.” He failed to note that a confidential report about Poland by a British general familiar with modern warfare could scarcely have been “extremely favorable.” The value of the Dirksen reports about the Wohlthat conversations was merely negative. It confirmed the impression that the British had offered no terms for a settlement short of the abandonment of Danzig by Hitler. This was the decisive point, because Hitler had no intention of retreating at Danzig. 38


Polish Provocations at Danzig

The absence of fruitful negotiations between Great Britain and Germany was matched by the relative unimportance of the treaties concluded by the two countries during these months. There was no noticeable change in the existing balance of forces, and nothing was done by Great Britain and France to remedy the military unpreparedness of the Poles. The new wave of Polish excesses against the German minority in Poland, after the Beck speech, infuriated [403] Germany without impressing the British leaders, who were aware of them, or the British public, which was uninformed. The failure of the Poles to allow new negotiations produced a dreary diplomatic deadlock which was accepted with the utmost complacency by Halifax. The monotony was broken only by the sufferings of the Germans in Poland and the perpetual excitement at Danzig after the arrogant Polish behavior in response to the Kalthof affair. The Danzigers were convinced that Poland would show them no mercy if she were permitted to obtain the upper hand.

Tension mounted without halt at Danzig after the Kalthof incident. Senate President Greiser presented two notes of protest to the Poles on June 3, 1939. One concerned Polish refusal to permit judicial proceedings against the Kalthof murderer, and the other dealt with the increase in the number of Polish customs inspectors on Danzig territory. Polish High Commissioner Chodacki ignored both protests.39

League High Commissioner Burckhardt told Greiser on June 6, 1939, that Ribbentrop had made the German position at Danzig very clear in conversations at Berlin a few days earlier. Ribbentrop admitted that Germany would accept the risk of war to secure the liberation of Danzig. He also told Burckhardt that Germany continued to hope for a negotiated settlement with Poland. Greiser assured Burckhardt that the people of Danzig would prefer a peaceful solution. Burckhardt was about to return to Basel to receive an honorary degree, and Greiser urged him to come back to Danzig afterward with his wife and family as a personal gesture, which would indicate that he was confident peace would be preserved. The currently ambiguous position of Russia was discussed, and Burckhardt wisely predicted that the Soviet Union would avoid entangling alliances with either side in the Danzig dispute. Burckhardt was convinced that the Russians were delighted with the prospect of a suicidal internecine conflict in Western Europe.

The Polish authorities at Danzig announced on June 11, 1939, that further complaints from Danzig authorities about the conduct of their customs inspectors would be inadmissable. They warned the Danzigers that they were planning a further increase in the number of inspectors, on the grounds that the crisis situation made it impossible for the existing force to carry out its tasks. Weizsäcker discussed the Danzig crisis with British Ambassador Henderson at Berlin on June 13, 1939. Henderson announced that the official Halifax line about the alleged need to encircle Germany remained unchanged. He added confidentially that he personally disagreed with the policy of Halifax. He considered that the British blank check to Poland was a great evil, and he opposed the conclusion of a military alliance between Great Britain and the Soviet Union. Henderson knew that he was exceeding his authority in making this statement to the German State Secretary, but he could not tolerate the thought that the Germans might suspect him of agreeing with Halifax’s war policy. It was evident that he was not the man to represent Halifax at Berlin. He was incapable of accepting or of executing the neat rationalizations of such men as Sir Horace Wilson, Sir John Simon, and Sir Samuel Hoare.40

Joseph Goebbels challenged Polish intransigence at Danzig by delivering a defiant speech at the Danzig civic theatre on June 17, 1939. He was attending the Danzig Cultural Exposition, which commemorated the historical role of the [404] Baltic port. He announced in his speech that Danzig would return to the Reich, and he added, “the Reich takes no declarations of Polish chauvinists seriously.” Chodacki retaliated on the following day. The Free City authorities had recently ordered the demolition of a Polish dwelling on Danzig territory which was in dangerous disrepair and violated local housing ordinances. The Polish authorities, in neighboring Tscew (Dirschau), had retaliated by ordering a local German mill owner to tear down his house. When Greiser expressed his indignation at this incident, they ordered the mill owner to demolish his mill. It had been assumed that this was an arbitrary action of local Polish authorities. Chodacki intervened on June 18, 1939, with the approval of Beck, and officially informed Danzig that “every official action undertaken by Danzig authorities against Polish property or Polish citizens will be followed by an official Polish announcement that a Czech legion to fight the Germans was being organized on Polish territory under General Lev Prchala, who had moved from Prague to Warsaw. Prchala announced in turn that he favored a federation of Czechs and Poles under Polish leadership. The Germans knew that there were very few Czechs willing to fight for Poland on these terms, but they were interested to learn that Polish federation ambitions now extended westward into the Czech area. It was obvious that the Poles would require the annexation of German Silesia to improve their contact with the Czechs.41

The Gazeta Poiska replied to the speech of Goebbels on June 20, 1939. The public was assured that it was a well-known fact throughout the world that Poland would not retreat before German pressure at Danzig. The arguments of Goebbels in favor of the reunion of Danzig with Germany were rejected, and it was considered deplorable that German rule at Tilsit and Memel in East Prussia enabled Hitler to control the mouth of the “Polish-Lithuanian Niemen River.” The Polish leaders were determined that Germany should never again control Danzig and the mouth of the Vistula River.42

German Ambassador Welczeck at Paris reported that he had discussed the latest Danzig incidents with French Foreign Minister Bonnet. He told Bonnet that Ribbentrop believed that German differences with Poland had to be resolved in 1939, and he was basing this statement on conversations with Ribbentrop at Berlin the previous month. The German Foreign Minister was intensely displeased with this report, and he denied that he ever had conveyed the impression of a time limit on the settlement of German-Polish differences. He ordered Welczeck on June 21, 1939, to refrain from discussing German policy with Bonnet until he received exact instructions from Berlin.43

Ribbentrop sent detailed instructions to Welczeck on June 30, 1939. He admitted that Germany had been seeking to apply pressure to Poland since the Hitler Reichstag speech of April 28, 1939. He insisted that Hitler’s purpose was to persuade the Poles to adopt a reasonable attitude, and not to apply an ultimatum with a time limit or to give the impression that German terms for a settlement were unchangeable. Ribbentrop continued to hope that Beck would align himself with the moderate group of Poles who were willing to come to terms with Germany. He added that it was not clear whether the more moderate group or the extremists would dominate the situation. He instructed Welczeck to tell Bonnet that the sole danger to European peace was a possible Polish “Harakiri-policy,” which would force Germany to act. He admitted that it [405] would be difficult to postpone a Polish-German settlement indefinitely because of the tension involved.

Weizsäcker added a memorandum to the instructions of Ribbentrop, which was designed to modify the impression created by the German Foreign Minister. Weizsäcker claimed that it would be wrong for Welczeck to deny explicitly that a settlement with Poland was necessary in 1939. He also implied that he accepted the right of Welczeck to have made his previous statement to Bonnet. He merely told him to create the impression that his previous statement was no longer entirely au courant.

The incident illustrates the liberty frequently taken by Weizsäcker in modifying instructions from Ribbentrop to German diplomatic envoys abroad. Weizsäcker knew that Welczeck disliked Ribbentrop for his loyalty to the National Socialist system, and he knew that the German Ambassador at Paris would take full advantage of the opportunity given him to avoid retraction of his previous statement to Bonnet. The German ship-of-state had many would-be captains in l939.44

The Danzig authorities continued to refuse total submission to Poland in the question of the customs inspectors. Two of the Polish inspectors were arrested in June 1939 on Chargés of illegal military activities. The Poles hoped to break Danzig resistance by an effective policy of retaliation. They terminated contacts between Danzigers and the German minority in Poland. They announced that the Germans of Poland would be denied permission to attend the Vistula Singing Festival at Danzig or the International Rowing Regatta. This was a severe reprisal against the many minority Germans who lived within a few miles of Danzig, and it was injurious to the business interests of the Danzigers.45

The small Polish population at Danzig enjoyed complete freedom of movement during this same period. The Polish Festival of the Sea was held at Gdynia from June 25-July 2, 1939. Budzynski, the Polish minority leader in the Danzig Volkstag, delivered a sensational speech at the festival. He assured his fellow Danzig Poles that the union of Danzig with Poland would be achieved by the Polish Army. The actual Day of the Sea in Poland, which was an annual holiday, came on June 29th. President Moscicki delivered a radio speech which was broadcast over all Polish stations. He stressed the economic importance of both Gdynia and Danzig to the Polish national economy, and he repeated the performance of Beck by ignoring the fact that Hitler always had promised full protection to Polish economic rights at Danzig. President Moscicki poetically described the Polish coast, which had formerly belonged to Germany, as the sun and the air of Polish national life. General Kwasniewski, the chairman of the Polish Naval and Colonial League, also delivered a speech. He claimed that Hitler, in seeking Danzig, was attempting to reduce Poland’s position on the Baltic Sea. He ignored the network of railways which connected Gdynia with the Polish hinterland and claimed that the mouth of the Vistula River was Poland’s natural access to the Baltic Sea. His speech contained a number of obvious hints that he favored Polish annexation of the so-called Free City.46

The Poles were furious with the defiance of Danzig in organizing her own militia for home defense. They blamed Hitler for this situation, which reminded them of the conflicts between the impromptu Sudeten volunteer corps and the Czechs in September 1938. The Polish Government protested to German [406] Ambassador Moltke on July 1, 1939, about the current military defense measures of the Danzig Government. They persuaded League High Commissioner Burckhardt to send a memorandum to Berlin on July 1st expressing concern about these measures. Burckhardt personally was not seriously alarmed by this situation, and he considered the Danzig defense measures understandable under the circumstances. On July 8, 1939, he told Viktor Boettcher, the chairman of the Danzig Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that the world was becoming tired of hearing about Danzig. He added that irresponsible rumors about alleged German action at Danzig were becoming less frequent.47

Senate President Greiser, who held a reserve commission in the German Navy, was absent from Danzig for several weeks in July on a training cruise. Danzig District Party Leader Albert Forster was in sole Chargé of Danzig policy in the interim period. He had visited England the previous summer, and he was much impressed with British military power. He feared that a Danzig conflict would involve Germany in war with Great Britain, and he continued to hope for a peaceful settlement which would permit the return of Danzig to the Reich. He concentrated his principal efforts during the absence of Greiser on a stiff Danzig press campaign against Polish restrictions and provocations. He continued to hope that it would be possible to arouse sympathy abroad, and especially in England, in favor of Danzig’s aspiration for self-determination.

Beck told French Ambassador Noël on July 6, 1939, that the Polish Government had decided that additional measures were necessary to meet the alleged threat from Danzig. Noël requested Beck to agree to consult with the Western Powers before taking drastic measures in the Free City. Beck refused to accept this commitment. He argued that he was not opposed to consultation in principle, but that the pressure of events might not permit him to consult with the Allies of Poland.48


Potocki’s Effort to Change Polish Policy

Beck was faced at this time with several pleas from Polish diplomats for an understanding with Germany. Polish Ambassador Jerzy Potocki, who was on leave from the United States, discussed the situation with Beck at the Polish Foreign Office on July 6, 1939. He told Beck that he had returned to Poland with the express purpose of proposing a change in Polish policy. He complained that the United States and England were suffering from a severe war psychosis. There had been wild rumors on the ship which brought him to Europe that the Germans had occupied Danzig. He insisted that the Jews, the leading capitalists, and the armament manufacturers of the West were united in a solid front for war. They were delighted to find their pretext in the Danzig issue and in Poland’s defiant attitude. Potocki added that the most repulsive factor was their complete and cold indifference to the destruction of Poland.

Potocki insisted that the Poles were merely negro slaves in the opinion of the Western profiteers. They were expected to work without receiving anything in return. He sought to appeal to Beck’s vanity by claiming that the Polish Foreign Minister was the only man they feared in Poland. He argued that the United States, despite Roosevelt’s fever for intervention in Europe, were actually [407] concentrating their own imperialist drive on Latin America. He assured Beck that it would be sheer illusion to expect the United States to intervene in Europe on behalf of Poland. Potocki was forced to conclude that his eloquent arguments produced no effect on the Polish Foreign Minister.49

Polish Ambassador Sokolnicki at Ankara supported Potocki in this effort. He was a close friend of Jan Szembek, and it was evident to Potocki and Sokolnicki that Szembek would accept their position if he were Polish Foreign Minister. It seemed likely, too, that Pilsudski would have rejected the Beck policy had he been alive. Sokolnicki confided to German Ambassador Papen at Ankara on July 14, 1939, that he would like to see a negotiated settlement between Germany and Poland before the Jews and the Free Masons had convinced the world that a catastrophic conflict was inevitable. The Polish diplomat added that he would be pleased to see the Anglo-Soviet alliance negotiations end in failure as soon as possible.50


Forster’s Attempted Danzig Détente

The American diplomats in Europe continued to oppose peace and urge war. Bullitt was disgusted with the failure of Bonnet to encourage Poland with a blank check at Danzig. He continued to warn Roosevelt that the French Foreign Minister was working for peace. Bullitt was delighted at times to find that Bonnet was pessimistic about the chances for peace. He reported with satisfaction on June 28, 1939, that Bonnet could see no way out for Hitler other than war. Biddle at Warsaw gave uncritical support to Polish policy at Danzig. He claimed in a report on July 12, 1939, that Viktor Boettcher, the unofficial Danzig foreign minister and a close personal friend of Burckhardt, had become openly aggressive and was no longer a “repressed imperialist.” Biddle failed to explain why a man who desired the reunion of his native city with his native country, according to the wishes of the vast majority of both parties, was an imperilist.5l

Senate President Greiser returned to Danzig on July 16, 1939, and conferred with Burckhardt the following morning. Burckhardt admitted that he preferred to deal with Greiser rather than Forster. Burckhardt told Greiser that he continued to hope that Halifax did not desire war for its own sake. He predicted again that the British would fail in their effort to conclude an alliance with the Soviet Union. He hoped that this failure would persuade the British to adopt a more reasonable attitude.

Greiser joined Burckhardt at a luncheon on July 17, 1939, with Chodacki and Smogorzewski, a prominent Polish journalist. Kasimierz Smogorzewski had directed Polish propaganda against German revisionist aspirations in the Corridor area for many years. Burckhardt arranged the luncheon to enable Greiser to gauge the current Polish attitude. Greiser noted afterward that he permitted Chodacki as usual to do most of the talking. He differed in this respect from Forster, who insisted on his own share of speech in any conversation with Chodacki. The Polish High Commissioner explained to Greiser that Poland knew exactly how many men and guns were available in Danzig for use against Poland. He said that Poland would know how to make proper use of this information [408] at the appropriate time. Chodacki added contemptuously that he had not responded to the recent wishes of Forster to discuss certain matters, because he was not certain that the latter had the permission of Hitler for such discussions. Chodacki said that he was always surprised by Forster’s dependence on Hitler, and he knew that everyone present realized that Danzig was under no political obligation to Germany. Greiser received the impression at the luncheon that it was virtually impossible to discuss the current situation with the Poles.52

Forster approached Burckhardt on July 18, 1939, with instructions to explain the attitude of Hitler toward the Danzig problem. Forster emphasized that German plans for a negotiated settlement with Poland were virtually the same as they had been earlier in the year. He added that it might be possible to postpone a settlement of the Danzig question until 1940 or 1941 if some relaxation of tension could be achieved. He declared that Germany was prepared to negotiate through League channels at Danzig to achieve this objective.

The Forster démarche created the impression that Hitler was contemplating the possibility of a German retreat at Danzig. Halifax was curious to know what the attitude of Poland would be in such a situation. He instructed Kennard to ask Beck if he would be willing to restrain the Polish press in the event of a German retreat, and to prevent unnecessary gloating over any weakening in the attitude of the German Government. Beck rejected this hypothetical question on July 25, 1939. He claimed that the Germans were simulating a détente in an effort to separate Great Britain from Poland. He insisted that tension between Germany and Poland was increasing rather than slackening. He confided that he was contemplating vigorous steps at Danzig in the near future which might require French and British support. It was evident to Halifax that Beck would not encourage a German retreat or press for an understanding with Germany on that basis.53

The Polish press throughout July delighted in taking the position that German policy was weak. The Illustrowany Kurier declared contemptuously that the German bluff was not fooling anyone. In replying to the question of whether or not war might soon break out, they declared: “Yes, but only through an error. Germany is the master of bluff. All her policies can be summed up in the single word: bluff!”

The same newspaper shifted its attention to the British attitude toward Germany after the Halifax inquiry at Warsaw. The editors observed on July 27, 1939, that things were very quiet in Germany, but that this was understandable because Hitler had “sick nerves.” This largest circulating Polish newspaper was not an official organ, but the articles which it printed were passed by the Polish censors. The extensive activity of these censors is indicated by the large number of blank spaces which appeared continuously in the private Polish press, instead of articles censored and suppressed by the authorities at the last minute.54

The anti-German campaign gained momentum in the official Polish press too, during July 1939. The Gazeta Poiska offered the amazing suggestion on July 31, 1939, that the best soldiers in the German Army of World War I had been Poles. It claimed that this conclusion followed from an objective analysis of the question. This was an incidental feature of a propaganda campaign conducted for many weeks to prove that Germany was afraid to accept the [409] polish challenge. The German press accused the Poles of ingratitude for the German role in the liberation of Poland in World War I, but it never claimed that the Polish soldiers or their leaders were cowards.55

Forster took another step at Danzig toward a détente on July 25, 1939. This followed a disagreeable incident on Sunday, July 23rd, in which Forster had been incorrectly informed that Poland intended to create an armed railway guard for use on the Danzig railways. The Forster démarche of July 25th took place immediately after this incident had been clarified. Forster informed Burckhardt that the Danzig militia could be disbanded by mid-September if there was a relaxation of tension between Germany and Poland. Burckhardt reported this statement to the British, and British Ambassador Kennard inquired about the Polish attitude toward it at the Polish Foreign Office. He was told that the step by Forster was an empty gesture devoid of significance. Beck was preparing a decisive step to terminate these gestures by Forster. Ambassador Bullitt received advance information at Paris that a Polish ultimatum to Danzig would soon be forthcoming, and he hastened to report this news to President Roosevelt.56


The Axis Peace Plan of Mussolini

The Italian leaders were worried by the increasing tension between Germany and Poland. Italian Ambassador Attolico discussed the situation with Ribbentrop at Castle Fuschl near Salzburg on July 25, 1939. Mussolini was considering the advisability of a conference with Hitler at the Brenner Pass, and a diplomatic conference of the European Powers which would not necessarily require the presence of Hitler and Mussolini. Attolico informed Ribbentrop that Mussolini had decided that a German-Polish war would not remain localized, and he was convinced that neither Germany nor Italy could face a major war.

Ribbentrop expressed his personal view that a German retreat in the Polish crisis would not be advantageous for either Germany or Italy. He hoped that Mussolini would do everything possible to create the impression that Italy would fight at the side of Germany in the event of a showdown. He believed that a determined Italo-German attitude in the present crisis was the best guarantee of peace. He knew that Hitler agreed with Mussolini that an actual war at the present time would be disadvantageous for Germany as well as for Italy, and he added that the German leader hoped to avoid a conflict with Great Britain and France if war broke out between Germany and Poland.

Ribbentrop warned Attolico that the Poles could easily provoke a war by an attack on Danzig or a series of intolerable provocations against Germany. He feared that the proposal for a conference would be interpreted as a sign of weakness which would make war more likely. This could be the decisive factor in producing Anglo-French intervention in any war which might arise between -Germany and Poland. He doubted that the Poles would agree to attend a conference proposed by Germany and Italy. Ribbentrop admitted that Halifax could probably produce a general war if he was seeking one at any price. He doubted if British military preparations were sufficiently advanced to warrant such a policy. He hoped that Germany would still find time to complete her [410] program of territorial revision before the British were ready for war. He was inclined to evaluate some of the comments made by Chamberlain and Halifax at Rome in January 1939 as mere bluff.

Ribbentrop believed that a meeting at this time between Hitler and Mussolini at the Brenner frontier railway station would be a theatrical gesture with nothing behind it. It would be more normal for Hitler to go to Florence with its art treasures, or to attend Italian Army maneuvers. Ribbentrop suspected that Count Massimo Magistrati, the counsellor of the Italian Embassy at Berlin, was the real author of the plans which Attolico presented. It was known that Magistrati was eager to reduce the Italian commitment to Germany. The text of the proposed Hitler-Mussolini communiquéfor the Brenner meeting offers ample indication as to why Ribbentrop was suspicious:

“The Fuehrer and the Duce, who have met on the Brenner Pass, after a lengthy examination of the situation, have, in face of the policy of encirclement of the Axis which is being pursued by the great Democracies, reaffirmed their desire for peace, and have agreed on the view that a conference between the interested Powers, if prepared through the normal diplomatic channels in a suitable manner, could lead to a solution of the main problems which are disturbing Europe and inaugurate a period of peace and prosperity for the peoples.”

The sentiments of the proposed communiqué reflected the admirable devotion of Mussolini to the preservation of peace, but they lacked every indication of firmness in the face of Polish provocations and unlimited British support to Poland.57

Attolico discussed the situation with Weizsäcker at Berlin on July 29, 1939. He insisted that Mussolini continued to favor the proposed communiqué for a Brenner meeting not later than August 4, 1939. Ciano was also urging the immediate preparation of a general diplomatic conference. The Italian Foreign Minister believed that it would be better to have the conference then than to wait for the pressure of events a month hence to force it on everyone. Attolico suggested that separate Italian and German statements along the lines of the proposed Brenner communiqu6 might be an adequate substitute for a Brenner meeting. The important point, according to Attolico, was the issuance of public declarations by Italy and Germany that the preservation of peace was necessary under all circumstances. The failure of the Germans to accept this view produced the initiative for the Ciano visit to Germany two weeks later. The disagreement between Germany and Italy was profound, and it was decided that personal conversations would be required before joint steps could be contemplated by the two allied Powers.58


The Peace Campaign of Otto Abetz

French Foreign Minister Bonnet wrote a revealing letter to Ribbentrop on July 25, 1939. It contained a belated denial of the German contention in response to the French protest of March 18, 1939, about the occupation of Prague. According to the Germans, Bonnet had promised Ribbentrop that France would reduce her military commitments in Eastern Europe. Bonnet reminded [411] Ribbentrop that the Franco-Polish alliance of 1921 had always remained a specific indication of French commitments in the East. Bonnet concluded his letter, which was made available to the public, with the comment that he could not “permit it to be said that our country would be in any way responsible for war because it had honored its signature.” The German Foreign Minister suspected that this letter was a gesture designed to convince the Russians that France was sincere in her willingness to oppose Germany.

German relations with France at this time were complicated by the Abetz case. Two French journalists were arrested in June 1939 for allegedly accepting German funds, and the outcry was raised in the French press that Otto Abetz, who worked for the Comité France-Allemagne, was responsible for the spread of defeatism in France. The specific Chargé was that Abetz had said that the German cause at Danzig was just, and that Germany would regain possession of her lost city. Daladier informed the German diplomats at Paris on June 30, 1939, that he had ordered the expulsion of Abetz from France. Bonnet had previously advised Abetz to leave voluntarily in order to avoid an unpleasant expulsion incident, and Abetz departed from Paris on the morning of June 30th. The Temps on July 1, 1939, denounced Abetz as a German propagandist.

Welczeck discussed the situation with Daladier on July 11, 1939, and he stressed the fact that Abetz was a close personal friend of Ribbentrop. Daladier agreed to re-investigate the case, and Welczeck advised him to consult Senator Henry-Haye, the Mayor of Versailles, who was a close friend of Abetz. Welczeck, who denied that it was fair to classify Abetz as a propagandist, complained that much of the French press had regarded the expulsion order as proof that Abetz was guilty of “spy activity.” He added that no one had claimed the slightest connection between Abetz and the French journalists, Aubin and Poirier, who were accused of accepting foreign funds. Daladier responded by issuing a special communiqué on July 15, 1939, that Abets was not guilty of espionage activity. It was announced that Abets had left the country voluntarily and that consequently no formal expulsion order had actually been issued against him.50

The situation was complicated by ruthless attacks against Abetz by Henri de Kerillis, after the former had departed from France. The veteran French belliciste claimed in l‘Epoque that Abetz was guilty of inciting Frenchmen to treason. Abetz knew that it would be impossible to sustain this monstrous Chargé before a French court, and he repeatedly requested Ribbentrop for permission to return to France. He argued that he had every right to do so in the absence of the threatened formal expulsion order. Ribbentrop at last consented on August 2, 1939, but Abetz was detained by the French authorities at Belfort and forced to return to Germany. Welczeck was instructed not to come to Germany on leave in August 1939 until he had done everything possible to enable Abetz to return to France, where he intended to launch a lawsuit against Kerillis. The issue was of major importance because of the large number of friends Abetz had made among Frenchmen through his selfless work over the years for a Franco-German understanding. The French Government decided that it was impossible to retreat in this question, and Abetz was compelled to remain in Germany.60

    [412]        413
The Polish Ultimatum to Danzig

A dangerous new incident took place in Danzig at the time of Forster’s démarche with Burckhardt on July 25, 1939. A Polish soldier, Budziewicz, was slain in mysterious circumstances on Danzig territory by Stein, a Danzig customs official. Stein swore that he had acted in self-defense, but he was immediately arrested on a Chargé of manslaughter. The Danzig authorities made a full apology to Chodacki, and promised to pay an indemnity. The contrast between the conduct of Danzig in the Budziewicz murder and Polish conduct in the Grübnau murder at Kalthof was painfully obvious. This contrast was concealed from the Polish public. The Polish press claimed that Polish personnel in Danzig were being indiscriminately assaulted by Danzigers, and that Budziewicz had been murdered without provocation on Polish territory.61

The Danzig Government present [413]ed two protest notes to the Poles on July 29, 1939, concerning illegal activities of Polish customs inspectors and frontier officials. The Danzig Government objected to hostile Polish economic measures and threatened to undertake reprisals. The Polish Government ignored this warning, and on August 1, 1939, it terminated the export of duty-free herring and margarine from Danzig to Poland, although the sale of these items to Poland constituted 10% of the total trade of the Free City. The local French representatives at Danzig noted with amusement that the Amada Unida company, which enjoyed a monopoly in the production of Danzig margarine, was financed by English and Dutch capital. Danziger Vorposten (The Danzig Sentinel) suggested that reprisals should be taken against Polish customs inspectors. It was pointed out that the number of Polish customs inspectors, before the recent increase, was 400% above the 1929 level, although the trade of Danzig remained much smaller in 1939 than it had been ten years earlier. The cost of the increased number of inspectors was carried exclusively by the impoverished Danzig community.

Chodacki used the irresponsible suggestion of the Vorposten editorial as a pretext to humiliate Danzig. He received permission from Beck to present an outrageous ultimatum to Greiser on August 4, 1939. Lukasiewicz confided to Bullittt on August 3rd that Poland intended to take this step at Danzig. Senate President Greiser received official notification in the early hours of August 5, 1939, that the frontiers of Danzig would be closed to the importation of all foreign food products unless the Danzig Government promised by 6:00 p.m. the same day, never to interfere with the activities of Polish customs inspectors. The threat was formidable, because Danzig produced a relatively small proportion of her own food. Greiser was informed that every Polish customs inspector would bear arms while performing his duty after August 5, 1939. League High Commissioner Burckhardt was not consulted by the Poles, and he did not receive official notification of the Polish step until August 6th. Burckhardt, in his detailed memoirs of his Danzig mission, recorded more than twenty years later, described the Polish ultimatum of August 4th as a major mistake which produced only adverse effects. It was obvious that the Poles intended to replace the League as the sovereign Power at Danzig. Chodacki concluded many years later that the Polish ultimatum of August 4th (dated August 4th, presented August 5th) was a serious tactical mistake. It was not [413] based on any specific incident or hostile act of the Danzig Government. The fact remains that the ultimatum was approved by Beck, who continued to place his full confidence in Chodacki.62


Danzig’s Capitulation Advised by Hitler

Hitler concluded that Poland was seeking to provoke an immediate conflict with Germany. He advised Greiser to capitulate at once, because he feared that the Poles might proclaim a blockade of Danzig before the expiration of the Polish note. Greiser contacted Chodacki on the morning of August 5th to inform him that Danzig submitted to the Polish ultimatum.

Greiser addressed a lengthy note to Chodacki on August 7, 1939, after the first phase of the crisis had passed. He reminded the Polish High Commissioner that no order for interference with the Polish customs inspectors had been issued by the Danzig Government. He expressed astonishment that Chodacki had threatened to starve Danzig for no apparent reason, and he protested against the new Polish directive which provided for the total militarization of the Polish customs inspectors in Danzig. This note was dispatched with the approval of the German Government. Hitler believed that it was necessary to encourage Danzig, after the humiliation of her capitulation to Poland, by intervening directly in this question. Weizsäcker invited Polish Chargé d’Affaires Prince Lubomirski to call at the German Foreign Office on August 9, 1939. He read the contents of a German note verbale, which contained the significant warning that Germany renounced all responsibility for the consequences of further-Polish persecution of the Danzigers. The note stated that Germany vigorously protested against an ultimatum to Danzig based on non-existent measures. Lubomirski requested a written copy of the note. Weizsäcker explained that he had no authority to present a written note, but he granted Lubomirski permission to make his own copy from the German original.63

Beck had explained to Kennard late on August 4, 1939, and shortly before Chodacki presented the Polish ultimatum to Danzig, that the Polish Government was prepared to take military measures against Danzig if the Danzigers failed to accept the Polish terms. He later professed to believe that the German note verbale of August 9th was insulting to Poland. He instructed one of his subordinates on August 10th to summon German Chargé d’Affaires Baron Wuehlisch. The contents of a Polish note verbale much longer than the German note of the previous day were read to the German diplomat in the Polish language. The German Government was warned that Poland would consider further German intervention against Polish interests at Danzig an act of aggression. The Polish Government disclaimed responsibility for the consequences which would ensue if the German Government persisted in its efforts to protect Danzig. Baron Wuehlisch was told that the German step of the previous day allegedly constituted a legal violation. Poland, the League of Nations, and the Danzig Government had certain legal rights in Danzig territory, but Germany had no rights in that area. The German Government was informed that Poland did not consider that Danzig was a legitimate subject of German concern, and the Polish diplomats professed to [414] be surprised that Germany had dared to intervene on the previous day.

The German Government was further informed that Polish willingness to discuss Danzig with Germany in the past had been a voluntary gesture of good will on the part of Poland, which the Polish Government was no longer willing to permit. Wuehlisch was told that the Polish ultimatum at Danzig of August 4th was delivered with the advance approval of the British and French Governments. This allegation was untrue. Beck had deliberately avoided consulting with the Western Powers in order to demonstrate his readiness to exercise an independent initiative at Danzig in the question of peace or war. He had informed Kennard that the Polish Government was prepared to take military action at Danzig, but he had not consulted with the British Government. The Danzigers, on their part, were fully convinced that Poland would have proceeded to execute a full military occupation of Danzig had Greiser rejected the Polish ultimatum.

Wuehlisch was informed on August 10th that it would be necessary for him to copy the text of the Polish note from the Polish language version if he wished to have it in writing. The German diplomat immediately expressed his willingness to do so. The exchange of German and Polish notes was interpreted in the various European capitals as a new indication that Poland refused to renew negotiations with Germany and that she insisted upon a unilateral Polish solution at Danzig.64

American Ambassador Bullitt at Paris informed President Roosevelt on August 3, 1939, that Beck was predicting that an intense and decisive phase of the crisis between Germany and Poland might occur before August 15, 1939. President Roosevelt knew that Poland was obviously to blame for the crisis which began at Danzig on August 4th, and he was alarmed at the prospect that the American public might learn the truth about the situation. This could be a decisive factor in discouraging his program for American military intervention m Europe. He instructed Under-Secretary Sumner Welles on August 11, 1939, to order American Ambassador Biddle to advise the Poles about this problem. President Roosevelt urged the Poles to be more clever in making it appear that German moves were responsible for any inevitable explosion at Danzig.

The response of Beck to American intervention was not encouraging. Biddle reported to President Roosevelt, at midnight on August 11th, that the Polish Government had decided that there could be absolutely no concessions to Germany. Beck was obviously unwilling to engage in a series of elaborate but empty maneuvers which might have been useful in deceiving the American public. Beck wished the American President to know that he was content at the moment to have full British support for his policy. Beck showed Biddle a report from Polish Ambassador Raczynski at London on August 13, 1939. The report contained the explicit approval of Halifax for recent Polish measures at Danzig.65

The Polish ultimatum of August 4, 1939, which was based on the most flimsy of pretexts, had effectively destroyed the efforts of Hitler and Forster to secure a détente in German-Polish relations at Danzig. The Polish Government had ignored the suggestion of Forster that it might be possible to disband the Danzig militia if the situation at Danzig became more calm. It was manifestly impossible for Forster to persist in his conciliatory efforts in the atmosphere created by [415] the Polish ultimatum. It was apparent to the German Government that the British and French were either unable or unwilling to restrain the Polish Government from arbitrary steps which could produce an explosion. The Poles had extended their position at Danzig on August 5, 1939, by forcing the consent of the Danzig Government for the total militarization of the Polish customs service at Danzig. The Danzig Government had forfeited the right to intervene against Polish customs inspectors who violated the local ordinances of the Free City. There was reason to fear that the Polish Government might present a new ultimatum, without interference or restraint from Great Britain or France, demanding the final abdication of the National Socialist regime at Danzig. The alternatives in this situation would be the abandonment of German aspirations at Danzig or war.

League High Commissioner Burckhardt believed that Poland was utterly wrong in her claim that the Danzig Government had no right to restrict the activities of the Polish customs inspectors to specific areas based upon the existing agreements. He had received detailed information from Forster on August 3, 1939, about Hitler’s instructions for an effort to end the friction with Poland at Danzig. Burckhardt discussed the question of the customs inspectors with Chodacki, but he admitted to Forster that he had received “ a very unfriendly reception. He added that the Polish High Commissioner was not interested in the attempt of Hitler to exert a moderating influence on Danzig. Hitler consulted with Forster at the Obersalzberg from August 7-9, 1939. He did not give Forster permission to challenge Poland in the question of the Polish customs inspectors, but he indicated that there was obviously no point in further efforts by the local Danzig leaders to achieve a détente with Poland. Forster was told on August 9th that he would have to decide on the spot at Danzig whether or not anything could be gained from further discussions with the Poles about the customs inspectors. Forster returned to Danzig the same day with the impression that there was nothing to do but wait for further developments on the larger European scene.66


German Military Preparations

Germany’s plans for a possible war with Poland were complete by this time. The various conferences between Hitler and his military leaders, after the operational planning order of April 11, 1939, have been the subject of speculation, but there are no official records available for any of these conferences. Colonel Rudolf Schmundt, who was Hitler’s military adjutant, was the alleged author of two unofficial records, compiled after the event, of an important military conference on May 23, 1939. Schmundt died of wounds received in the assassination attempt against Hitler on July 20, 1944, and the question of his alleged authorship has remained unresolved.67

Several of Hitler’s biographers have warned that it would be dangerous to attach much importance to the dubious records attributed to Schmundt. Ribbentrop recalled after World War II that Hitler “repeatedly told me that one had to talk with military men as if war was about to break out here or there on the next day.” This is an obvious fact to every analyst of the relations between [416] political and military leaders, but it does not seem to apply to this particular conference. General Wilhelm Keitel, who recalled the specific details of this meeting with great clarity after World War II, noted that he left the conference of May 23rd with the firm belief that there would be no war in 1939.68

The so-called Schmundt notes suggest that Hitler was envisaging the possibility of conflict with both Poland and the Western Powers, but that he hoped to prevent the intervention of the Western Powers by diplomatic means if there was war between Germany and Poland. This phase of the record is consistent with various declarations by Hitler, and it corresponds to the version of Keitel. The detailed comments in the notes, such as the alleged statement by Hitler that Germany was “at present in a state of patriotic fervor” are of doubtful validity.69

The actual German military plan had been worked out in most of its details before the conference of May 23, 1939. The Germans intended to rely heavily on airpower in the event of war with Poland, but it was stipulated that only military objectives would be bombed. The principal offensive operations of the ground forces were to be launched from East Prussia and Pomerania in the North, and from West Upper Silesia and Western Slovakia in the South. The preliminary deployment of German troops for possible operations was in process at the time of the Polish ulitmatum to Danzig of August 4, 1939, and it was completed on August 20th. The Slovakian Government had agreed to extend full cooperation to Germany in the event of war, although there was no German request for the deployment of the Slovak armed forces against Poland. German Ambassador Moltke at Warsaw was informed of this agreement on August 4, 1939. The German consulate at Lwow predicted on August 7, 1939, that the Ukrainian minority of Poland would stage an insurrection against the Poles in the event of a German-Polish war.70


Hungarian Peace Efforts

Hitler was considerably annoyed at this time by a needless démarche of the Hungarian Government. He received Hungarian Foreign Minister Istvan Csaky at Berchtesgaden on August 8, 1939, to discuss the contents of a letter of July 24th from Hungarian Premier Paul Teleki to Hitler. Teleki had announced that moral considerations would prevent Hungary from joining Germany in war against Poland in the event of a German-Polish conflict. Hitler told Csaky that he was shocked by this letter. He had never expected Hungary to participate in such a war, and he added that Hungarian intervention in the event of a conflict would be unwelcome. Hitler conceded that Danzig had capitulated to the Polish ultimatum of August 4th, but he promised that a new Polish ultimatum would be answered by appropriate action from Germany. He predicted that Hungary would lose her recent territorial acquisitions if a major war took place in which Germany suffered a new defeat. Hitler admitted that Slovakia had achieved an important position in current German strategic plans for possible war with Poland, but he promised that Germany had no desire to retain the preponderant foreign influence in that country. He warned Csaky that a Bolshevist type of Pan-Slavism would triumph with terrible results for the [417] Germans and Hungarians if Germany lost another war.

Csaky replied that Hungary was fully aware of the validity of what Hitler had said. He added that Lord Vansittart, the Diplomatic Adviser to His Britannic Majesty’s Government, had clarified this point by adopting a threatening attitude toward Hungary. Csaky was well aware of the vindictive British policy toward Hungary at the Paris peace conference in 1919. The Hungarian Premier had merely wished to make his position clear in the special situation concerning Poland. Csaky emphasized the traditional friendship between Hungary and Poland, and added that national honor would preclude Hungarian action against Poland.

Hitler replied that it was unpleasant to hear Csaky praising the Poles at a time when the Germans in Poland were suffering bestial treatment at Polish hands. Hitler discussed the current excesses in Poland at considerable length. He confided that he had forbidden publicity about Polish atrocities which involved the physical mutilation and torture of individual Germans. Csaky countered with a diatribe against the Rumanians and their alleged mistreatment of the Hungarian minority. He was irritated by the increasing friendliness in German-Rumanian relations, and he tried without success to obtain some indication that Germany favored Hungarian territorial revision against Rumania.

Hitler emphasized in a second conversation later in the day that the unsolicited letter from Teleki was a most unnecessary affront. He explained the insulting implications of the letter from the Hungarian leader in trenchant terms, and he produced a strong impression on Csaky. The Hungarian diplomat was unable to deny that Hitler had never offered the slightest hint that he wished Hungary to fight Poland. Csaky accepted Hitler’s analysis of the situation, and he asserted that he would resign if Premier Teleki did not agree to disavow the letter. He returned to Budapest and persuaded Premier Teleki to apologize to Hitler. The Teleki letter and the Csaky visit were demonstrations calculated to influence German policy toward Poland, but they were staged without any concrete basis, and for this reason they inevitably failed to produce an effect. The unhappy Hungarians would have been delighted to mediate between Germany and Poland, but they knew that Beck opposed concessions to the Germans. Hungary confronted the tragedy of a conflict between the two nations which were traditionally her closest friends, and her leaders knew that a major war resulting from this local conflict might lead to the destruction of Hungary.71

James Farley, the American Democratic Party Campaign Manager and Postmaster-General, was visiting Berlin at this time. President Roosevelt feared that Farley might discover the facts about the hopeless dilemma which the provocative policy of Poland created for Germany. He instructed the American Embassy at Berlin to prevent unsupervised contacts between Farley and the German leaders. The German Foreign Office concluded on August 10, 1939, that it was not possible to penetrate the wall of censorship around Farley. They realized that President Roosevelt was determined to prevent them from freely communicating with visiting American leaders.72
 [418]
The Polish ultimatum to Danzig on August 5, 1939, had effectively undermined the conciliatory efforts of Hitler and Burckhardt in the Free City. Beck permitted the Polish radio on August 4th to begin Czech language broadcasts urging an insurrection against the Germans in Bohemia-Moravia. He considered that these steps were a fitting prelude to the great national holiday of the Polish regime on August 6, 1939. This was the day of the Pilsudski Legions in Poland. It had been twenty-five years since the small cadres of Polish auxiliary soldiers had gone into action against the forces of Tsarist Russia in the opening phase of World War I. These Polish soldiers had contributed to the German campaigns which forced the Russian troops to evacuate Poland. The mammoth three day celebration of this anniversary in August 1939 was centered at Krakow. Pilsudski’s widow traveled from Warsaw to Krakow by automobile. She was the symbolic representative of the great Marshal who had died in 1935. It was a time of strong emotions. Alexandra Pilsudska willingly told everyone in August 1939 that her husband always had said that a war with Germany would be inevitable sooner or later. She also said that her husband had regarded war as the greatest school for mankind. She claimed that he had doubted if it ever would be possible to find an adequate substitute for war.73

A torch was lit over the heart of Pilsudski at Rossa cemetery in Wilna. A relay of Polish runners carried the torch 488 miles to Krakow. A total of 12,000 runners also carried similar torches from other outlying towns. At Krakow there were dedication ceremonies for every Polish military group of the 20th century. There was a roll of drums for each man of the Pilsudski Legions who had been killed in battle. Everywhere the official slogan of the celebration was on display:

“We are not Austria or Czechoslovakia! We are different!”

The Government hoped to inspire a spirit of exultation in the allegedly glorious conflict with Germany. No one was permitted to question the assumption that war with Germany was inevitable.

Marshal Smigly-Rydz presented the keynote address on August 6, 1939. He assured his listeners that Poland was prepared to cope with any moves from the other side in the Danzig dispute. The audience responded with an enthusiastic cry: “We want Danzig!” The Marshal reminded his listeners that each Polish individual was bound by a sacred oath to defend the country and its cause. He exclaimed that the personal life of every citizen would be infamous if a stain was permitted to appear on the escutcheon of Polish honor. The Marshal claimed that Poland respected peace, “but there is no force that could convince us that the word ‘peace’ means ‘take’ for some people and ‘give’ for others.” He followed the line of Beck’s speech on May 5, 1939, by deceiving his audience about the true nature of Hitler’s offer to Poland. He concealed the fact that Hitler had offered vital and extensive concessions to Poland in exchange for lesser German requests. The Marshal insisted that Poland would retaliate against any German move at Danzig. He described the Free City, which did not belong to Poland, as a vital lung of the Polish national organism. 74

Moltke reported to Berlin on August 8, 1939, that the speech of Smigly-Rydz was more moderate than those of the other Legion leaders. The German Ambassador shared the opinion of Dirksen that Germany should abandon her [419] effort to recover Danzig. He claimed that Smigly-Rydz was thinking exclusively in economic terms when he described Danzig as a Polish lung. He suggested that the speech of the Marhsal indicated that new negotiations with the Polish leaders were still possible. He failed to define the reasons which prompted him to arrive at this conclusion, and he presented no specific proposals for opening negotiations. He admitted that the tone of the Polish press was lacking in moderation.75

A startling presentation appeared in the Polish press on August 7, 1939. The Polish censors permitted the Illustrowany Kurjer at Krakow to feature an article of unprecedented recklessness. It was claimed that Polish units were constantly crossing the German frontier to destroy German military installations and to carry confiscated German military equipment into Poland. It was noted with satisfaction that these endeavors were stimulated by a keen spirit of competition. The Polish Government failed to prevent the newspaper, with the largest circulation in Poland, from advertising to the world that Germany was experiencing a series of violations of her frontier with Poland. The situation was trenchantly summarized by Polish Ambassador Jerzy Potocki after he returned to the United States in August 1939 from his unsuccessful mission to persuade Beck to seek an agreement with the Germans. Potocki explained that “Poland prefers Danzig to peace.”76

The Day of the Legions was the last great national celebration to occur in the Poland of Pilsudski. It proved impossible for the Polish state, which Pilsudski had created, to survive the consequences of the foreign policy pursued by Jozef Beck. The Polish state was heading for a war which was entirely unnecessary. Beck was deliberately gambling on the unlikely possibility that the inevitable defeat of Poland, in the early phase of the war, would be temporary because the Halifax war policy would provide for the destruction of both Germany and the Soviet Union. His prediction that there could never be lasting harmony between Great Britain and the Soviet Union was sound, but he overestimated the British and underestimated the Russians. He ignored the fact that Halifax and the other British leaders were coldly indifferent about the future of Poland, and that they would not fail to sacrifice Polish interests whenever it was considered expedient to do so. Poland was useful to Halifax in fomenting a war against Germany, but that was all. Beck might well have pondered the famous quotation from Schiller: “The Moor has done his duty; the Moor can go.” The British Government willingly gave ex post facto approval to the Polish ultimatum of August 4, 1939. This was solely because Halifax wanted war. The British Government under normal circumstances would have denounced the diplomacy of Beck in scathing terms. Beck would have received the warning that further steps of this kind meant the end of British obligations to Poland, had the British Government favored peace.


The Peaceful Inclination of the Polish People

It would have been possible after August 6, 1939, for Beck to modify his policy and to retrieve his earlier position. He claimed to be a master of the equilibrium policy which required a careful balance between two rival neighboring Powers. [420] Beck was applying this policy in his relations with Germany and the Soviet Union. It would have been more profitable for him to do so, during August 1939, in his relations with Great Britain and Germany. It was not too late for him to arrive at a settlement with Hitler on terms highly advantageous for Poland. It was Beck, and not Hitler, who had discouraged further negotiations.

It was true that the polish Government had succeeded in creating enthusiasm for war and excitement against the German minority in Poland. It would be a grave error to assume that the Polish population in August 1939 would have been deaf to a peace policy had the facts about German-Polish relations been presented with greater objectivity. It was noted by careful observers in Poland, in the Summer of 1939, that the morale among the common people was far from what the Polish press claimed. A long period of uncertainty had followed the exciting days of the partial mobilization in March 1939, and this had produced a depressing effect. Many men had been called into service, and the small businesses of the country were suffering from a new economic slump. Many rumors were circulating that the British had been extremely niggardly in their offers of financial support, and these rumors were all too true. It was often said that there would long since have been a settlement of the crisis had it not been for the acceptance of the British guarantee. The prolonged duration of the crisis increased the likelihood that the Polish public would welcome a peaceful solution.77

Poland had a unique, valuable mission to perform for Europe as a bulwark against Bolshevism. Her commitment to the war policy of Lord Halifax was the main obstacle to the successful performance of this mission in 1939.

[421]
Chapter 17


THE BELATED ANGLO-FRENCH
COURTSHIP OF RUSSIA

Soviet Russia as Tertius Gaudens

Halifax failed to draw the Soviet Union into a conflict with Germany after the British guarantee to Poland. The Soviet leaders hoped for a conflict between Germany and the Western Powers which would exhaust the capitalist states and create conditions favorable for the expansion of Bolshevism. The Soviet leaders had feared that Great Britain, France, and the United States would frustrate this hope by doing everything possible to promote an isolated war between Germany and the Soviet Union. This would have seemed the logical policy from the standpoint of nations allegedly opposed to both Communism and Fascism. The Soviet leaders were delighted by the apparent determination of Halifax, after March 1939, to foment an Anglo-German War with or without the participation of the Soviet Union. This was the greatest contribution he could possibly make to the realization of Communist goals.l

The Soviet Union in April 1939 was under no obligation to participate in an Anglo-French conflict against Germany on behalf of Poland. French Foreign Minister Bonnet was fully aware of this fact. The Soviet leaders had agreed to support France in the event of a German attack, but they had not consented to support a French attack against Germany in a conflict between Germany and some third country. This situation produced a sharp disagreement between Bonnet and Halifax. Bonnet did not relish the prospect of Stalin witnessing a European War with folded arms in Epicurean detachment. Bonnet was decidedly unsympathetic with Halifax’s desire to go to war with Germany under these circumstances.2

Premier Daladier of France was inclined to believe that Soviet participation in a mutual assistance front against Germany would prevent the outbreak of a new European War. It is important to note that this attitude was not shared by the British Government, for very obvious reasons. Daladier was thinking in terms of a flexible policy toward Germany, largely reminiscent of the earlier [422] Chamberlain appeasement policy, in which the threat of force would be tempered by a certain amount of conciliation. The British were intent upon pursuing an uncompromising policy which would force Germany into war. It was for these reasons that the British Foreign Office emphatically denied that a treaty with Russia was the magic formula which would avoid a new European War. Indeed, they would not have been inclined to work for a treaty to prevent the outbreak of a new war.3

It is extremely doubtful that Russia would have concluded an alliance with Great Britain, had Halifax ignored Poland and pressed for an alliance with Russia after the Polish refusal of the pro-Soviet alliance offer on March 24, 1939. The Soviet reply of March 21, 1939, to the Four Power alliance plan appeared to be favorable, but it was carefully hedged by the qualification that the Soviet Union would expect Poland to agree to the treaty. Stalin and Litvinov were fully aware of the hostile Polish attitude toward their country, and they knew that Polish participation in an alliance front with Russia was exceedingly unlikely. Stalin had explained in his speech to the 18th Congress of the Communist Party on March 10, 1939, that he hoped to avoid a conflict with Germany.4


Russian Detachment Encouraged by the Polish Guarantee

The guarantee to Poland of March 31, 1939, further diminished whatever chances there might have been for an Anglo-Franco-Soviet alliance front. It was obvious after the guarantee that Great Britain, and not Russia, was in immediate danger of involvement in war with Germany. The different situations of the two Powers reduced the chances for an agreement. France and the Soviet Union had concluded their alliance in 1935 under more favorable conditions. British proposals to Russia in 1939 were reminiscent of the vain appeal of George III to Catherine II of Russia in 1776 for Cossack troops to use against the American colonists. The Tsarina had no desire to involve Russia needlessly in a British war.5

The guarantee to Poland in terms of power politics was equivalent to a major diminution of British power. Poland was a feeble country both militarily and economically. The ordinary motive for alliances is to obtain an important increment of power in exchange for assuming the liability of danger points in the foreign relations of any new partner. The British agreement with Poland carried with it a maximum of danger and a minimum of power. The Russians knew that Great Britain had weakened both her political and military position in Europe by extending the guarantee to Poland.6


The Soviet Union as a Revisionist Power

The attempt of Halifax to secure an alliance with Russia was further complicated by the fact that the Soviet Union was a revisionist Power. The Soviet Union was seeking to establish the Communist system throughout the world, and they also desired to annex important European territories to Russia. Soviet diplomats [423] had begun to discuss their territorial aspirations in Finland, with Finnish Foreign Minister Rudolf Hoisti, as early as April 14, 1938. There were Soviet requests for close military collaboration between Russia and Finland. The negative attitude of the Finnish Government toward these proposals led to the launching of a Soviet press campaign against Finland in August 1938. The Finns rejected a proposal from Soviet Foreign Commissar Litvinov on March 5, 1939, for Soviet bases in Finland. The Finnish leaders knew that the Soviet Union was determined to renew Russian domination over Finland, and they were no less alarmed than the Poles, Rumanians, and Baltic nations by the alliance negotiations between the Western Powers and Russia. It was obvious to everyone that Russian armies might penetrate into the heart of Europe in the event of an Anglo-Franco-Soviet war against Germany.7

American Ambassador Bullitt at Paris was not enthusiastic about the Anglo-French attempt to conclude an alliance with the Soviet Union. He was inclined to agree with the hostile Polish attitude toward Russia. Bullitt had been American Ambassador at Moscow from 1933 to 1936, and he had few illusions about the Soviet Union. He suggested in his final report from Moscow on April 20, 1936, that the Russian standard of living was possibly lower than that of any other country in the world. He reported that the Bulgarian Comintern leader, Dimitrov, had admitted that Soviet popular front and collective security tactics were aimed at undermining the foreign capitalist systems. He insisted that relations of sincere friendship between the Soviet Union and the United States were an impossibility. He admitted that a conflict between Germany and France would expose Europe to the danger of Communist domination. He believed that it was worth taking this risk in order to destroy Germany, but he was fully aware of the danger involved.8

President Roosevelt was aware that economic and social conditions in Germany were far superior to those in the Soviet Union. Ambassador Joseph E. Davies, who succeeded Bullitt at Moscow, reported to Roosevelt on April 1, 1938, that the terror in Russia was “a horrifying fact.” Davies also complained about the gigantic Soviet expenditures on armaments, and he reported that about 25% of the total Soviet national income in 1937 was spent on defense, compared to 10% in Germany. Davies reported that Stalin in a letter to Pravda on February 14, 1938, had confirmed his intention to spread the Communist system throughout the world. Stalin promised that the Soviet Government would work with foreign Communists to achieve this goal. He concluded his letter by stating: “I wish very much . . . that there were no longer on earth such unpleasant things as a capitalistic environment, the danger of a military attack, the danger of the restoration of capitalism, and so on.” Davies mentioned that General Ernst Koestring, the veteran German military attaché in the Soviet Union, continued to hold a high opinion of the Red Army despite the gigantic purges of 1937 in the Russian military services. Davies concluded that the Soviet Union could best be described as “a terrible tyranny.” The presentation of these reports did not prompt President Roosevelt to withdraw the statement he had made in his major address at Chicago on October 6, 1937, that the Soviet Union was one of the peace-loving nations of the world. Roosevelt was fully aware of the danger from Communism, but he [424] believed that this consideration was unimportant compared to his preferred objective of destroying Naional Socialist Germany.9

American Chargé d’Affaires Alexander Kirk reported on February 22, 1939, that there was much talk in the Soviet Union about a change in foreign policy. He noted that above all there seemed to be an almost universal desire to improve Soviet relations with Germany. He gave no reasons for this development, but the obvious deduction was that reports were reaching the Soviet Union that Great Britain was about to challenge Germany. This was undoubtedly a potent factor in diminishing the need to maintain the fiction of collective security and general pacts of mutual assistance. These devices had been useful in involving Great Britain and France in disputes with Germany and Italy, but there was no longer any need for them. Kirk noted that Anastas Mikoyan, the brilliant Commissar for Trade, was encroaching on Litvinov in the conduct of Soviet foreign policy. Mikoyan, who had fought the British on the barricades at Baku after World War I, was known as a staunch advocate of momentarily normal and peaceful relations with Germany. He was increasingly useful to Stalin at a time when the Soviet Union was seeking to distance herself from the disputes between Germany and the Western Powers. Kirk reported rumors that Litvinov, the apostle of collective security, would soon be retired.l0

It was very late for a British approach to the Soviet Union when the 18th Communist Party Congress opened on March 10, 1939. Stalin claimed in his keynote speech that the capitalist countries throughout the world were becoming weaker. He predicted the outbreak of a new imperialist war between Fascism and an Anglo-Franco-American combination. He declared that Great Britain and France had good reason to fear revolution in the event of war. Stalin claimed that the British and French leaders were seeking for this reason to involve Germany and the Soviet Union in an isolated war, and he accused the press in the United States, Great Britain, and France of attempting to poison Russo-German relations after the Munich conference. These claims of Stalin were dutifully repeated by subsequent speakers at the Congress. Soviet Defense Commissar Kliment Voroshilov boasted on March 13, 1939, that the Red Army had been more than doubled during the past five years. He claimed that Russian victories, at Lake Khasan and Chenkufeng, over Japanese troops in July and August 1938 had given the lie to the alleged weakening of the Red Army in the recent purges. Voroshilov added that the Red Army had received 34,000 political commissars for the improvement of the morale of the troops. He denounced British and French diplomacy designed to promote a Russo-German war.


The Dismissal of Litvinov

German Ambassador Friedrich Werner Count von der Schulenburg, who had represented Germany at Moscow since 1934, reported to Berlin on March 13, 1939, that the speech by Stalin marked a new departure in Soviet foreign policy. He announced that the principal animus of Stalin was now directed against Great Britain. Schulenburg noted that Stalin for the first time had ridiculed the allegation that the German Reich had aspirations in the Soviet Ukraine. [425] Ribbentrop had earlier called Hitler’s attention to the implications of the Stalin speech.11

The German Foreign Office learned on March 24, 1939, that Poland had rejected Halifax’s pro-Soviet alliance offer of March 20th. State Secretary Weizsäcker predicted to Schulenburg that the British would respond by dropping Poland and by seeking to conclude a tripartite Anglo-Franco-Soviet pact. Weizsäcker was convinced that “the wooing of Moscow” would now constitute the principal feature of British policy, and he was surprised by the decision of Halifax on March 31, 1939, to place the Poles first and the Russians second. This act by Halifax, in combination with the earlier Stalin speech, gave a tremendous boost to German hopes for an improvement in Russo-German relations.

Prime Minister Chamberlain in the British House of Commons on April 3, 1939 refused to make a statement about the prospects for close Anglo-Russian military collaboration. It was generally understood that the British Government expected that much time would be required to clarify the Russian attitude toward an agreement. It was clear that France would play the central role in the negotiations because of existing French ties with both Great Britain and the Soviet Union. Bonnet began the formal negotiation for a tripartite pact with Soviet Ambassador Suritz at Paris on April 9, 1939. It was his task to ascertain the Russian views, and to seek to persuade the British to make proposals which the Soviet Union might be inclined to accept.12

The first formal British proposal to Russia was made on April 15, 1939. Halifax suggested that the Soviet Union should accept a pledge to aid any neighbor of Russia which was attacked, provided that the neighbor requested Soviet aid. Bonnet knew that this proposal would be unacceptable to Russia, because it failed to provide any Russian rights or privileges in exchange for the virtually unlimited obligations which the Russians were asked to assume. The Soviet Union ignored the British terms and submitted a Russian plan on April 18, 1939. This provided for the conclusion of a 5-10 year pact of mutual assistance by the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and France. The basic Soviet position provided that the three Powers should agree to aid the countries along the western frontier of the Soviet Union, and that the conclusion of an agreement should be dependent upon satisfactory military staff talks among the three Powers. The Soviet Union did not come into the open immediately with the demand that they should have the right to intervene militarily in these countries with or without their consent.13

The British were extremely dilatory about replying to the Soviet note, and their reply of May 9, 1939, was virtually a return to the unsatisfactory terms of their proposal on April 15th. The Soviet Union was requested to accept a pledge to aid Great Britain and France at any point in Eastern Europe where these countries became involved in a conflict with Germany. Stalin proceeded to dismiss Soviet Foreign Commissar Litvinov during the long interim before the British reply to the Soviet proposals. The removal of Litvinov created a great sensation of surprise in the Soviet Union despite the fact that there had been rumors earlier that he would be dismissed. It was known that Litvinov was engaged in important negotiations with Great Britain and France, and it was not expected that Stalin would replace the Soviet Foreign Commissar while [426] negotiations were in progress. Litvinov was dismissed on May 3, 1939. Two days earlier he had occupied an honorary position on the tribune platform at the great Red Army parade in Moscow, commemorating the May 1st proletarian international holiday. American Chargé d’Affaires Kirk, on May 4th, reported the dismissal of Litvinov and the appointment of Vyacheslav Molotov as Soviet Foreign Commissar. He suggested that the replacement might mean a definite decision on the part of Stalin to improve relations with Germany.14

A significant conversation had taken place at Berlin on April 17, 1939, between Weizsäcker and Soviet Ambassador Alexei Merekalov. The Soviet diplomat called on Weizsäcker two days after the original unsatisfactory British offer. He wished to discuss the delivery of war materials to the Soviet Union from the Bohemian Skoda works, according to the terms of the original Soviet-Czech contracts. The conversation soon moved to general topics, and the two diplomats agreed that normal and friendly relations should replace the traditional hostility between National Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union. 15

German Ambassador Schulenburg was travelling in Persia on May 3, 1939, when the appointment of Molotov was announced. Chargé d’Affaires Werner von Tippelskirch was cautious in his analysis of the implications of the latest change. He restricted himself to the comment that it was obvious that Stalin was taking the direction of Soviet foreign policy into his own hands at a time when the Russians were facing important foreign policy decisions.

Molotov, who had been chairman of the Soviet Council of Commissars since 1930, had now embarked upon his ten year tenure as Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs. He also retained the chairmanship of the Council of Commissars, which included the sixty-one principal departmental chiefs of the Soviet administration. He was one of the “old Bolsheviks” who had played an important role in Russian affairs since 1917. He did not, in contrast to Litvinov, speak any foreign languages. He was a taciturn and reserved man, whereas Litvinov had always made a point of being affable. Sir William Strang, who was sent on a special mission to Russia in June 1939, complained that he missed “the comfortable Jewish appearance” of Litvinov, when confronted by Molotov, who was of Russian ethnic stock. 16


Molotov’s Overtures Rejected by Beck

The first impression that Molotov made after his appointment was that he was willing to proceed further than Litvinov in cultivating relations with Poland. Molotov extended warm congratulations to Beck for his provocative speech to the Polish Sejin on May 5, 1939. He sent Soviet Vice-Commissar for Foreign Affairs Poteinkin, who had recently toured the Balkan capitals, on a special mission to Warsaw on May 10, 1939. Vladimir Potemkin offered Beck an unequivocal assurance that the Soviet Union was prepared to favor Poland in a struggle with Germany. He confided that he had leaned from Gafencu that the Polish-Rumanian alliance was directed exclusively against the Soviet Union. Potemkin suggested that it would be helpful to revise this treaty. He did not press the question when Beck proved to be uncommunicative about it.17

[427]
Molotov continued to raise the question of the Polish-Rumanian alliance after Potemkin returned to Moscow. He suggested to Polish Ambassador Grzybowski that it would be a good idea for Poland and Rumania to direct their alliance exclusively against Germany. He added that this step would facilitate the conclusion of a Soviet-Polish-Rumanian pact of mutual assistance. Beck responded to this request with a categorical statement. He instructed Grzybowski to inform Molotov on May 17, 1939, that “Poland does not consider it possible to conclude a pact of mutual assistance with the USSR.” He added that Poland would continue to refuse any changes in her other treaty obligations. Beck had slammed the door on Molotov. He believed that it would no longer be possible for the Soviet Union to mistake the implications of the Polish refusal of the Halifax pro-Soviet alliance offer on March 24, 1939. Beck hoped for an eventual war between Great Britain and the Soviet Union, and he wished to do everything possible to disrupt their current negotiations.18

The Russians in the meantime had rejected the unsatisfactory British offer of May 9, 1939. Strang admitted that the dilatory and half-hearted British approach to Russia was influenced by an underestimation of Soviet military power, which “had a powerful effect on policy.” Indeed, the faulty British evaluation of the relative military power of Germany and the Soviet Union was the actual basis for the fatally unrealistic war policy of Halifax. There were questions in the British Parliament about the fate of the states which bordered Russia in the event of an Anglo-Russian agreement. Under-Secretary Rab Butler explained, in response to a query on May 15, 1939, in the House of Commons, that Great Britain had no special obligations to Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania beyond the context of the League of Nations. The League was virtually defunct at this time, and it was possible to assume that the British Government considered it had a free hand toward these countries. Chamberlain admitted on May 19th that the British offer to Russia of May 9th was virtually the same as the original unsatisfactory offer of April 15th. He added that British proposals had not been extended beyond a request for unilateral Russian commitments in areas guaranteed by Great Britain and France. This produced a scornful shout from Gallacher, the Communist member of Parliament: “They are not children!” The Liberal leader, Sir Archibald Sinclair, demanded that Chamberlain proceed to offer tangible proposals to the Russians which would provide for mutual obligations to cover any eventuality.19

It was known in Commons that special Anglo-Franco-Russian talks would take place at Geneva on May 21, 1939. Halifax, Bonnet, and Ivan Maisky, the Soviet Ambassador to Great Britain, were scheduled to conduct the negotiations. Maisky had actively criticized in influential circles at London the British conduct of negotiations with Russia. Winston Churchill delivered a speech on May 19th which he hoped would be useful to Maisky in the approaching negotiations. Churchill addressed a stern warning to the Poles: “The Government will contradict me if they feel it necessary to do so, but I cannot believe that the Polish Government will consider it any part of their duty to place a barrier between France, England and Russia for their own mutual security.” Churchill unknowingly returned to the Grzybowski proposal which Beck had rejected, when he claimed that Poland and Russia should recognize a common policy in thwarting German interests in the Baltic states. Butler sagely replied to Churchill [428] that it was necessary for Great Britain to avoid careless assumptions in these questions. He claimed that it was important to keep the British approach to Russia “more in harmony with the views of the other Governments most nearly concerned and less calculated to raise doubts and difficulties in their minds.” Butler in this statement deliberately reaffirmed the original decision of Halifax to place Poland before Russia.20

Bonnet was momentarily optimistic about the prospects for a tripartite alliance after the conversations at Geneva on May 21, 1939. Maisky did not seem to regard the negative attitude of Poland toward Russia as a decisive obstacle to an agreement with Great Britain and France. The Baltic states were discussed, but Maisky gave Bonnet the misleading impression that the Soviet Union would not seek to extend guarantees to these states against their express wishes.

Bonnet hoped that the official reserve of the British could be surmounted by persuading Molotov to conclude a tripartite Pact which failed to stipulate identical policies of the Three Powers toward Poland and her neighbors. These hopes were blasted by a major Molotov address on foreign policy on May 31, 1939. The Soviet Foreign Commissar spoke approvingly of a possible Russo-German trade treaty. He insisted that a mutual guarantee by Russia, Great Britain, and France, for all states bordering Russia in Europe, was a necessary condition for a tripartite pact. He emphasized that the Soviet Union and the Anglo-French combination were in basic disagreement on this important question. Molotov completely ignored the rebuff he had received from Poland, but he strongly criticized the policy of Finland. The Molotov speech offered little encouragement either to Hitler or Halifax, but the Soviet diplomat praised the Roosevelt telegram to Hitler of April 15, 1939, as a “proposal imbued with the spirit of peacefulness.” He criticized Hitler for abrogating the Polish and British treaties on April 28, 1939.21


A Russo-German Understanding Favored by Mussolini

The Russian draft for an agreement on June 2, 1939, introduced the favorite Communist proposal for protection against so-called indirect aggression. This was a clever formula justifying Soviet intervention against states which did not believe themselves threatened whenever Russia insisted they were in jeopardy. It included internal developments which Russia considered threatening to such states. It was a device to permit an unlimited Russian campaign of aggression against her neighbors. The Soviet Union was prepared to extend such guarantees to Belgium, Greece, Turkey, Rumania, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland. The British suggestion that guarantees be granted to Holland and Switzerland if those nations requested them was rejected. Holland and Switzerland had opposed Russian entry into the League of Nations, and they did not maintain diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union.22

The Germans were informed by Moltke at Warsaw on May 16, 1939, that Beck remained resolutely opposed to an agreement with the Soviet Union. This meant that an Anglo-French agreement with the Russians about Poland was extremely unlikely. Ribbentrop instructed Schulenburg to discuss the European [429] situation with Molotov at Moscow. He hoped to ascertain the current Russian attitude toward Germany. Schulenburg reported on May 20th that he had called on Molotov but had failed to penetrate the reserve of the Soviet Foreign Commissar. Weizsäcker attempted to encourage Schulenburg in another attempt by warning him on May 27th that an Anglo-Russian combination would not be easy to prevent. Weizsäcker was actually much more optimistic about the Russian situation. He noted in a memorandum on May 30th that the lack of rapport between Molotov and the German Ambassador probably resulted from Molotov’s personal distrust of Schulenburg, rather than from the basic trend of Soviet policy.23

Schulenburg reported on June 5th that he had failed to win the confidence of Vice-Commissar Potemkin in recent talks. The Russians, who were aware that most of the German aristocrats were opposed to Hitler, were not taking chances with the German Ambassador. They knew that Schulenburg was critical of Hitler, and there was always the possibility in their minds that he was a British spy. Stalin and Molotov did not wish Halifax to receive confidential information about their conversations with Germany. Their suspicions were entirely without foundation, but Schulenburg was later convicted for revolutionary activities against the German Government in wartime.

Bulgarian Minister Parvan Draganov at Berlin was a better source of information about Soviet attitudes. He informed the German Foreign Office on June 15, 1939, that Russian policy was undecided, but asserted that the Soviet Union preferred peaceful relations with Germany to an alliance with Great Britain. He intimated that it would be necessary for the Soviet Union to obtain some important assurances from Germany before this policy could definitely be considered. Draganov made no secret of the fact that the Russians were employing him to convey the general Russian attitude at Berlin.24

It was evident to the German leaders that it would be necessary to conclude a specific agreement with the Soviet Union to obtain Russian neutrality in the event of a German-Polish war. Hitler temporized for several weeks before he allowed Ribbentrop to take concrete steps in a decisive effort to come to terms with Stalin. The prospect of an agreement which might permit the expansion of the Soviet Union was distasteful to Hitler, but he decided in July 1939 that such an agreement might be the determining factor in preventing the outbreak of a major European war. Hitler had told Beck at Berchtesgaden in January 1939 that opposition to the schemes of the Soviet Union was a principal feature of German foreign policy. He added that even this important factor was secondary to his duty toward his people in promoting the interests of Germany and in revising the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler knew that any attempt by Poland to come to terms with Russia was very unlikely. A Russo-Polish agreement was impossible unless Beck permitted the Red Army to operate on Polish territory. Beck and Hitler both knew that this would be followed by a Russian attempt to seize part or all of Poland. The Soviet leaders had demanded control over all the European territory of the Tsarist Empire at the Brest-Litovsk peace conference with Germany in 1918. The Germans told Joffe and Trotsky, the principal Russian negotiators, that the Poles, for instance, had no desire to come under Bolshevik rule. The Bolshevik response to this German argument was characteristic of Russian policy from 1918 onward. [430] The Germans were told that the Polish population would soon be converted to Bolshevik rule if Russian troops were allowed to occupy Poland.25

The German Government was convinced that the Soviet Union would seek to settle their own account with Poland in the event of a German-Polish war. It was evident that Stalin had never shared Hitler’s inclination to respect the existing Polish frontiers. There could be no doubt that the Soviet Union entertained extensive territorial ambitions in many other directions. The Russian Communist Party newspaper Pravda declared on June 13, 1939, that the current European situation required special measures for the “protection” of Finland and the two Baltic states of Estonia and Latvia. It was known in both Berlin and London that none of these states desired any so-called protection from Russia, and this was fully understood in Moscow. Russian insistence, notwithstanding, on the protection of these states was a clear indication that the Soviet Union was determined to intervene in these countries as well as in Poland and also possibly in Rumania and Turkey. The Soviet leaders would have been unable to pursue these gigantic ambitions had it not been for the disastrous war policy of Halifax.

The danger of an agreement between the Soviet Union and the Western Powers made it imperative for the German Government to consider the possibility of appeasing Russia. Mussolini knew that Hitler was not enthusiastic about this situation. Hence, he urged German Ambassador Mackensen on June 14, 1939, to inform Hitler that the Italian Government favored a determined German effort to arrive at an understanding with Russia. Mussolini attempted to encourage Hitler to adopt this attitude. He told Mackensen on June 16, 1939, that important assurances from the Italian Embassy at Moscow indicated that the Soviet Union desired to avoid a military conflict with Germany.26


Strang’s Mission to Moscow

Sir William Strang, the Chief of the Central Division of the British Foreign Office, arrived at Moscow on June 14, 1939. He was instructed to assist British Ambassador Sir William Seeds in what was hoped would be the final phase of negotiations with the Russians. Hitler was interested to learn that British policy toward Russia was causing deep concern to Virgil Tilea, the Rumanian Ambassador at London, who had cooperated with Halifax in perpetrating the hoax of an alleged German ultimatum to Rumania in March 1939. Thea expressed his concern about the situation to a number of people, and the German Embassy at London received a full record of one of his conversations. The Rumanian diplomat was convinced that Great Britain was prepared to sacrifice both Poland and Rumania to Russia despite the British guarantees to these states in the Spring of 1939. Tilea began to see the potentially tragic consequences of his earlier devious connivance with Halifax and Vansittart, and he deplored what he called the soft attitude of the British Government toward Russian demands.27

Strang discovered upon his arrival at Moscow that French Ambassador Paul-Emile Naggiar was eager to conclude an agreement with Soviet Foreign Commissar Molotov on almost any terms. Strang was indignant when Naggiar inquired if the British Government was actually sincere in its efforts to reach an [431] agreement with Russia. Strang assured Naggiar that he would not be in Moscow if this were not the case. Strang admitted that British and French recognition of the Russian formula of indirect aggression would be a pledge to support Russian intervention in Rumania, the Baltic states, or Poland. Naggiar received the same impression as Tilea about British willingness to consider the possibility of acceding to Russian wishes in this important matter.

Molotov conducted negotiations with the British and French representatives in an imperious manner. He sat before a desk on a platform; the Western negotiators were required to sit in a semi-circle without tables at a lower level. The new Russian attitude of lofty and contemptuous arrogance was the inevitable consequence of the British guarantee to Poland. Molotov knew that the Soviet Union now occupied an incomparably stronger position in the negotiations than the British Government. The British were seeking to persuade the Soviet Union to participate in the war they intended to launch against Germany. Molotov made it clear that he was not prepared to consider such an undertaking unless the British indicated that they were prepared to pay an exceedingly high price for Russian support. 28

Molotov revealed on June 17, 1939, that he was not satisfied with the attitude of the British Government. He insisted that his formula of indirect aggression be applied to Poland, Rumania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland. This sanctioned military intervention in reponse to strictly domestic changes within any of these states. Molotov demanded in subsequent conversations that indirect aggression permit Soviet intervention in any of these states “without threat of force” against them from some other quarter. This meant that Russia might intervene to “protect” Finland in the absence of a threat to Finland from any other foreign Power. Strang objected that the threat of force from some other Power should be the necessary condition for intervention. He proclaimed it to be obvious that President Emil Hacha of Czecho-Slovakia had submitted to a threat of force when he concluded the Czech-German agreement of March 15, 1939. Molotov denied this, and he also reminded Strang that President Hacha himself had denied it. The position of Russia remained unchanged during the following weeks, and Halifax repeatedly instructed Strang to move closer to the Russian position in the decisive questions. Strang complained to Halifax on July 20, 1939, about these “humiliating negotiations.” It was decided by both parties on July 23, 1939, that there was virtual agreement on political terms which would meet Russian requirements. Molotov suggested that a final political agreement should await the outcome of military staff talks, and this propoi~a1 was accepted by the British and French representatives.29


Hitler’s Decision for a Pact with Russia

The Germans continued to sound out the Russian position while Strang and Seeds were negotiating unhappily at Moscow. German Ambassador Schulenburg discussed Russo-German relations with Molotov on June 29, 1939. This step was taken in response to a Pravda article on the same day which claimed that the British and French Governments did not really desire a treaty of equality with the Soviet Union. The purpose of the article was to soften the Anglo-French [432] attitude by stimulating criticism at home. Schulenburg failed to obtain any definite indication of Russian policy from Molotov. He was merely able to report in general terms that the attitude of Molotov was “encouraging but cynical.”

Schulenburg attempted during these days to make an impression on Molotov by arguing that the 1926 Russo-German treaty of friendship was still in effect because it had never been expressly abrogated. Molotov doubted the validity of this assumption, and he added sharply that the recent experience of Poland seemed to indicate that nonaggression pacts with Germany were not of much value. The German Ambassador responded with a half-hearted defense of German policy in Poland which did not impress Molotov.

Molotov repeatedly provoked Schulenburg into further elaborate arguments, during the following month, about the 1926 German treaty with Russia and the 1934 Pact with Poland. These discussions were of no value in improving Russo-German relations, but this worried Schulenburg rather than Molotov. It was easy for Molotov to stimulate further German interest in a possible understanding by dropping occasional hints at Berlin. Schulenburg sought to attach great importance to a letter he received on July 4, 1939, from Rudolf Nadolny, his predecessor at Moscow. Nadolny insisted that the formal validity of the 1926 Russo-German Pact could not be denied.30

The Soviet Union announced on June 29, 1939, that the annual maneuvers of the Red Army would take place in the Leningrad district near the Finnish frontier. This news created great anxiety in Finland. The Finns shared the fears of the Rumanians, that rival British and German diplomatic efforts in the Soviet Union would lead to offers from both sides at the expense of the smaller nations. The Finns attempted to sound out the Germans by claiming to German Minister Wuepert von Blücher that current rumors suggested German willingness to tolerate Soviet expansion in the Baltic area. The German Foreign Office instructed Blücher on July 27, 1939, that the German Government had not offered to acquiesce in the Soviet conquest of Finland and the Baltic states. The fears of the Finns were not allayed, because the German Government did not offer to oppose Russian aspirations in the area.31

The German failure to encourage Finnish hopes was not surprising. Hitler had decided at last to push hard for an agreement with Russia, and he was encouraged by the willingness of Molotov to permit negotiations at Berlin for an important Russo-German trade pact. These negotiations were in progress when Hitler instructed Weizsäcker to inform Schulenburg on July 29, 1939, that the German Government would be inclined to tolerate Russian aspirations in the Baltic area in exchange for Russian neutrality in a possible German-Polish war. Weizsäcker added that Hitler still hoped to arrive at a peaceful settlement with Poland, but it was necessary to provide for every eventuality. The Russian diplomats in Berlin recognized that the ultimate return of Danzig to Germany was inevitable.32

Ribbentrop informed Schulenburg on August 3, 1939, that he had told Russian Chargé d’Affaires Astakhov that Germany desired to achieve a settlement of all outstanding questions with Russia. Schulenburg was instructed to repeat this assurance to Molotov. The German Ambassador conferred with the Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs on the following day. Molotov took [433] delight in overwhelming the startled German with accusations. He claimed that Russian difficulties with Japan were mainly the result of the anti-Comintern Pact of 1936 between Germany and Japan. Hitler was accused of encouraging Japanese aggressiveness, and of rendering crucial support to Italy in the recent struggle against Communism in Spain. Molotov was amused when Schulenburg claimed that Germany desired to keep the peace with Poland. He suggested that Germany could have peace on Polish terms, and that no one was compelling Germany to go to war with the Poles. He ignored Schulenburg’s assurance that Russian interests in Poland would be respected in the event of war. He disregarded the accusations of Schulenburg about British intervention in Poland.

The German Ambassador, who took all of these remarks very seriously, was reduced to despair. He reported to Berlin that “the Soviet Government is at present determined to sign with England and France if they fulfill all Soviet wishes.” Schulenburg had no basis for this dogmatic assertion, and he failed to realize that his own diplomatic ineptitude encouraged Molotov to take liberties in their conversations. Schulenburg was unable to defend the German position against Molotov’s arguments, and he was incapable of countering with critical comments about the conduct of Soviet policy.

The German Foreign Office virtually ignored Schulenburg’s pessimistic report. Ribbentrop was receiving separate reports from the other German diplomats at Moscow which presented an entirely different picture. He was told that Molotov was very amiable in his conversations with most of the Germans at Moscow, and that his attitude was encouraging to German prospects for a pact with Russia.33


The British and French Military Missions

The British and French military missions arrived at Leningrad by water on August 10, 1939, after a slow journey which had required nearly a week. The reception of the missions at both Leningrad and Moscow was extremely modest, according to usual Russian standards, and this was widely interpreted as a deliberate insult to the Western Powers. The Russo-German trade pact at Berlin was virtually ready for signature by this time, and the Russian delegation was profuse with assurances that the Soviet Union desired better political relations with Germany. The Germans inquired about the significance of the British and French military missions. They were told that contact with Germany had modified the Russian attitude toward Great Britain and France, but that negotiations with the West were allowed to continue because they could not be disrupted without giving any reason. The Germans received the impression that the British and French were meeting Russian requirements at every point, but that the Russians were disinclined to conclude any treaty with them. It was obvious that Halifax had made no impression on the Russians.34

The first discussion between the British and French military teams and the Russian military delegation headed by Marshal Voroshilov took place on August 12, 1939. The Russians immediately concentrated the fire of their criticism on the tiny military commitment which the British leaders intended to make on the European continent in the event of war. They knew that their arguments would [434] encourage suspicion and distrust between the British and French. Voroshilov was indignant that the British expected Russia and France to bear the brunt of the war which Halifax was seeking to provoke with Germany. Voroshilov also insisted on specific pledges of support from the British and French military men for possible Red Army operations in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

The Russians introduced the fundamental question of military operations in Poland and Rumania on August 14, 1939. Voroshilov claimed that both these countries would be defeated by Germany in short order if they did not accept military collaboration with the Soviet Union. This was a preposterous assertion when one considers that there was not even a remote prospect of a conflict between Germany and Rumania. Voroshilov added that Russia could not retaliate against a possible German attack on France unless agreements had been reached for a Russian offensive against Germany through both Polish and Rumanian territory. General Doumenc, the leader of the French military delegation, admitted that the Poles had failed to agree to Russian military operations on their territory. Doumenc attempted unsuccessfully to avoid this crucial issue by suggesting that the Poles would automatically request Soviet aid in the event that Poland was invaded by Germany. Voroshilov replied that Polish agreement on this point was essential, and he insisted on the passage of Russian troops through Poland.35

British Ambassador Sir William Seeds reported to Halifax on August 15, 1939, that “the Russians have now raised the fundamental problem on which the military talks will succeed or fail.” Great Britain and France were willing to see Russian troops occupy Poland, but the problem was to obtain Polish consent. Seeds suggested that the French General Staff should put pressure on the Polish General Staff for an agreement along Russian lines. Seeds seemed to think that Beck and the military men could be made to consider a secret commitment, “to which the Poles would meanwhile turn a blind eye.” General Musse, the French military attaché at Warsaw, had been instructed by Premier Daladier to discuss military collaboration between Poland and Russia before General Doumenc departed for Moscow, but his conversations with Marshal Smigly-Rydz had produced no results. 36

Seeds believed that the Russians were justified in expecting Anglo-French pressure for collaboration on the western neighbors of Russia. He had advised the French to send General Vain from their Moscow mission to Warsaw to demand Polish consent. The independent initiative of Ambassador Seeds in this important question was approved and supported by Halifax. The British Foreign Secretary was unmoved by the fact that the Poles feared the Soviet Union more than Germany.

The French considered the proposal from Seeds, but they decided that there was no point in sending General Valin to Warsaw at the present time. Seeds wired Halifax a few hours later that “Voroshilov stated categorically today (August 15th) that a definite answer to his question, as soon as possible, was of cardinal importance.” Halifax was encouraged by a misleading report from Paris on August 16, 1939, that the initial Polish reaction to the proposed Russian military operations on their territory was “not unfavorable.” He learned that the French leaders were prepared to make a final effort to persuade the Poles to submit to Russian demands.37

Bonnet shared the opinion of Daladier that a pact with the Russians might give France a position of strength from which to conduct a policy of conciliation toward Germany in the earlier style of Laval. Bonnet had profited from a visit of Sir Nevile Henderson to Paris in July 1939. The British Ambassador to Germany had analyzed the policy of Halifax for Bonnet. Henderson and Bonnet were in complete agreement in condemning the war policy of Halifax. Bonnet believed that an Anglo-French war against Germany was quite unnecessary, and he told Daladier that he would prefer to resign rather than to have any part in the launching of such a disastrous conflict. Daladier assured Bonnet that he sympathized with his attitude, and he urged him to remain at his post and to continue the fight for peace. Bonnet finally decided that he would concentrate on three policies to preserve the peace. He would continue to work for the conclusion of a tripartite pact with the British and Russians in order to guarantee France a position of strength. His next step would be pressure at Warsaw to secure Polish concessions to Germany. This would permit a settlement of the German-Polish dispute He would also continue the promotion of close Franco-Italian relations, and he would encourage Mussolini’s program for a general European conference which might enable the diplomats to erase the existing danger spots from the map of Europe.38


The Anglo-French Offer at the Expense of Poland

Bonnet was indignant with the Poles and he believed that the military talks with the Russians were breaking up because of Polish intransigence. He did not realize that the Russians had decided to conclude an agreement with Germany before they raised the question of military operations on Polish territory on August 14, 1939. It was not clear to him that the Polish issue was merely the pretext which the Russians had selected to disrupt the military negotiations with the Western Powers. League High Commissioner Burckhardt had discussed the situation with Hitler on August 11, 1939, and he had informed Bonnet that a German-Polish war was inevitable unless there was some change in Polish policy. Hitler had predicted that Poland would be defeated within three weeks, and Bonnet was inclined to suspect that he was right. He believed Burckhardt’s assurance that Hitler did not desire war, and that it would be possible to settle the existing dispute by negotiation. Hitler had assured Burckhardt that he knew the Polish military plans, and that they were infantile compared to those of the Czechs the previous year. Burckhardt had asked Hitler if it would be safe for him to allow his children to remain at Danzig, and Hitler had advised him to send them to Switzerland. Bonnet had received this information on August 14, 1939, and he believed that the final crisis was close at hand.39

Voroshilov’s question about the role of England and France in securing the consent of Poland and Rumania for the Russian forces to operate on their territory was received by Bonnet at 5:00 a.m. on August 15th. Bonnet immediately contacted Lukasiewicz, who was enjoying a splendid vacation at a beach resort in Brittany. Lukasiewicz arrived at the French Foreign Office the same afternoon. Bonnet was overworked and under great strain. He noted with some aversion that the handsome Polish Ambassador was tanned by the sun [436] and very much at ease. Bonnet informed Lukasiewicz that there were now only two alternatives which the Russians were prepared to consider. They would either receive permission to operate militarily on the territory of their western neighbors and proceed to conclude a military pact with Great Britain and France, or they would conclude a pact with the Germans. Bonnet stated categorically to the Polish Ambassador that he expected the Poles to accept immediately the Russian terms for an agreement. Lukasiewicz coolly replied that Beck would not permit Russian forces to operate on Polish territory. He also put the following question to Bonnet: “What would you say if we requested you to allow the Germans to protect Alsace-Lorraine?”

Bonnet refused to admit that the query of Lukasiewicz was in any way relevant to the existing situation. He reminded the Polish Ambassador that the French and Polish situations were different. France had a common frontier with Germany, but, unlike Poland, she had the Atlantic Ocean instead of a revisionist Russia on her opposite flank. He did not believe that France needed to request the Germans to guard Alsace-Lorraine. He added that four days earlier Hitler had predicted that Germany could defeat Poland within three weeks. Lukasiewicz was furious when Bonnet candidly admitted that he shared this opinion with Hitler. The Polish Ambassador declared with indignation that “on the contrary, it is the Polish Army which will invade Germany from the first day.”40

The French Foreign Minister was shocked by this revelation of an obviously hopeless delusion. He realized at once that it was impossible to influence Lukasiewicz with arguments of a military nature, although it was precisely these considerations which should have been uppermost in the minds of the Poles. He sought a different approach. He confided to Lukasiewicz that the question of war or peace might depend on the outcome of the present Anglo-French negotiation in Russia. He was horrified to discover that Lukasiewicz was completely indifferent about this consideration.

The ensuing strenuous debate between these two men with different aims and values produced no important result. Bonnet represented the French nation which desired peace, was inclined to tolerate the recovery of Germany as a major Power, and willingly accepted the status quo. Lukasiewicz represented a clique of Polish opportunists who chafed at the weakness of Poland under existing European conditions, desired a gigantic upheaval which would destroy both Germany and Russia, and wished for a new World War to accomplish this. Lukasiewicz merely agreed to relay to Warsaw the request of Bonnet for Russo-Polish military collaboration. He warned Bonnet that Beck would respond by rejecting this proposition.

Bonnet was unable to place any confidence in the promise of Lukasiewicz to relay his request to Warsaw. He prepared two lengthy and painstakingly detailed dispatches to guide French Ambassador Noël in personal negotiations with Beck. He repeated every argument in these dispatches which he had presented to Lukasiewicz, except Hitler’s calculation about the rapid defeat of Poland. Noël responded by engaging Beck in several lengthy debates on the merit of the French position. He was obliged to report on August 18, 1939, that Bonnet’s elaborate arguments had not produced the slightest impression on the Polish Foreign Minister. Bonnet replied by accusing Beck of the same duplicity with France which the Poles had employed against Hitler. Beck for many months had [437] concealed from Hitler his unalterable opposition to the generous German offer to Poland of October 24, 1938. Bonnet claimed that for many years Beck had concealed from France his determination to prevent Russian aid to Poland under any circumstances, including a major war. Bonnet believed that France was entitled to go over the head of Poland and to support Russian operations in Poland without Polish consent. He managed to obtain the full support of Daladier for this policy by August 21, 1939.41

Beck at Warsaw noted with considerable amusement that the approaches of Noël and Kennard were entirely different in the question of Polish military collaboration with Russia. Noël, as the representative of a continental Power which might have to bear the brunt of any war with Germany, argued for Russo-Polish collaboration with great passion and insistence. Kennard approached the question with cool detachment and virtual indifference as a mere matter of form. Kennard considered his démarche a gesture merely designed to maintain Anglo-French solidarity. Beck told the Polish Council of Ministers that he did not intend to retreat before British and French demands in the Russian question. He was delighted that none of the Polish ministers raised any objections to his policy. The Polish Foreign Minister realized that his position at home was secure. He proceeded to reject the appeals of the French and British diplomats with great disdain.42

Bonnet hoped for maximum British cooperation in his effort to win the Poles for collaboration with Russia. He informed Halifax on August 16, 1939, that he had told Lukasiewicz that it would be “unthinkable if the Poles were not willing to accept Russian help.” He added that the French military mission in Moscow agreed unanimously with the Russian attitude. Russia’s right to intervene in Poland and Rumania was considered the sine qua non for Russian participation in any general war which was to be launched after the outbreak of a German-Polish conflict. The French mission noted that the Russians allegedly were willing to restrict the area of their military operations in Poland. They believed that an express Russian willingness to avoid the occupation of certain Polish districts would be a sufficient concession to the Poles.43

Halifax professed to be impressed with the arguments of Bonnet. He suggested to the French Foreign Minister that a Rumanian representative should join the Poles and the French in military talks at Warsaw. It was nonetheless evident behind the scenes that the British were not single-minded about the French position, and that Halifax, in contrast to Bonnet, was mainly interested in maintaining Anglo-French solidarity, and was seemingly indifferent about Polish concessions to Russia. The British military delegation at Moscow did not share the enthusiasm of the French team for the Russian attitude. Admiral Drax, who headed the British delegation, was very hostile toward the Russians. He wrote on August 16, 1939, to his personal friend and colleague, Admiral Lord Chatfield, that no agreement had been reached after five days of discussion on a variety of subjects. He noted repeated Russian insults to the British and French teams. The Russians enjoyed referring to the British and French as the yielding or surrendering Powers. They adopted the attitude of a victorious Power humiliating beaten enemies. They regarded British policy in Poland as a major defeat for British interests, and they were reasonably confident that their own policy would produce gigantic gains for Russia at minimum cost.

    [438]
Drax privately ridiculed the Russian suggestion that an Anglo-French naval force should operate in the Baltic Sea in the event of war. He described this to Chatfield as a sheer impossibility. The Russians knew, on the other hand, that British submarines had been surprisingly effective in sinking German and neutral shipping in the Baltic Sea during World War I. The attitude of Drax toward all the Russian military proposals was extremely reserved. He confided to Chatfield that he hoped to sign a military pact which would contain as few advantages as possible for the Soviet Union.44

Drax noted with considerable cynicism, on August 17, 1939, that banquets and vodka were gradually warming up personal relations between the Russians and the military missions. This was not likely to produce important results, because Voroshilov was suggesting that the talks should be adjourned until favorable replies for military collaboration had been received from Poland and Rumania. The Russians had proposed a preliminary adjournment of the talks from Thursday, August 17th, until Monday, August 21st. Drax informed Chatfield with angry sarcasm that the Russians had developed a “new theory of war.” They intended to limit the number of their forces in a general war to the number employed by the Western Powers, and Drax described this as “quite childish.” It seemed that the halcyon days were ending when the continental Powers were willing to see their young men slaughtered in unlimited numbers in the interest of British balance of power policy, while the British restricted themselves to a mere token participation. The Russians were well aware of the British intention to make a much smaller commitment in the war which they were seeking to promote in 1939 than had been the case in World War I. Drax was angry because the Russians dared to adopt a realistic and critical attitude toward this policy.

Drax noted that Voroshilov was constantly assuming the inevitability of war between the Western Powers and Germany. This was a realistic awareness of the determination of Halifax to promote a general war at all costs. Drax feared that this insight might contribute to the failure of negotiations with Russia. He complained that the Russians would be content to remain neutral “while the rest of us cut one another’s throats.” Drax was irritable because the weather in Russia was extremely hot, and he had been burdened with additional Anglo-French meetings after the four hours of daily conferences with the Russians. He regarded his mission to Moscow as a great personal sacrifice, and he was anxiously waiting to return to England. He suggested that a British cruiser should be sent for the seventeen officers of the two missions if a pact was achieved. He admitted that the slow naval voyage to Russia in the first instance had made the French officers restless, and that it was quite possible some of them would prefer to return by train. Drax hoped that after his uncomfortable stay in Russia he would at least receive the satisfaction of personally gloating over the discomfited Germans. He proposed, in the event of a pact, that his cruiser sail continuously within sight of the German coast on its return voyage.45

Halifax had instructed Kennard on August 17, 1939, to chide the Poles for their unwillingness to cooperate with Russia. The Poles were to be told that military considerations required the full use of Polish and Rumanian territory by Soviet forces. Kennard was instructed that an alliance with the Russians [439] might not prevent the outbreak of war, but it would offer the best means of guaranteeing victory. Halifax was unwilling to accept the view that the Soviet Union was a greater threat to Poland than Germany. Halifax stated his position categorically: “If, in the event of war, Poland and Rumania find themselves with their backs to the wall, we cannot believe that they will not be glad of support, from no matter what quarter.” Halifax insisted that a neutral Russia would constitute the “chief menace” in the world if her strength remained undiminished by the ravages of a new war. He failed to draw the obvious deduction that a new war with or without Russian participation could lead to this result. He was confident that he could cope with everyone, including Stalin, in his own misguided effort to strengthen British world supremacy. It was a tragedy for the British nation that by 1939 his ruthlessness had exceeded his sagacity. He failed to see that his policy was promoting the growth of Communism rather than British imperialism.46

Kennard knew that Halifax had never bothered to understand the Polish attitude toward the Soviet Union. He knew that~ the faulty arguments of Halifax would not make the slightest impression on the Poles. He confided to Halifax on August 18, 1939, that he was reluctant to ask Beck to admit the Russians. He argued that the efforts of French Ambassador Noël to influence the Poles had merely produced Polish resentment, and he saw no reason to draw this resentment from Noël to himself. He reported that Beck was employing a huge arsenal of arguments against the latest pro-Soviet plan. Beck was scornful of the French claim that an alliance with the Soviet Union might help keep the peace. He replied that Polish acceptance of the Russian terms would produce an immediate German attack against Poland.

Kennard claimed that to pursue the question with Beck was hopeless. General Stachiewicz, the Polish Chief-of-Staff, had informed General Musse, the French military attache at Warsaw, that Poland officially rejected the proposal for Russian military transit through Poland. Kennard admitted that he shared the attitude of Beck in this important question. He introduced arguments of his own against the plan, and he claimed that the British would jeopardize their special relations with the United States if they joined the French in applying pressure to Poland.47

Premier Daladier of France would have been furious had he known that Kennard was sabotaging British pressure on Poland with the argument that American sensibilities had to be taken into account. He told American Ambassador Bullitt at Paris on August 18th that he was shocked and angered by the “violence” with which Lukasiewicz and Beck had rejected Soviet aid to Poland. Daladier claimed that it would be easy to internationalize Soviet aid to the Poles by sending two French and one British divisions to Poland by way of Russia. Daladier repeated to Bullitt three times with increasing emphasis that he would not send a single French peasant to give his life for Poland if the Poles rejected Russian aid.48

Bullitt was alarmed by this revelation of what he considered a violently anti-Polish reaction on the part of Daladier. He had applied pressure for months on Daladier and Alexis Léger, the Secretary-General at the French Foreign Office, in the hope that they would distance themselves from the peace policy of Georges Bonnet and repudiate that policy. He had visited London in May [440] 1939 to coordinate his strategy with the efforts of Sir Robert Vansittart. The Diplomatic Adviser to His Majesty’s Government considered relations with France to be his own special province, and he hoped to support the Halifax war policy by securing French participation in any war against Germany. Vansittart assured Bullitt that Alexis Léger was his “intimate friend,” and that Léger could be relied upon to support the efforts of Halifax and Roosevelt to involve France in war with Germany.

Bullitt, Vansittart, and Léger feared that Sir Eric Phipps, the British Ambassador to France and brother-in-law of Vansittart, shared the negative attitude of Prime Minister Chamberlain toward an alliance between the Western Powers and Russia. Bullitt had begun to dislike Bonnet, and he reported to President Roosevelt without any regard for accuracy: “in point of fact both Bonnet and Sir Eric Phipps were opposed to bringing the Soviet Union into close cooperation with France and England.” Bullitt also feared that Prime Minister Chamberlain might attempt to challenge the policy of Halifax and restore his own control over the conduct of British policy. American Ambassador Kennedy had reported from London on July 20, 1939, that Chamberlain was “sick and disgusted with the Russians.” The British Prime Minister believed that Hitler would welcome any tangible opportunity for a peaceful settlement. Chamberlain knew that Hitler was not bluffing and that he might gamble on a war, but he told Kennedy that Hitler “is highly intelligent and therefore would not be prepared to wage a world war.”49

President Roosevelt had intervened directly in the negotiations between the Soviet Union and the Western Powers on August 4,1939. Lawrence Steinhardt, who had succeeded Davies as American Ambassador to Russia, was instructed by confidential letter to tell Molotov that the interests of the United States and the Soviet Union were identical in promoting the defeat of Italy and Germany in a European war. President Roosevelt urged the Soviet Union to conclude a military alliance with Great Britain and France, and he intimated that the United States would ultimately join this coalition of Powers. The American Ambassador was informed that President Roosevelt had told Soviet Ambassador Konstantin Umansky, before the latter departed for Russia on leave, that the United States hoped to achieve a position of solidarity with the Soviet Union against Germany and Italy.50

The Russians were pleased with the Roosevelt message because it strengthened their position in negotiations with both the Western Powers and Germany, and the support of Roosevelt made it easier for them to gain consent for their ambitious program of expansion in Finland, Poland, Rumania, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. The Russians had no desire to conceal from the foreign Powers the contents of the confidential Roosevelt message. The news of the message appeared in the Voelkischer Beobachter at Berlin on August 11, 1939, and its contents were published by the Ilustrowany Kurier at Krakow  on August 13, 1939. Steinhardt knew that Umansky had been informed of the contents of the Roosevelt message before leaving the United States. The letter with the message was sent by way of Bullitt at Paris, and Steinhardt did not receive it until August 15, 1939. He concluded that Molotov had instructed Umansky to reveal the contents of the letter before it reached Russia, and that Molotov had proceeded to permit the news of the letter to reach the [441] foreign Powers before he had actually received it himself.

Steinhardt presented the Roosevelt letter to Molotov on August 16, 1939, and the two diplomats proceeded to discuss its contents. Roosevelt, in writing the letter, had hoped to influence Russian policy in favor of the Western Powers, but it is not surprising that he failed completely in this effort, and that Molotov used the message for his own purposes. Molotov told Steinhardt that the British and French military missions had come to Russia to discuss military collaboration in terms which the Soviet Foreign Commissar characterized as “vague generalities.” Molotov added that these missions were unable to contend with the specific points which Russia had raised.

Steinhardt reported to President Roosevelt on August 16th that he was personally convinced that the Soviet Union would seek to avoid participation in the early phase of a European conflict. This annoyed President Roosevelt, who seemingly would have led the United States into a European conflict on the first day of war had American public opinion and the American Congress permitted such a policy. The American President was perturbed to learn, a few days later, that Alexis Léger at the French Foreign Office was not the unconditional advocate of war-at-any-price which Bullitt had claimed. Léger  revealed his opinion that it would be exceedingly unwise for Great Britain and France to attack Germany without military support from the Soviet Union. This seemed to indicate that there would be virtually no support for a war policy in France if the negotiations at Moscow failed. Roosevelt also learned that Premier Daladier was continuing to denounce the “criminal folly” of the Poles. President Roosevelt knew that Halifax would abandon his project for war against Germany if he was unable to gain the military support of either the Soviet Union or France. The possibility that the peace might be saved was perturbing to the American President who hoped to utilize a European war to achieve his dream for the perpetuation of his tenure and the increase of his personal prestige and glory.51

Halifax had an important advantage in this difficult situation. He had been receiving detailed information, throughout August 1939, of the conversations between the Germans and Russians from Theo Kordt, the German Chargé d’ Affaires at London. Theo Kordt and his brother, Erich Kordt, who occupied the key position in Ribbentrop’s personnel office at Berlin, were members of a small conspiratorial group which recognized no such thing as treason in their efforts to defeat the diplomacy of Hitler. Halifax knew that the Russians were considering a pact with Germany, and that the Anglo-French negotiations with Russia might end in failure at any time. This enabled him to prepare a strategy designed to drag France into war against Germany without Russian support. It cushioned him against the psychological shock of a Russo-German agreement. Halifax did not receive a warning from American sources, that Russia and Germany might conclude a pact, until August 18, 1939, when rumors of this possibility were forwarded by American Under-Secretary of State Sumner Welles. This was no longer news to Halifax by that time.52

The British Foreign Secretary continued to adopt a dilatory policy toward the Poles in the Anglo-Polish alliance negotiation. Polish Ambassador Raczynski was deeply disappointed by the niggardly British attitude toward the possibility of financial aid to Poland. He received no encouragement when he proposed [442] to Halifax that a permanent Polish military mission should be stationed at London. Raczynski in July 1939 had begun to urge Halifax to complete the negotiation of an actual Anglo-Polish alliance, before the conclusion of the Western negotiations at Moscow. Halifax professed to be willing to do this, but he did nothing to encourage the negotiations before the middle of August 1939. He at last granted the Poles permission to send Legal Counsellor Kuiski, from the Polish Foreign Office at Warsaw, to London. Discussions for the conclusion of an alliance, which had been interrupted in April, were resumed on August 17, 1939, between Sir Alexander Cadogan and the Polish diplomats.53

The Poles on August 18th again rejected the British proposition that Poland should guarantee Rumania against a possible German attack. The Poles insisted that the definitive agreement should state that the alliance was not directed against Germany’s possible allies or confederates. The British were content to accept this formulation, because an alliance directed exclusively against Germany meant that Great Britain would not be obliged to protect Poland against the Soviet Union. The principal friction in the negotiation resulted from renewed British attempts to commit Poland against Germany at every point on the compass. The negotiation was interrupted for a short time on Saturday, August 19th, and Polish Ambassador Raczynski departed from London to spend a few days at the English seashore. It had not been possible to settle the terms of the alliance in three days of protracted negotiations.54

French Ambassador Noël made another attempt at Warsaw on August 19th to press for Polish concessions to Russia. He received in reply what Beck described as a final statement: “It is for us a question of principle; we do not have a military accord with the Soviet Union and we do not wish to have one.” General Stachiewicz also issued a final statement to the French. He declared that Poland was unwilling to acquiesce in the penetration of any foreign troops on her territory.

Captain Beauffre was despatched to Warsaw from the French mission in Moscow on August 19, 1939. He requested an immediate audience with Marshal Smigly-Rydz. The Polish Marshal had been officially designated by a law of May 6, 1936, as the chief personage in the Polish state after President Moscicki, who fulfilled titular functions in the style of the French president. The request of Beauffre for an audience was granted, but the Polish Marshal did not permit the French envoy to present lengthy arguments. Marshal Smigly-Rydz declared that everyone in Poland knew that Russian transit meant the Russian military occupation of the country. He then exclaimed: “With the Germans, we risk the loss of our liberty, with the Russians we would lose our soul!”55

The statement of Marshal Smigly-Rydz was a categorical assertion that Poland considered the Soviet Union, and not Germany, to be her principal enemy. This announcement was scarcely a surprise to the French leaders. General Gauché, the chief of French counter-intelligence, had informed Premier Daladier and Foreign Minister Bonnet of this fact on numerous occasions. They knew as well as Halifax that the betrayal of Poland to the Soviet Union would be a worse crime in Polish eyes than the abandonment of the Poles in a conflict between Germany and Poland.

The arrogance of the Poles had long been a source of irritation to General Gauché. He was tired of Polish criticism about the Franco-Russian alliance, and [443] about the defensive strategy employed by the French Army in their military planning. He was displeased by empty Polish boastfulness about the offensive spirit of their own army, and their alleged readiness to capture Berlin. He was weary of hearing their claims that Poland and Hungary could defend Eastern Europe from Germany and the Soviet Union. He was angered by their contention that the Czechs had received, the fate they deserved, and that they never should have been allowed to form an independent state.

General Gauché firmly believed that France should allow Hitler to settle accounts with Poland if the Moscow negotiations failed, and he presented this opinion to Daladier, Bonnet, and the French military leaders. He argued that France would be entitled to ignore earlier obligations to Poland on any one of three counts. He claimed that the conclusion of the 1934 Pact with Germany without consulting France violated the spirit and purpose of the Franco-Polish alliance. He interpreted the Polish ultimatum to the Czecho-Slovak ally of France in October 1938 as a direct attack on French interests. He claimed that the Poles had violated the purpose and spirit of their alliance with France when they hastened to recognize the establishment of the German protectorate in Bohemia-Moravia in March 1939 without consulting the French leaders. General Gauché condemned the Halifax war policy, and he complained that complete rigidity in Anglo-French policy in 1939 had replaced the flexibility which characterized the policy of the two Powers in 1938. He denounced the obvious disinclination of Great Britain to assume a major commitment in land operations on the European continent. The British had called up their first conscription class in June 1939, and the class included only 200,000 men. Whatever doubts there may have been, about the British attitude toward the war which Halifax was seeking to promote, were dispelled in July 1939 when the British called up a mere 34,000 additional men. General Gauché assured Daladier and Bonnet that Hitler was not bluffing. Hitler did not desire war, but he would risk a war rather than capitulate before the extravagant pretensions of the Poles. It seemed obvious to the French counter-intelligence chief that his country should abandon any plans for war in 1939, if the Russians refused to join the Anglo-French front. This viewpoint was acceptable to Bonnet, and he proposed to conduct French policy accordingly.56

One of the principal complaints of General Gauché was that Poland insisted upon being treated as a Great Power, although she was obviously a Power of the second or third rank. This was the key to the British and French treatment of the Poles in August 1939. It seemed inconceivable that a minor Power would persistently defy and ignore the advice and threats of two allied Great Powers. The Poles had made it abundantly clear by August 20, 1939, that they refused to be treated as a satellite of either Great Britain or France, or to accept a proposition for so-called Bolshevik protection, which neither of these countries would have accepted under similar circumstances. The Poles were determined never to consent to the presence of Bolshevik forces on Polish soil, regardless of whether or not this was inevitable. Their attitude was later explained by Professor Umiastowski, the leading Polish expert on Russo-Polish relations, when he wrote that “it was impossible to visualize any Great Power willing, when the Second Great World War was over, to challenge the Soviets to withdraw from the occupied countries which they had first entered with [444] the consent of the governments of those same countries. “57

The verdict was clear as far as Poland was concerned, but the British and French leaders were no more willing to accept this verdict than they were to defend Poland against the Soviet Union. The attitude of Halifax in this question should dispel any illusion that he was genuinely concerned about protecting the Poles, or that Poland was more to him than a pawn in promoting the struggle against Germany. Halifax agreed to support the French decision to violate the confidence of the Poles by pledging themselves to Russian military intervention in Poland without Polish consent. His decision to do so did not destroy the Russian pretext that Polish refusal of Russian terms made it impractical for the Soviet Union to conclude an alliance agreement with the two Western Powers.

General Doumenc, the head of the French mission in Moscow, and Paul-Emile Naggiar, the French Ambassador to Russia, advised Bonnet on August 19th to conclude an agreement with the Russians at once, over the head of Foreign Minister Beck. Bonnet decided to make one last effort with the Poles before following this advice Naggiar and General Doumenc were correct in anticipating that the Beauffre mission to Warsaw, which had been agreed to previously, would fail, but Bonnet decided to secure greater British support than had been received in the past, for a new step by French Ambassador Noël. He informed Halifax of this plan, and he argued that it was “almost an impossible position” for Great Britain and France to defend Poland if she refused to accept Russian help. He informed Halifax that “he understood the Polish reluctance but in a case like this they could only choose the lesser of the two evils.” Bonnet knew that the Poles regarded the Russians as a greater menace than the Germans,  but he claimed that the immediate threat was directed at Poland from Germany. Bonnet warned Halifax that the Poles were committing a new series of blunders in their treatment of the German minority, and that they were guilty of further provocations at Danzig.58

Kennard was not inclined to support a new step by Noël at Warsaw. He wired Halifax the full details of the rejection statements by Beck and Stachiewicz shortly after 2:00 am. on August 20th. He added that Beck had told him that the Polish Government objected to the passage of Russian troops as strongly as they would object to any German invasion. Kennard insisted that this attitude was justifiable, and he assured Halifax that “no Pole would ever expect to recover any territory occupied by Soviet troops.” The last statement was a considerable exaggeration of the true Polish attitude, and Polish policy would have been different had the Polish leaders not expected the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union whether in a war against Germany or against the Western Powers. It is a sufficient indication of his attitude that Kennard used strong terms in presenting the Polish case against an Anglo-French agreement with Russia at the expense of Poland.59

Kennard was displeased with the reply of Halifax to this report. The British Foreign Secretary condemned Beck in no uncertain terms, and he observed contemptuously that the Polish diplomat was deluding himself if he thought he could avoid war by refusing Soviet aid. He added that Beck would be “giving away his own case” if he was thinking of possible Russian support after the war had begun. Halifax had no justification to assume that Beck was contemplating anything of the kind, and this was another indication that he had never bothered [445] to understand the policy pursued by Beck since the death of Marshal Pilsudski in 1935.

Kennard replied that General Stachiewicz had now agreed to repeat his rejection of the Russian transit plan to anyone who cared to hear it. Kennard did not indicate that he was prepared to join Noël in a new effort to influence the Poles. This burden rested exclusively on the French representatives in Poland. General Gamelin had decided to send General Faunce to Poland in a last attempt to argue the French position. Faurice had directed the Polish War College at Warsaw for many years, and he had numerous friends among the Polish military men. His mission was exceptionally delicate, because he was instructed to advise the Poles chat France had never agreed to support Polish military action against Germany in the event of a German annexation of Danzig. Needless to say, this mission for France did not increase the popularity of the French general in Poland.60

Daladier and Bonnet decided on August 21, 1939, to go over the heads of the Poles without further hesitation. Sir William Strang, who had returned from Moscow to London early in August, was informed by the French diplomats at London on August 21st that the French Government had decided to permit their military authorities to act as the “guarantor” of Poland, in the staff talks at Moscow which had been resumed earlier the same day. The French planned to give “an affirmative answer in principle” to the demand for Russian military operations in Poland. The sole condition which they intended to impose was that Russian troops refrain from entering Poland until the outbreak of hostilities between Poland and Germany. General Doumenc would receive plenipotentiary powers to accept any agreement which would include French approval of the Russian request.

Strang discussed the French démarche with Sir Alexander Cadogan. The two diplomats agreed that France was acting without formally consulting Great Britain, in the expectation of receiving ex post facto British support. This was a reasonable assumption, because Halifax had repeatedly encouraged Bonnet in the opinion that it was necessary to grant Russia permission to conduct military operations in Poland. Strang concluded that “it may well be that their judgment of the Polish attitude is the right one (and they should know by now, after all these years, what the Polish mind is like), and that while the Poles refuse their assent, they really mean to indicate that we are at liberty to go ahead with the Russians provided we say nothing to the Poles about it.” This was an astonishing rationalization of an unpleasant situation, but it was typical of British diplomacy and of the official British mind. Both Strang and Cadogan believed that the British Government should support the French move.61

Premier Daladier spoke with Lukasiewicz at Paris on August 21, 1939, without offering the slightest hint that France had decided to offer the Russians permission to enter Poland. Daladier later claimed that, as a saving gesture to French conscience, he had threatened to break the French alliance with Poland in retaliation against Polish refusal to cooperate with the Russians. Lukasiewicz emphatically denied this. The Polish diplomat recalled that he was primarily impressed in this conversation by the fact that Daladier had very little to say.62

The last meeting between the Anglo-French military men and the Russians, [446] before the Soviet press announced that the Soviet Union would conclude a separate treaty with Germany, took place on the afternoon of August 21, 1939. Marshal Voroshilov peremptorily announced that he was responsible for Red Army autumn “maneuvers,” and that he would soon ask for the permanent adjournment of military talks with the West, so that he could better devote himself to this task. General Doumeno did not receive his commission of authority to propose a separate Anglo-Franco-Russian agreement on Poland until after this meeting. Marshal Voroshilov lectured the British and French military men about Poland. He declared that it had always been axiomatic that Russia should have the same right to operate in Poland and Rumania that the United States and Great Britain had possessed in France during World War I. He expressed astonishment that the Western missions had arrived in Russia without a clear commitment on this important question. The British and French military men received the news of the intended Russo-German non-aggression pact from the Russian newspaper press immediately after the close of the session.63

The British discovered afterward that Stalin had decided to conclude a pact with Germany as early as August 11th, on the second day that the British and French military missions were on Russian soil, and before the first preliminary conversations between the missions and the Russian military leaders. It was later evident that Stalin had deliberately protracted his negotiations with both the Germans and the Allied military missions. The British and French would never have made the final decision to offer an agreement to Russia at the expense of Poland had the Soviet Dictator shown his hand at an earlier date. The fact that the general public learned the true nature of Soviet policy before the military missions received any hint of this policy was typical of Soviet diplomacy, and it was a deliberate affront to both Great Britain and France. The British and French would not have exposed themselves to this needless insult had it not been for the reckless policy of Halifax in seeking to provoke war with Germany at all costs. The policy of Halifax was the greatest possible aid which Great Britain could render to the realization of Communist objectives, but this did not prompt Stalin and the other Russian leaders to display any gratitude. They knew that Halifax’s policy was a series of blunders selfishly conceived, and of course not a deliberate attempt to advance the Communist world conspiracy.64

British Ambassador Henderson at Berlin expressed the indignation of many of his countrymen when he wired to Halifax early on August 22nd, “the treacherous cynicism of Stalin and Co., with our military missions sitting and negotiating at Moscow, is beyond belief.” Henderson recognized at once that the circumstances of the Russian surprise were calculated to inflict the maximum injury to British prestige. He always had opposed an alliance pact with the Soviet Union, but he was saddened by the spectacle of the additional humiliation which his country was forced to endure.65


The Ineptitude of Halifax’s Russian Diplomacy

The belated approach to Russia by Halifax was an abortive and sordid affair. Halifax had virtually ignored the Soviet Union throughout 1938. He launched [447] his sudden and unexpected courtship of the Russians with an appeal for their help in Rumania, although this appeal was based on the hoax which he had fabricated with Tilea, and it ignored the fact that Rumania did not desire Communist protection. He followed this with his Four Power alliance pact proposition of March 20, 1939, which was torpedoed by Beck four days later. He then proceeded on March 31, 1939, to extend a unilateral guarantee to Poland without consulting Russia. He permitted Bonnet to inform the Russians that Great Britain continued to desire an alliance with the Soviet Union before producing his hopelessly onesided offer of April 15, 1939. Halifax allowed Strang to proceed to Russia two months later without having altered to any appreciable extent the unsatisfactory British terms. He instructed Strang during June and July 1939 to retreat one step at a time toward a position allegedly more acceptable to Russia, although this style of diplomacy inevitably produced Russian contempt. The British military mission was dispatched to Moscow in August 1939 by the slow means of naval transit without adequate instructions. This placed the British military men in an inferior position before their Russian counterparts. It was soon evident that the Polish question was at the root of the Russian criticism of the British position. Halifax permitted Kennard to avoid decisive steps in support of France at Warsaw which might have made some impression on the Poles. The Poles refused to modify their position, and Halifax without having duplicated the strong French protests to Poland, acquiesced in the proposal of the French leaders to conclude a separate agreement with Russia at Polish expense. Halifax adopted this policy despite the fact that Kennard had repeatedly reminded him that the Soviet Union was the principal enemy of Poland.

Halifax’s conduct of British relations with Russia and Poland during this period fully revealed the miserable reality behind the noble facade of his policy. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Soviet support in a war against Germany was less important to Halifax than the war itself. The unprecedented arrogance of the Communists in their treatment of the British military mission is beyond dispute, but it is difficult to deny that Halifax fully deserved this treatment.

The attempt of Halifax to conclude an alliance with the Russians had been the most publicized feature of European diplomacy for more than five months. For this reason the prestige factor involved was extremely great. When the effort ended in failure the humiliation was all the greater. The suitor had been found wanting, and he was rejected. The Franco-Russian alliance of 1935 had been deprived, in the process, of whatever significance it had once possessed. It is a general rule that friction arises between partners in defeat, and a considerable amount of French resentment against Great Britain after the debacle in Russia was inevitable. The disaster in Russia did not persuade Halifax for one moment to question the wisdom of a preventive war against Germany, but this war remained conditional in his mind on the participation of France. Halifax had courted Russia for a short period, but he was engaged in a perpetual courtship of France, and the policy of France had become the decisive element in the European situation.

Hitler hoped that the reversal in Russia would modify Anglo-French policy, and he intended to contribute to this development by diplomatic means. Hitler [448] was prepared to approach both Great Britain and France with new diplomatic proposals, but his Anglophilia prompted him to concentrate his major effort on Great Britain. He would have reversed this priority had he fully realized the contrast between the reasonable French attitude and Halifax’s unshakeable desire for war. This fact remained concealed from Hitler in August 1939, and he would not have believed the truth about Halifax unless it had been presented to him with documentary confirmation. Hitler continued to entertain the natural, but utterly mistaken, assumption that Halifax would prefer a peaceful settlement of Anglo-German differences to an Anglo-German war. He failed to realize that Halifax, despite his diplomatic defeat in Russia, still preferred the destruction of Germany to peace.

[449]
Chapter 18

THE RUSSIAN DECISION
FOR A PACT WITH GERMANY


The Russian Invitation of August 12, 1939

The policy of Stalin and Molotov toward Germany in August 1939 was consistent with the foreign program outlined by the Soviet leaders at the 18th Congress of the Communist Party in March 1939, before the German occupation of Prague. The Russian leaders at that time had predicted that the Soviet Union would succeed in remaining neutral during the early phase of the conflict which they expected to occur in the near future between Germany and the Western Powers. The French believed that an alliance between the Western Powers and the Soviet Union might be a useful prelude to a policy of conciliation toward Germany which would prevent the outbreak of World War II. The British leaders hoped for Soviet assistance in the war against Germany which they considered inevitable. It is unlikely that the French leaders could have influenced the British to adopt a moderate policy even after an agreement with the Soviet Union had been achieved. It is extremely doubtful that a military pact with the Soviet Union would have been useful in preventing the outbreak of World War II. It has been argued that Russian neutrality was the real cause of the outbreak of World War II, but this paradoxical viewpoint has never been presented in a convincing manner. The contention has been made that the adherence of the Soviet Union to the coalition of Halifax would have created preponderant power sufficient to guarantee the peace. This does not take account of the fact that Halifax, unlike the French leaders, desired not peace but war, and that the British diplomats themselves did not believe that an alliance with the Soviet Union would preserve the peace.

The German leaders received a definite indication on August 12, 1939, that the Soviet Union had decided to arrive at an understanding with Germany and to reject the Anglo-French alliance offer. Russian Chargé d’Affaires Georgi Astakhov called at the German Foreign Office and announced that Stalin wished to reach an understanding with Germany about Poland and about Russo-German [450] political relations. Astakhov suggested that negotiations could be advanced “by degrees,” and that Moscow would be a suitable place for final talks. He had no suggestion to make about the selection of negotiators by Germany. His démarche did not mean that a Russo-German pact had become a certainty, but it was evident that successful negotiations were probable if desired by Germany.

The Russians were not offering to conclude a pact which would ban the danger of war. They were hoping that Halifax would succeed in launching a major European war, without Russian participation. The Russians considered it worthwhile to gamble on this eventuality, because it would create the most favorable conditions for the expansion of Bolshevism in Europe. Hitler hoped that a Russo-German pact would be a decisive factor in preventing the outbreak of a new European war. He thought there was good reason to believe that the Western Powers would change their minds about war with Germany after the defection of the Soviet Union. It seemed less likely that there would be a new European war if the Soviet Union signed a neutrality pact with Germany instead of an alliance with the Western Powers. This was true despite the fact that many irresponsible Western journalists favoring war claimed that this step by Russia, which they disliked, made war more probable. They knew that arguing in this manner would increase the chances for war.2


The Private Polish Peace Plan of Colonel Kava

The Russian démarche of August 12, 1939, came when it was most needed at Berlin. There were new indications during these days that the situation with Poland was utterly hopeless. The Poles had followed up the success of their outrageous August 4th ultimatum at Danzig with an intensified reign of terror 9ver the German minority in Poland. Rumanian Minister Radu Crutzescu asked Weizsäcker at the German Foreign Office on August 11th if the current situation between Germany and Poland involved the immediate threat of war. Weizsäcker replied that it would be more profitable for the Rumanian Government to direct this inquiry to Warsaw. The German Ambassador to Poland, who was awaiting new instructions at Berlin, expressed his concern to Weizsäcker about the German minority in Poland. Weizsäcker promised Moltke that he would discuss the situation with Ribbentrop in an effort to discover if anything could be done to improve the situation.

The German Foreign Office on August 12th received word of a bitter and discouraging conversation between Senator Hasbach and Waclaw Zyborski, of the Polish Ministry of the Interior, which had taken place that day. Zyborski astonished Hasbach by claiming that he had seen an official German map which illustrated a plan to divide Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union. Zyborski insisted that Germany planned to annex Galicia, which constituted the entire South of Poland, and to permit most of Congress Poland and the Polish part of the Kresy region to return to Russia. Zyborski also contended that the Russians had been persuaded to re-settle the entire population of ethnic Poles, which came to a total of twenty millions, in Siberia. It was obvious to Hasbach that this fraudulent plan could be used to justify savage treatment of the [451] German minority in Poland. He told Zyborski that the plan was too fantastic to be credible, but his pleas were rudely ignored. Zyborski said with brutal bluntness that a situation had arisen in which none of the desires or pleas of the German ethnic group in Poland would be discussed.3

Many of the lesser Polish officials were alarmed and distressed by this impossible situation, but they knew that it was futile to attempt the modification of the harsh policy of Polish Premier Slawoj-Skladkowski toward the Germans. The Polish Consul-General at Berlin, Colonel Kava, urged Robert Böning, the National Socialist Secretary of the German-Polish Society, to go to Warsaw on August 13th in an attempt to make the Polish leaders listen to reason. He insisted that the most important obligation of the Society and its Foundation was to augment the earlier understanding between Germany and Poland and that a special effort was required from Böning at a moment when it appeared that German-Polish friendship would be irretrievably lost. Kava was aware that Germany would never abdicate in the Danzig and Corridor transit questions, and he personally believed that the settlement of these questions was the necessary basis for a lasting understanding between the two countries. He promised to precede Böning to Warsaw, and to prepare the way with his friends at the Polish Foreign Office, who chafed under Beck’s leadership.

Kava hoped for fruitful contacts with Polish Under-State Secretary Arciszewski, Deputy Director of the Western Department Kunicki, and Count Michal Lubienski, Beck’s Chef de Cabinet. Böning assured Colonel Kava that he knew these three men, and that it would be possible to have sensible talks with them about current problems. He was grateful to Colonel Kava both for his general attitude and for his helpful suggestion, but he believed that the efforts of a private German individual such as himself would be useless. He promised to discuss the matter at the German Foreign Office, and to request an official commission for a journey to Warsaw. He also intended that Ribbentrop should receive the new information which Colonel Kava had given him about the sincere and conscientious Polish officials who continued to favor peace with Germany despite the policy of Halifax and Beck. It was tragic that these Poles were unable to exert a decisive influence on the conduct of Polish policy. The difficulty was that Hitler and Ribbentrop feared that an isolated effort of Böning, with men who were not in control over Polish policy, would persuade Halifax that Germany was retreating under Polish pressure.

Italian Ambassador Bernardo Attolico, who had been stationed at Danzig by the League of Nations in the 1920’s, revealed at the German Foreign Office on August 14, 1939, a compromise plan from private Polish sources friendly to Germany. Germany would receive the city of Danzig and slightly more than half of its territory, with the Mottlau tributary of the Vistula as the dividing line. The territory assigned to Germany would connect Danzig with East Prussia, whereas the Poles would receive territory in the direction of Gdynia, and the “sort of island,” actually a peninsula, on which was situated the Polish Westerplatte arsenal in Danzig harbor. These private Polish circles were hopeful that Hitler would accept this solution, which would at least bring 300,000 Germans back to the Reich. They were less confident about the official Polish attitude, but they thought that it would be worthwhile to try a plan which offered a considerable German retreat from the October 24, 1939, offer, but which [452] stopped short of a total capitulation to Poland. The plan was gratefully received by the German Foreign Office, and it was filed for future reference. More might have been heard about it later had Poland agreed to resume negotiations with Germany.4


The Polish Terror in East Upper Silesia

The Polish authorities in East Upper Silesia launched a campaign of mass arrests against the German minority on August 14, 1939, and they proceeded to close and confiscate the remaining German businesses, clubs, and welfare installations. The Poles were furious because Viktor Szwagiel, one of their police officials, was shot and wounded by a Young German Party member during the first phase of the arrests. The arrested Germans were not interned in the area, but were forced to march toward the interior of Poland in prisoner columns. Thousands of Germans were seeking to escape arrest by crossing the border into Germany. Their efforts were sometimes aided by so-called smugglers, who led them across the “green border” (away from main thoroughfares and control stations) for prices ranging from to 10 to 600 Zloty. The refugees noted that in some cases the smugglers worked in connivance with the border control officials, who sympathized with the plight of the Germans. Senator Rudolf Wiesner, the leader of the Young German Party, was arrested by the Polish authorities at 11:50 p.m. on August 16, 1939. The German Foreign Office learned the same day that official Polish policy was not encouraging for any Danzig compromise plan. August Papde, the Polish representative to the Vatican, gave a negative reply to the suggestion of Cardinal Secretary of State Luigi Maglione on August 16th that Poland contribute to the preservation of peace by permitting Germany to recover Danzig. Papde replied that Poland would invade Germany with or without British and French support if Hitler attempted to secure the return of the Danzig to the Reich.5

The various German groups in Poland were frantic by this time, and they feared that the Poles might attempt the total extermination of the German minority in the event of war. German Chargé d’Affaires Baron Wuehlisch at Warsaw received a desperate and highly compromising secret appeal from the German minority spokesmen on August 15th. The German Government was requested to command the German Air Force, in the event of war, to drop leaflets in Poland threatening reprisals against the Poles for further atrocities against the German minority. The German press denounced the Polish policy of mass arrests, and the Poles were warned not to regard the German minority as helpless hostages who could be butchered with impunity.6


Ciano ‘s Mission to Germany

The desperate situation in Poland prompted Hitler to welcome the Soviet initiative for a pact of neutrality at a time when it was impossible to deny the likelihood of a German-Polish war. It also influenced his attitude in with Italy. Hitler feared that the policy of retreat advocated by Mussolini would [453] convince the Western Powers that the Axis was weakening, and that this attitude would increase the danger of a general European war. He had rejected the proposal of Mussolini for a Brenner meeting because the joint communiqué proposed by the Italians conveyed the impression of an Axis retreat. The divergence of views between Hitler and Mussolini had produced a serious disagreement on the conduct of high policy, and it was recognized by both parties that personal conferences were necessary if this disagreement was to be overcome. The German Government agreed to invite Italian Foreign Minister Count Galeazzo Ciano to Germany for conversations with Hitler and Ribbentrop. Ciano was received in Salzburg by Ribbentrop, Mackensen, and Attolico on August 11, 1939. He was scheduled to confer with Hitler at the nearby Obersalzberg on the afternoon of the following day. The German leader was conferring with League High Commissioner Burckhardt when Ciano arrived, and it was decided that Ciano and Ribbentrop should engage in preliminary talks on the morning of August l2th.7

Hitler took the same line in his conversation with Burckhardt on August 11th that he intended to employ with Ciano on the following day. Hitler told Burckhardt that further patience with the Poles was becoming an impossibility, and that grave danger existed of a German-Polish war. He predicted that Germany would defeat Poland in about three weeks if war came. He requested Burckhardt to inform the French and British of this situation, and to remind them that Germany did not desire a conflict with the Western Powers under any circumstances. Burckhardt agreed to undertake this mission.

Beck was nervous about this meeting, because he feared that Burckhardt would make a formidable effort to persuade the British and French not to attack Germany. He told Szembek that he was furious with Burckhardt for accepting an interview with Hitler at this juncture. The Burckhardt mission made an impression on Bonnet, but none whatever on Halifax. The British Foreign Secretary, who sent Roger Makins to Basel as his personal representative to ascertain Hitler’s views, received some plain language from Burckhardt about the atrocious mistreatment of the German minority by the Poles. Halifax responded by instructing Kennard that the Poles would have to improve their tactics if they hoped to avoid giving any impression that they were guilty of provoking the approaching war. Halifax also advised the Poles to cease their provocations at Danzig and to restrain their press. Kennard responded with a purely formal démarche which could not possible worry Beck. The Polish Foreign Minister was relieved to note that the Burckhardt mission had failed to modify British policy. He claimed to Kennard that there was no point in discussing the situation of the German minority with the British, and he also made the astonishing claim that the Germans, and not the Poles, had started the so-called press war. He added that it was always the Germans, and not the Poles, who provoked incidents at Danzig. It was evident that Beck was not inclined to engage Kennard in a serious discussion of these problems.8

Ribbentrop discussed the Polish situation with Ciano at great length on the morning of August 12th. He described some of the worst recent atrocities against the German minority in Poland, including the mutilation of several Germans. Ciano later reported to Mussolini that Ribbentrop was very grave, and that he feared war between Germany and Poland might soon be inevitable. [454] Ribbentrop admitted that Great Britain and France might attack Germany, despite the fact that they could offer no effective help to the Poles. The German Foreign Minister continued to hope that it would be possible to localize a German-Polish conflict by diplomatic action.

Ciano was surprised to discover that Ribbentrop was relying on Russian neutrality in the event of a German-Polish war, and that he believed Great Britain and France would fail in their efforts to conclude an alliance at Moscow. Ribbentrop hoped that this development would be decisive in discouraging the British and French interventionists, and that it would banish the danger of an Anglo-French assault on Germany.

Ciano had been instructed by Mussolini to convince the Germans that any risk whatever of a major war should be avoided, because such a conflict would be catastrophic for both Germany and Italy. Ciano accordingly took a strong stand against Ribbentrop’s analysis of the European situation. He did not deny that Germany had ample justification under the existing provisions of international law to chastise the Poles. He argued instead that action by Germany against Poland would be inexpedient, because, in the opinion of both Mussolini and Ciano, the British and French would seize this as a pretext for military operations against Germany. Ribbentrop was surprised by Ciano’s tenacity in arguing for this interpretation, and he was startled to note that his own analysis of Russian policy did not modify this opinion. The two diplomats debated the issue at great length, but nothing was said about the role of Italy in the event of war.9

Ciano and Ribbentrop met with Hitler on the Obersalzberg in the afternoon for an intensive conference of more than three hours. Ciano insisted that a war with Poland should be avoided at any price, and he suggested that the Axis should issue an appeal for an international conference. The Italian Foreign Minister presented his arguments with energy and single-mindedness throughout this conference, and he succeeded in making a great impression on Hitler. The Chancellor agreed to consider the Italian viewpoint at length before discussing the matter again on the following day. The German Foreign Office was impressed by the ability of Ciano to present his views and to counter the arguments offered by Hitler. Weizsäcker was convinced that Ciano would repeat this performance with still greater effect on the following day. He failed to realize that Ciano had also been influenced by Hitler during this lengthy discussion. He was astonished to note on August 13th that Ciano reversed his position, and declared that Hitler was probably correct in calculating that Great Britain and France would not attack Germany if the German-Polish crisis culminated in a local war.10

Hitler’s reply to Ciano’s arguments on August 12th is important because it reveals the thoughts which were deciding the course of German policy at this point. Hitler claimed that a few fanatics in Warsaw and Krakow  were responsible for the tragedy in Poland because they had succeeded in stirring an otherwise indifferent Polish population into a frenzy of hatred against Germany. He stressed the obvious weaknesses of the Polish state with its large Ukrainian, Jewish, and German minorities. He assured Ciano that Germany was prepared to deal with Poland, and he illustrated this with confidential information that the Germans now had more than 130,000 soldiers in East Prussia alone. He [455] predicted that German defenses in the West would prove themselves impregnable against a possible Anglo-French offensive. Hitler discussed German defense problems with Ciano at length with the aid of a detailed map.11

Hitler inquired what Ciano would do if Trieste were in Yugoslav hands, and if a large Italian minority were subjected to persecution on Yugoslav soil. The German Chancellor thought that the danger of a general war in such a situation might discourage decisive action, but he added that it was his definite conviction that Great Britain and France, whatever their threats now, would not precipitate a general war. The German Chancellor showed Ciano two telegrams which he had recently received. The first one was from Tokyo, and it contained new confirmation that Japan would not conclude an alliance with Germany and Italy. The second telegram from Berlin confirmed the fact that Russia was prepared to discuss relevant political questions, including the Polish question. The Soviet diplomat, Georgi Astakhov, had personally informed the German Foreign Office that this was the case. Hitler pointed out that Germany, under these circumstances, would lose nothing in Japan by concluding an agreement with the Russians. He claimed that the British and French military missions in Russia were merely a blind to cover the failure of the Halifax effort to secure an alliance with Soviet Union. 12

Ciano argued that Great Britain and France would attack Germany despite a Russo-German agreement. He claimed that a war at this moment would be highly advantageous for the Western Powers. Great Britain and France had made great progress with their military preparations, and a temporary union sacrée (consecrated unity above considerations of everyday politics) had been achieved in the Western countries. These alleged advantages, according to Ciano, would prompt Great Britain and France to intervene against Germany on the slightest pretext. He predicted that a war in 1939 would deal a catastrophic blow to German and Italian relations with the United States, because it would enable President Roosevelt to obtain a third presidential term of office.

Ciano predicted that Roosevelt would lose his political game of exploiting foreign crises to advance his position at home if war could be averted at least until after the American presidential election in November 1940. Ciano was convinced that the temporary unity of opinion in Great Britain and France would gradually disintegrate if there were no war. He argued that the true friends of Germany were not in good condition at the moment. Japan might succeed in extricating herself from the Chinese imbroglio. Spain would have an opportunity to consolidate under her new regime. Above all, Italy would increase her own military forces. Ciano stressed that Italy was totally unprepared for a major war in 1939.13

Ciano reported to Mussolini that Hitler had recognized the validity of each point in support of the Italian position, provided one could assume that a general war would ensue. The doubtful policy of the Western Powers was the crux of the problem. Hitler insisted again and again that Great Britain and France would not attack Germany. Mussolini was also informed that Ciano told Ribbentrop, after the conference with Hitler on August 12th, that Italy would not enter the war if Germany was attacked by Great Britain and France. Ciano did not wish his disagreement with the German leaders to receive publicity. He had no objection on August 12th to a German protocol drawn up [456] in French, which announced publicly that complete harmony was resulting from the Italo-German exchange of views. 14

Ciano later reported to Mussolini that his conference with Hitler on August 13th, in contrast to the meetings on the previous day, had been exceptionally cordial. Hitler announced that he had thought the matter over and had decided to reject Ciano’s argument. He offered three principal reasons for arriving at this conclusion. In the first place, the Russians were apparently willing to cooperate with Germany, because they expected a German-Polish war which would enable them to acquire Eastern Poland. They would have no motive to support Germany at an international conference dealing with the Danzig question. Such support might be useful in sowing Hitler’s problems, but it would not gain the Polish eastern provinces for the Soviet Union. The Russians would also oppose a solution of the Danzig crisis for fear it might lead to a lasting Anglo-German agreement. This would be anathema to the Russians. Hitler could regard it as an absolute certainty that the Soviet Union would oppose German wishes at a Danzig conference. Germany and Italy might persuade Great Britain and France to admit Spain to a parley, but even in this case provided that Spain actually did support the German position, Germany, Italy, and Spain would be a minority against an Anglo-Franco-Russo-Polish majority. Germany could not hope to obtain satisfaction from such a conference, particularly because of the Soviet influence.15

Hitler believed that a dangerous reaction of over-confidence among the Poles would follow a German retreat at Danzig. He suspected that the Poles would seek to provoke a war by seizing Danzig during the rainy season. A victory for Poland at an international conference would encourage such a move, and the German minority in Poland would be required to pay a heavy price for any new Polish prestige. Germany would continue to confront an intolerable situation. War with Poland would probably come in 1939 anyway, and, if held off until the rainy season, the sea of Polish mud and the unpaved Polish roads might force such delays that a second front might be opened, and Germany be faced with a protracted two-front conflict. 16

Hitler was convinced that Ciano had failed to appreciate the impact of a Russo-German agreement on Great Britain and France. This was the third consideration which prompted him to differ with the analysis of the Italian Foreign Minister. Hitler was principally concerned lest the effect of the Russian pact be diminished by Italy’s avowed intention, which Ciano had announced to Ribbentrop, not to come to Germany’s support if Great Britain and France attacked her. This decision would soon be discovered by the British and French, because Italy, in the event of a crisis, would decline to take the necessary measures of military preparation.

Hitler made an eloquent plea on August 13th for a reconsideration of the Italian position. The defection of Italy from Germany would greatly increase the danger of war. Hitler was convinced that a solid Italo-German front, in combination with a Russo-German pact, would break that very unity of opinion in Great Britain and France which Ciano had emphasized. This development would outweigh whatever other advantages the Western Powers believed they possessed for an eventual war.

The German Chancellor was pleased to discover on August 13th that no [457] elaborate statements were requited to gain Ciano’s support. Hitler stated his position very briefly, but he received no arguments whatever from Ciano. The Italian Foreign Minister assured l4itler instead that the German leader had often been right in his analysis of difficult situations in the past, and that his evaluation on this occasion was probably more accurate than the Italian one. A German observer later explained that Ciano folded up like a pocket knife. Ciano promised Hitler that Italy would maintain a common front with Germany. Italy had little to lose if Great Britain and France did not attack Germany. Everything was settled quickly, and the second conference between Hitler and Ciano, which terminated a basic disagreement of several weeks duration between Germany and Italy, was over in thirty minutes.17


The Reversal of Italian Policy

Ciano had given Hitler his personal word that Italo-German solidarity would be maintained, but Italian Ambassador Attolico refused to accept this situation. He believed that Italy should separate from Germany if the Germans refused to retreat before Polish pretensions. He was irritated by the reports in the German press on August 15, 1939, which confirmed the Italo-German solidarity pledged by Ciano. He wished that Ciano had not made this pledge, and he decided to do everything possible to reverse the course of Italian policy.

Attolico requested and received permission to come to Rome on August IS, 1939, to present his case. He had prepared a careful report at Berlin on the Salzburg and Obersalzberg meetings- He criticized the foreign policy decisions of Hitler, Ribbentrop, and Ciano, and he argued that Italy should not come to the support of Germany in the event of a general European war. He turned over his Embassy at Berlin to Count Massimo Magistrate, the Italian Chargé d’Affaires, with whom he enjoyed relations of close confidence. Magistrati reported to Rome, immediately after the departure of Attolico, that the Germans had informed him of the likelihood of a pact with Russia in the very near future. The purpose of this report was to convince Mussolini that the final crisis was close at hand, and that he had a last opportunity to reconsider the Italian commitment. 18

Attolico was delighted to discover at Rome on August 16th that Ciano regretted the commitment he had made to Hitler. Mussolini and Ciano agreed with Attolico that Italian support to Germany in a major war would be inadvisable. Mussolini expressed his hope that a negotiated settlement of the German-Polish dispute would relieve Italy of the distasteful prospect of cancelling the pledge Ciano had made to Hitler. The Germans were alarmed by the mission of Attolico to Italy immediately after the conversations between Hitler and Ciano at Berchtesgaden. The negative attitude of Attolico toward the Italo-German alliance was well known at Berlin, and it was easy to deduce the purpose of his mission. He would not have left Germany had he been satisfied with the Ciano pledge at Berchtesgaden. Weizsäcker telephoned German Ambassador Mackensen on August 17th to inquire if he had seen Attolico, and if the Italian diplomat had departed again for Germany. Mackensen replied that Attolico had left Rome for Salzburg on the afternoon train the same day. He [458] had failed to see the Italian diplomat, who was “detained at the Ministry” in seemingly continuous conferences. Weizsäcker replied with great concern that he would take the morning train to Salzburg to confer with Ribbentrop and possibly with Attolico.19

A crucial telegram from Mackensen arrived in Berlin at 2:30 a.m. on August 18th before Weizsäcker departed for Salzburg. Ciano had informed the German Ambassador shortly before midnight on August 17th that Mussolini rejected the Berchtesgaden analysis of Hitler, Ribbentrop, and Ciano that a German-Polish war could remain localized. Mussolini insisted that a local war in Poland would be followed by an Anglo-French attack against Germany. He repeated the statement, agreed to by Hitler, that such a struggle would be exceedingly unfavorable for the Axis. Mussolini expressed his keen disappointment at the failure of Germany to respond favorably to the proposed Brenner meeting of the previous month, and to the Italian plan for a general diplomatic conference. He complained that such treatment from Germany deprived him of further inspiration for new creative suggestions. Ciano claimed that Mussolini was insisting that the decision for further steps “now lay solely with Berlin.” Mackensen noted suspiciously that Ciano had a still later appointment the same night with the British Ambassador. The German diplomat was curious to know how much Ciano would choose to divulge to Sir Percy Loraine about the Italian position.

The German leaders were exceedingly disturbed by the revelation of Mussolini’s attitude. Weizsäcker knew that Attolico had gone to Rome with the express purpose of converting Mussolini to a different interpretation of the crisis from the one which had been agreed upon between Hitler and Ciano at the Obersalzberg. Mackensen did nor deny the obvious purpose of Attolico’s mission, but he argued that the Italian Ambassador had insufficient influence at Rome to accomplish this. It seemed to Weizsäcker that Ciano was revealing excessive weakness in this dispute, and the German State Secretary concluded that Ciano had failed to speak with franchise brutale on August 13th, although he had sought to convey this impression. Weizsäcker concluded that Mackensen was wrong about Attolico’s influence. The Italian Ambassador had adopted a strong and consistent position, which contrasted with the vacillation of Ciano. Weizsäcker guessed correctly that this factor was decisive in influencing Mussolini.20


Italy’s Secret Pledge to Halifax

Ciano received Sir Percy Loraine a few minutes after midnight on August 18, 1939. He offered to discuss the conversations with Ribbentrop and Hitler on August 12th and 13th. Ciano reminded Loraine that the Poles were violating the German frontier with great recklessness, and that he was receiving extensive information about this situation from exclusively Italian sources in Poland. Ciano explained that the German attitude in the Polish question was naturally very stiff under these circumstances. The Italian Foreign Minister pleaded with Loraine that peace could not be preserved indefinitely unless at least the Danzig problem was solved in the German sense. Loraine replied that it was a fixed [459] British policy to apply no pressure on Poland to settle her differences with Germany. Ciano conducted himself correctly throughout this conversation, and Loraine hastily reported to Halifax that Italy had decided to stand solidly with Germany.

It was unfortunate that Italian fear of a possible British military attack prompted Ciano and Mussolini to abandon their attitude of loyalty toward Germany. Loraine joyfully reported later on August 18th that a new discussion with Ciano permitted him to draw the opposite conclusion about Italian policy. Ciano had claimed that Italy “has not agreed” to support Germany in the event of war, and he intimated to Loraine that she had no intention of doing so. Ciano also confided that he was in serious disagreement with Ribbentrop about the Polish crisis. Loraine reported irresponsible rumors that Hungarian Foreign Minister Istvan Csacy was in Rome on a pro-Polish and anti-German mission. Loraine hoped that this was true, because it would magnify the great differences which separated the Axis allies. The rumor about the Csacy visit originated from a Russian source, and it apparently did not occur to Loraine that the Russians were encouraging the British to persist in their disastrous policy of challenging Germany.21

Ciano’s indiscretion produced an electric effect in London, and it greatly weakened the impact Hitler desired to produce with his surprise Russian agreement. The influence on France was still more decisive. Indeed, it is reasonably certain that France, and consequently Great Britain, would not have attacked Germany had it not been for the disloyal indiscretion of Ciano to Loraine on August 18, 1939. The French military leaders asserted later that they would never have advised the French Government to gamble on a Franco-German war had it not been for the advance pledge of Italian neutrality in such a conflict. It would have been a simple matter for Bonnet to continue his peace policy had the French military men declared that a war with Germany was not feasible. A firm Italian stand in support of Germany, as advised by Hitler, and accepted by Ciano on August 13, 1939, would have done much more for European peace and for the interests of Italy than the prostration of Italy on August 18, 1939, before the British military threat.22

The Germans at this time had no idea whether or not Italy would support them. They were suspicious about the conferences between Ciano and Loraine, but they did not know that the British Government was receiving a promise that Italy would remain neutral if Great Britain attacked Germany. The message from Mussolini which Attolico presented to Ribbentrop at Salzburg on August 18, 1939, offered no indication of the true Italian position. Mussolini observed that a conflict between Germany and Poland would be difficult to localize, but he did not say that, in his opinion, this would be impossible. He mentioned that conditions did not appear favorable for Italian participation in a war of long duration, but he did not indicate that Italy would refuse to support Germany. It was natural for the Germans under these circumstances to conclude that Ciano had exaggerated the negative attitude of Mussolini in his conversation with Mackensen on August 17, 1939.

Ribbentrop explained to Attolico that the localization of a German-Polish war would probably depend upon the maintenance of a solid Italo-German front. The German Foreign Minister did not realize that this common front had [460]
been smashed by Ciano as the result of the initiative of the Italian diplomat to whom he was addressing his remarks. Ribbentrop explained that no prolonged war under modern conditions could be a “successful war” for any European Power, and he pointed out that Great Britain and France, after the conclusion of a Russo-German pact, could not hope for a quick success in a war against Germany. He had given much thought to Ciano’s point about the re-election of President Roosevelt in the event of war. He and Hitler hoped that opposition to Roosevelt in the United States was sufficiently strong to hold the American President in check. Attolico declared that he was less optimistic about all these points, and he complained that the shortage or raw materials in Italy was a serious problem. Ribbentrop suggested that Attolico’s analysis was not sufficiently imaginative. Russian raw materials would be available to Italy after the conclusion of a Russo-German trade agreement. Polish ore products from former German East Upper Silesia would be helpful to Italy in the event of war with Poland. Ribbentrop was satisfied with the outcome of this conference, because he received the delusive impression from Attolico that his remarks had allayed Italian fears.23

Mussolini was encouraged on August 18th by a misleading report from Italian Ambassador Arone at Warsaw. The Italian diplomat was informed by the American journalist, John Gunther, that Beck was perfectly willing to negotiate with Germany for a peaceful settlement. The false report of Gunther was widely circulated, and it contributed to serious misunderstandings about Polish policy at a time when Beck was resolutely opposed to further negotiation with Germany.


Soviet Hopes for a Western European War

The indiscretion of Ciano to Loraine was very helpful to the Soviet Union in the last few days before the conclusion of the pact with Germany. The Russians hoped that their refusal of an alliance with the Western Powers would not check the effort of Halifax to plunge Great Britain, France, and Poland into war against Germany. The Soviet Union would be unable to expand at the expense of ‘her six western neighbors if peace was inadvertently preserved by the Russian neutrality policy toward Germany. It was even more important that a favorable occasion when the major capitalist Powers might damage or destroy themselves through their own actions would be lost.

Halifax hastened to inform British diplomatic missions abroad that Italian defection from the alliance with Germany was a certainty, and he was correct in assuming that this news would create an impression on the British diplomats. British Ambassador Henderson at Berlin was a formidable and consistent critic of the Halifax war policy, but he was much impressed by the news about Italy. He suggested that Hitler might be forced to retreat before the Poles after all, although he could not refrain from suspecting that Loraine’s analysis of the situation in Rome was incorrect. It seemed incredible to Henderson that Ciano was capable of making such a gigantic diplomatic blunder.24

Ciano hoped to atone partially for his treacherous disloyalty to Germany by preparing the way for a peaceful settlement of the Danzig dispute. He seemed [461]to think that Italian prestige as a mediating Power would be increased if Italy remained “on the fence,” but this was no longer true after he had indicated that Italy would not support Germany under any circumstances. The situation would have been different had Ciano at least maintained some suspense about Italian policy. Ciano discussed with Loraine on August 19, 1939, the idea of a conference of the Powers to settle the Polish question. He was disappointed to note that the British Ambassador replied evasively to his various questions, and displayed no enthusiasm for a conference.

Halifax approved Loraine’s “handling of the Italian scene” on the night of August 19th. There was no place on the Halifax program for a peaceful settlement of the Danzig dispute. He informed Loraine that Great Britain hoped to evade responsibility for closing the door on the Italian proposition. He hoped that the Germans and Italians would fail to agree on the program for a conference. He believed that Loraine should display a vaguely positive attitude toward Italian efforts if Italo-German disagreement was evident. Loraine should indirectly discourage Ciano by insisting that both the Soviet Union and Poland would have to participate on an equal basis with the other Powers in the proposed conclave. This was, of course, before Halifax had received word of the coming Russo-German pact. The British Foreign Secretary was not astute enough to foresee that the Russians could later be relied upon to oppose German aims at such a conference.25

Halifax was prompted by the news from Italy to discuss the general European situation with Sir Robert Vansittart, and to write a letter to Chamberlain, who was enjoying several weeks of vacation and virtual retirement during this month of severe crisis. Halifax was convinced that Hitler did not expect British participation in a German-Polish war. Halifax assured Chamberlain that Hitler could still have peace if he abandoned German claims at Danzig, but neither of the two men expected that Hitler would do this. Halifax concluded, after writing to Chamberlain, that it would be prudent to reinforce the reversal of Italian policy by frightening the Italians. He dispatched a message to Rome, which Loraine delivered to Ciano on the following day. Italy was warned on August 20, 1939, that Great Britain would attack her immediately with most of her armed forces if she joined Germany as an ally in any future war.26

This threat from Halifax produced a great effect at Rome. Mussolini concluded that a successful conference was necessary for Italian security and survival. The Germans were not informed of this British ultimatum to Italy. The Italians feared that they would be attacked without making any move unless they announced repeatedly that they would not support Germany. On August 20th Mussolini developed a tentative agenda for his proposed conference. The experience of the Munich conference had convinced him that a new conference would not be effective unless it was comprehensive in scope. He advocated the following main topics for the agenda: 1) German-Polish settlement, 2) Franco-Italian settlement (i.e. of Italian Chargés of French discrimination against Italy in colonial questions, of the mistreatment of the Italian minority in the French colonies, of French fears of Italian irredentism), 3) German colonies ( a definitive agreement one way or the other on the possible restoration of the German colonies), 4) Economic problems (i.e. elimination of trade barriers), and 5) Limitation of armaments (an effort to scuttle the arms race and return to a [462] normal basis). Mussolini gave much thought to including all the major problems. It was easy to see that there were fewer problems in 1939, after many of the mistakes of the Paris peace treaties of 1919 had been rectified, than had been the case in earlier years. The urgency of such a conference was underlined by a report from Ambassador Arone at Warsaw, on the following day, that conditions in Danzig and along the German-Polish frontier were terrible, and that the general atmosphere in Poland was perilously tense.27


The Crisis at Danzig

Chodacki returned to Warsaw by airplane from Danzig on August 16, 1939, to discuss the situation with Beck. An unrewarding and lengthy conversation between Chodacki and Senate President Greiser that morning had failed to modify the deadlock between Danzig and Poland. Chodacki told Greiser that the Polish economic boycott against Danzig products would continue until Danzig recognized the unlimited right of the Polish inspectors to perform their functions anywhere on Danzig territory. The Polish diplomat claimed that Danzig would capitulate in this question were it not for her interest in secretly unloading German arms and ammunition in the Free City. League High Commissioner always told him that a meeting with Greiser had “gone right” when in fact nothing had “gone right.” Burckhardt was also furious with the Danziger Vorposten (The Danzig Sentinel) for the indiscreet printing of news about his supposedly secret meeting with Hitler on August 11th. Burckhardt had intended that the meeting should be known to the German, British, French and Danzig leaders, but concealed from the Poles. He complained that his relations with the Poles were sufficiently unfavorable without the Chargé that he was conducting important European diplomatic missions for Hitler.28

German Chargé d’Affaires Wuehlisch at Warsaw warned the German Foreign Office on August 18, 1939, that the Poles were about to launch a campaign of mass arrests against the German minority in the areas of Posen, West Prussia, and Central Poland, in addition to East Upper Silesia. The Poles justified the mass arrests in Upper Silesia by charging that “the arrests in Upper Silesia are obviously to be attributed to the organization of diversionary groups which is done from various centers in the Reich.” The Poles now Chargéd that similar groups existed in the other districts. The events in Upper Silesia had been a prelude for a general campaign of terror throughout Poland.

Polish High Commissioner Chodacki returned from Warsaw on August 18th with new instructions for conversations with Greiser at Danzig. He told the Senate President that he had a blank check to remove the Polish economic embargo of Danzig if the local authorities granted the right of unrestricted operation in the Free City for both custom inspectors and Polish frontier guards. Greiser complained that this demand was equivalent to a total Polish military occupation of Danzig. Greiser promised to release two inspectors arrested on August 14th for illegal activities, but he refused to accede to the general Polish demand which had no foundation in the existing treaty relationship between Danzig and Poland. Chodacki turned the subject to the German-Polish crisis, and he observed with biting sarcasm that the basis for an agreement between the two countries had to be narrow, because Beck had assured him that Poland was [463] not prepared to make any concessions. Chodacki declared that Poland would not launch military operations against Germany unless Germany attacked Polish interests, but he warned Greiser that the Polish nation would stand together as a nation of soldiers in any war.29

National Socialist District Party Leader Forster concluded after this conversation that the Polish position prevented a solution of the embargo crisis. He advised Edmund Veesenmayer, an assistant of Ribbentrop visiting at Danzig, that the local authorities would be more successful with the Poles if they adopted a more vigorous position. Veesenmayer disagreed with this view, and he argued that the Danzig Government should continue to exercise restraint and to permit the Poles to shoulder the responsibility for whatever happened at Danzig. Forster was scornful to discover that three Germans were arrested in West Prussia as agents of the Danzig Government. The Poles were treating the so-called Free City as a separate hostile Power.

A sensation was created at Danzig on August 21st when Senator Rudolf Wiesner arrived on the territory of the Free City after escaping from Poland. He had been arrested by the Poles on August 16th on suspicion of conducting espionage for Germany in Poland. Wiesner, who was the most prominent of the German minority leaders in Poland, discussed the current situation with representatives of the German Reich at Danzig on August 22nd. He complained that the German national group had sought to establish loyal relations with the Polish state, but that this effort had failed. He had vainly hoped that German ethnic consciousness would not be incompatible with loyal citizenship in Poland. Wiesner spoke of a disaster “of inconceivable magnitude” since the early months of 1939. He claimed that the last Germans had been dismissed from jobs without benefit of unemployment relief, and that hunger and privation were stamped on the faces of the Germans in Poland. German welfare agencies, cooperatives, and trade associations had been destroyed. The exceptional martial law conditions of the earlier frontier zone had been extended to include more than one third of the territory of the Polish state. The mass arrests, deportations, mutilations, and beatings of the past few weeks surpassed anything which had happened before. The tragedy was that this punishment was undeserved. Wiesner insisted that the German minority leaders continued to hope for a peaceful solution between Germany and Poland. They were not seeking a return to the German Reich. They merely desired the restoration of peace, the banishment of the specter of war, and the right to live and work in peace.30

The German diplomats and Danzig authorities discussed the possibility that the publication of the Wiesner statements might alleviate the wretched conditions of the German minority. Albert Forster, the local National Socialist Party chief, did not believe that this would be the case. He argued that such protestations of good faith, after the bestial persecutions which had been endured, would debase the Germans without changing the attitude of the Poles. He was relieved to discover that Werner Lorenz, Chief of the Office for Ethnic Germans in the Reich, agreed with his analysis in a report on the Wiesner material on the evening of August 22, 1939.31

The Wiesner episode aroused Forster to an unprecedented degree. The news of the approaching Russo-German pact was made public in Danzig at this time, and Forster urged that the time had come for Danzig to change her own policy [464] to coincide with the implications of this treaty. He advocated a firm policy which would restrict the activities of Polish customs inspectors and frontier guards to the areas stipulated by the treaties. He proposed a policy of meeting force with force if the Poles reacted violently to this firm attitude.

These discussions were relayed to Hitler, who supported Forster. The German Chancellor believed that the Danzig Government should make an effective gesture in support of the inauguration of this new policy. He advised the Danzig Senate leaders to proclaim the appointment of Forster as Chief-of-State in Danzig. This would make Forster the formal titular chief at Danzig, and Greiser would continue as de facto Premier in his capacity as President of the Danzig Senate. The suggestion of Hitler was approved by the Danzig leaders, and it was decided to proclaim Forster head of state at noon on August 23, 1939. The days of acquiescence in Polish encroachments at Danzig were nearly over, or at least until March 30, 1945, when the German forces at Danzig surrendered to the Red Army after the city itself had disappeared in rubble and ashes under the bombardment of Soviet artillery and aerial attacks. German Danzig by that time existed solely in the hearts of her surviving citizens. The ruined shell of the city was provisionally inherited by Poles who were the involuntary slaves of their tiny Communist minority, and of the powerful Soviet Union. The Polish refusal to permit the return of Danzig to Germany ended in indescribable tragedy for both Poland and Germany.32


Russian Dilatory Tactics

The fratricidal strife between Germany and Poland was profitable to the Soviet masters of Russia from the first hour. The Russians were not encouraging a neutrality pact with Germany because they were more friendly toward the Germans than toward the British and French. These ordinary human distinctions did not exist in Soviet diplomacy, for the Soviet leaders desired the destruction of all the countries involved in the European crisis. The Russian leaders preferred to expand peaceably with the consent of Germany rather than of Great Britain and France, because this would enable them to avoid losses in warfare while Poland and the Western Powers engaged in a desperate struggle against Germany.

The démarche of Astakhov at Berlin on August 12th prompted Ribbentrop to dispatch important instructions to Schulenburg shortly after the departure of Ciano from Germany. Schulenburg was ordered to seek an appointment with Molotov for August 15th. This was arranged on August 14th, and the German Ambassador received his detailed instructions at 4:40, the following morning. Ribbentrop emphasized the traditional German political line which had been advocated by Bismarck in the 1850’s in the conduct of relations between Prussia and Bonapartist France. This policy required that ideological differences should not necessarily be an obstacle to friendship between states. The employment of this policy was dictated by consideration for German interests. The German Reich in August 1939 was threatened with the formation of an overwhelming hostile coalition. The German leaders would prefer to cope with this situation by arriving at lasting understandings with Great Britain and France, but there were no specific indications that this was possible.

Schulenburg was instructed to inform Molotov that the living spaces of Germany and Russia might one day touch again at certain points, but they need not overlap. Ribbentrop added that possibly conflicting interests in the area between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea could be settled by negotiation, and he believed that no one would deny that the two nations were complementary in the economic sphere. History taught that things had gone well for both nations when they cooperated, and badly for both when on opposite sides in war. Ribbentrop suggested that the “natural sympathy” of the Germans for Russia had never disappeared, and he argued that the current policies of the Western Powers were incompatible with the interests of both Germany and the Soviet Union. Ribbentrop considered a western alliance policy dangerous for Russia, because in World War I “the Russian regime collapsed as a result of this policy.” Schulenburg, who apparently identified the Bolsheviks with the Tsars, considered that this formulation was tactless, and he modified it to read. In 1914 this policy had serious consequences for Russia.” The instructions concluded with the warning that an explosion might occur before the outstanding problems were settled unless negotiations were hastened. Ribbentrop expressed his willingness to come to Moscow provided that Stalin would agree to a personal meeting. The exact content of these instructions from Ribbentrop were to be presented to Molotov as a note verbale.33

Schulenburg explained his personal views in a lengthy report to Weizsäcker on August 14th before the arrival of the instructions from Ribbentrop. The German Ambassador opposed “hasty measures with Russia, because he apparently believed that German eagerness might spoil the chances for an agreement. He warned that the Russians were blaming Germany in advance for any conflict which might arise with Poland. He was convinced that it would be necessary to pay an enormous price for an agreement. He approved the suggestion of an American diplomat in Moscow that the abandonment of close relations with Japan and the sending of a new military mission to Nationalist China might help to win Russian approval. Schulenburg seemed to think that the British and French military missions would conduct protracted negotiations in Moscow over a very long period. The German Ambassador, who hated National Socialism, asked to be excused from attending the Nuremberg Rally for Peace in September 1939. He claimed that he should remain in Moscow as the man “who can best and most easily carry on conversations with M. Molotov.” The views of Schulenburg obviously conflicted with the instructions he was about to receive from Ribbentrop.

The meeting with Molotov on August 15, 1939, compelled the German Ambassador to conclude that he had been mistaken in his own analysis of the situation. Molotov agreed with Ribbentrop that speed in the negotiations was necessary because of the existing situation, and he agreed that Germany and the Soviet Union should clarify their relations by means of a non-aggression pact and the delimitation of spheres of interest. Molotov added that adequate preparations were a necessary prelude to an understanding. He obviously favored a settlement on the important points before conducting personal negotiations with one of the German leaders.

Schulenburg was instructed on August 16th to arrange a new interview with Molotov for the following day. The detailed instructions for the interview [466] arrived at Moscow at 1:00 a.m. on August 17th. Ribbentrop announced that the German Government also favored a non-aggression pact, and that he was prepared to fly to Moscow at any time after August 18th. The Russians were urged to agree that the trip should not be later than Monday, August 21st. Ribbentrop hoped to convince the Russians that further preliminaries were unnecessary, and that it would be possible to settle all outstanding points in personal negotiations.34

Molotov had made the fantastic claim to Schulenburg on the evening of August 15th that the Soviet Union had always favored friendly relations with Germany, and that he was pleased that “Germany suddenly reciprocated.” The persistent efforts of Litvinov to achieve the encirclement of Germany by an overwhelming coalition under the guise of collective security were conveniently ignored. Schulenburg was astonished to learn that Ciano had informed Russian Chargé d’Affaires Leon Helfand, as early as June 1939, of the alleged German desire at that time to conclude a treaty with Russia. Actually, Hitler had not then made up his mind, although the Italians were urging Germany to conclude such a pact. Schulenburg replied haughtily that the statements of Ciano were probably based on irresponsible rumors from Italian diplomatic sources in Moscow. This attitude amused Molotov, who inquired if the German Ambassador was suggesting that the Foreign Minister of Germany’s Ally was guilty of inventing information. Schulenburg replied lamely that Ciano’s information was apparently only partly correct.

Schulenburg was not able to see Molotov again until 8 o’clock on the evening of Thursday, August 17th. He was empowered to inform Molotov that Ribbentrop was prepared to discuss Russian aspirations in the Baltic states, and to exert whatever modifying influence he could on Japanese policy toward the Soviet Union. Molotov was to be warned that Germany would be unable to endure Polish provocation indefinitely. On August 14, 1939, Hitler had secretly cancelled plans to hold the August 1939 commemoration ceremonies of the 1914 German victory over Russia at Tannenberg, and the September 1939 Nuremberg Party Rally. The mass attendance customary on such occasions would deprive the Germany Army of necessary railroad facilities in the event of a sudden emergency.35

The Russians were not quite prepared to disrupt their negotiations with the British and French military missions when Schulenburg called on Molotov on August 17th. The Soviet Foreign Commissar replied to the German note verbale of August 15th with a vigorous and extensive criticism of earlier German policy. He announced that Russia expected the conclusion of a Russo-German trade pact to precede personal negotiations on a non-aggression treaty. The trade pact was actually ready for signature at Berlin the following day, but the Russian delegation deliberately delayed matters by insisting on referring the final draft to Moscow for further consideration. It was agreed that the trade delegations would meet again on Monday, August 21st, at 10:00 am., but there was no indication that the Russians would actually sign the treaty at that time. Molotov assured Schulenburg on August 17th that he was honored by the offer of a visit from Ribbentrop, although he added maliciously that such a visit would be a bit spectacular. He explained that he wished both parties to submit separate drafts of the proposed treaty prior to personal negotiations.36

Schulenburg received new detailed instructions from Ribbentrop at 5:45 a.m. on August 19th. Ribbentrop emphasized that incidents with the Poles were increasing at a spectacular rate, and that war between the two countries might break out any day. Molotov was to be reminded that both the Soviet Union and Germany had ample experience in drawing up non-aggression pacts, and that it would be a simple matter to accomplish this without delay in this instance. Hitler had declared that it was necessary to know the Russian position at once, and he had noted that Molotov had not accepted the, proposed flight of Ribbentrop to Russia. Molotov was not informed that Hitler had rejected the proposal of Ribbentrop that Göring should be sent on the special mission to the Soviet Union. Schulenburg was ordered to do everything possible to avoid delay in arranging a new meeting with Molotov.37

The Russian dilatory tactics did not actually reflect any indecision on the part of the Soviet leadership. Stalin announced to a secret session of the Politburo on August 19th that the Soviet Union would definitely conclude a non-aggression pact with Germany. This was followed by an announcement in Pravda on the same day that important differences existed in the military pact negotiations between the British and French military missions and the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, Schulenburg failed to obtain a definite date from Molotov, on the afternoon of August 19th, for the Ribbentrop visit to Russia. The Soviet Foreign Commissar objected to the German draft for a non-aggression pact, although the substitute draft which he proposed differed only in minor details. Molotov suggested that it might be possible to receive Ribbentrop one week after the public announcement of the trade treaty, and that it might be possible after all to sign the trade pact by Sunday, August 20th. This was actually achieved in a special session of the trade delegations at Berlin on the following day, and Schulenburg was left with the vague impression that the Russians would consider a Ribbentrop visit after August 26th or 27th.38


The Personal Intervention of Hitler

Hitler personally took Chargé of the German negotiation efforts on August 20th. Schulenburg was instructed to present himself to Molotov at once and to hand him a telegram from Hitler to Stalin. Schulenburg managed to contact Molotov at 3:00 p.m. on August 21st to present the telegram. Hitler informed Stalin that Germany accepted the Russian draft for a non-aggression pact, and that “the tension between Germany and Poland had become intolerable. Polish demeanor toward a Great Power is such that a crisis may arise any day. In the face of this presumption, Germany is determined in any case from now on to look after the interests of the Reich with all the means at its disposal.” Hitler proposed that Ribbentrop fly to Moscow on August 22nd, but he added that the 23rd would be acceptable. He informed Stalin that the tense international situation would prevent Ribbentrop from remaining in Russia more than one or two days. He concluded, “I should be glad to receive your early answer.”39

Stalin did not consider it worthwhile to protract the suspense by evading Hitler’s direct proposition. The Soviet leader responded cordially to Hitler on August 21st. He invited Ribbentrop to come to Moscow on August 23, 1939, [468] and he requested that a special communiqué be issued on August 22nd to announce the approaching pact. The Russian press on the evening of August 21st announced the conclusion of the trade pact with Germany, and the Soviet decision to conclude a political agreement with the Germans. Molotov informed Schulenburg that the Russians favored a formal joint communiqué announcing the pact for the morning of August 22, 1939. The die had been cast, and Ribbentrop organized an impressive staff of thirty advisers to accompany him to Moscow. The assault on German interests by Halifax had prompted Hitler, in the interest of preventing war and defending Germany, to deprive a number of the smaller states of Eastern Europe, including Poland, of German protection against Bolshevist expansion. It was obvious that Great Britain and France would do nothing to protect Eastern Europe against Bolshevism.40

Italy had been the first of the outside Powers to learn that Germany and the Soviet Union were about to conclude a treaty, and Ribbentrop was disappointed to note that this news failed to produce a decisive impact on the attitude of the Italians toward the current crisis. It was hoped at Berlin that news of the approaching treaty would produce a moderating effect on the Polish attitude, and Weizsäcker claimed optimistically in a circular to German missions abroad on August 22nd that the Poles were suffering from severe shock as a result of the announcement of the forthcoming treaty. Weizsäcker had based his prognosis on reasonable supposition rather than concrete fact. The Polish leaders were actually relieved to learn of the treaty because, in their opinion, it rendered more likely an ultimate conflict between the Western Powers and the Soviet Union. It also seemed to remove the serious threat to Polish relations with Great Britain and France which had been posed by the prospect of Western collaboration with Russia.

The military implications of the treaty did not affect the Polish attitude, because Beck did not believe in any case that Poland had the slightest chance of victory in a war against Germany. The basic situation could not be changed by Russian intervention, because Poland in one war could be defeated only once. Polish military prospects were hopeless, because Poland refused to countenance the equally suicidal course of collaboration with the Soviet Union. The Sultan of Turkey in 1833 had claimed that he had accepted Russian help against the Arabs because a drowning man will clutch at a serpent. Beck in 1939 believed that any fate was preferable to the assistance of the Bolshevik serpent. Beck was wise in refusing to collaborate with the Soviet Union, but he was wrong in goading Hitler into war on the false assumption that the Western Powers would proceed to destroy both Germany and the Soviet Union.41


The Complacency of Beck

Beck was not worried by the prospect that Great Britain and France might desert Poland until several days after the announcement of the approaching Russo-German treaty. Kennard was amazed to discover at 1:30 a.m. on August 22nd that Beck was utterly complacent about the situation. Beck explained that the pact made no difference to Poland, because, in contrast to Great Britain and France, she had not been counting on Soviet aid. He added that the [469] understandable disappointment in Great Britain and France was the price these countries paid for having placed false hopes in the Soviet Union.42

Beck warned his subordinates at the Polish Foreign Office on August 23, 1939, that war with Germany would break out at any time, and he claimed without any foundation that the Germans were assigning nine-tenths of their military forces to ultimate operations in Poland. He confided that he would advise the Polish military leaders on the same day to mobilize the final twenty-one divisions of Polish reserve troops. This decision would be justified by his analysis that war in the immediate future was inevitable. It was decided at the Polish Foreign Office to inform Polish missions abroad that the approaching non-aggression pact exerted no effect on the fundamental situation other than to bring the inevitable war one step closer.43

It was soon evident that the approaching pact exerted a greater influence on France than on Italy, Poland, or Great Britain. This is not surprising when it is recalled that the Russian move effectively undermined the existing Franco-Russian alliance. Paul-Emile Naggiar, the French Ambassador to Russia, complained bitterly to American Ambassador Lawrence Steinhardt on August 23rd that the Poles were exclusively to blame for the failure of Western negotiations with Russia. It was obvious to Steinhardt that Nagglar favored French abandonment of the Poles. American Ambassador Kennedy at London obtained an entirely different reaction from the British Foreign Secretary. Kennedy suggested that it would be logical to respond to the situation in Russia by seeking a peaceful settlement with Germany, but Halifax replied stiffly that “my reason shows me no way out but war.” This was because Halifax favored war with Germany at any price, and it was evident to Kennedy that he was impervious to reasonable proposals for peaceful negotiations.

Kennedy discussed the situation on the same day with Chamberlain, who had returned to London from his vacation. It was evident that Chamberlain was fatalistic and unprepared to exert a moderating influence on Halifax. Chamberlain admitted that Poland would not be encouraged to make any concessions to Germany. Kennedy personally hoped that Poland would finally agree to resume negotiations with Germany, and he was disappointed to discover that neither Halifax nor Chamberlain was prepared to urge the Poles to adopt this course. He was convinced that Warsaw rather than Berlin constituted the chief menace to peace. He suggested to the American State Department that if President Roosevelt “is contemplating any action for peace, it seems to me the place to work is on Beck in Poland and to make this effective it must happen quickly. I see no other possibility.”44


Ribbentrop ‘s Mission to Moscow

Ribbentrop flew to Moscow on August 23rd in a large German Condor transport airplane with a staff of thirty-two experts. He had received plenipotentiary powers from Hitler before departing for Moscow. The German team was received at Moscow with great cordiality, and their Russian hosts proved to be extraordinarily communicative. Various important European issues, such as intimate Turkish diplomatic relations with the British, or the intrinsic value of French [470] military power, were discussed with apparent frankness. The hospitable Russians did everything possible to encourage the Germans to feel comfortable and at ease.

The Russians placed a request early in the evening of August 23rd for German toleration of their plans to establish military bases in Estonia and Latvia. The Russians insisted on a free hand in Finland, and on German neutrality in the conflict Russia intended to provoke with Rumania to recover Bessarabia. Ribbentrop, despite his plenipotentiary powers, telephoned Berlin to receive the consent of Hitler for German acquiescence in these aggressive Russian plans. He knew that the attitude toward Russia of the peoples of the former Russian Baltic provinces contrasted with the desire for union with Germany of the Germans of Austria, Sudetenland, Memel, and Danzig. The Baltic peoples did not desire the revisionist program implied by the Russian demand for bases in their countries. They were the tragic victims of the situation produced by the Anglo-German conflict of interests.

Ribbentrop had contacted Berlin at 8:05 p.m. on August 23rd, and the affirmative response of Hitler was received in Moscow at 11:00 p.m. The German Reich would not resist the westward advance of Communism. Germany was not actually surrendering nations to Russia, because she had no contractual obligations, other than promises not to attack them herself, toward any of the countries involved. Nevertheless, the policy of Hitler and Ribbentrop in August 1939 received much criticism within Germany during the months ahead. The National Socialist Party press replied to this criticism by pointing out that none of these countries had displayed any sympathy toward Germany during the period of Germany’s greatest humiliation from 1918 to 1933. Above all, in contrast to Great Britain and France, the German leaders had never attempted to conclude an alliance with the Soviet Union. The Russo-German agreement of August 23/24, 1939, concerned the delimitation of interests rather than active collaboration between the two countries. These facts were ignored in the West by irresponsible propagandists who insisted without the slightest foundation that an alliance had been concluded between Germany and the SovietUnion.45

The Russo-German non-aggression pact contained a secret protocol which recognized a Russian sphere of interest in Eastern Europe. German recognition was contingent upon the outbreak of war between Germany and Poland. Hitler and Ribbentrop made it clear that Germany would not consider herself obliged to recognize these aspirations in the event of a diplomatic settlement of the German-Polish dispute. In the event of war, the northern frontier of Lithuania was to be the limit of the Russian sphere in the Baltic area, and it was stipulated that Lithuania was to recover Wilna from Poland. Russia announced her intention of intervening against Poland in the event of war, and the Narew-Vistula-San line was to constitute the frontier of the German and Russian zones of military occupation in Poland. This line corresponded closely to the front for a last defense against Germany in the secret Polish military plans, but it was obvious that it would be of little use to the Poles with the Russian forces approaching from their rear. This never became a tangible problem, because the Germans outflanked the last-ditch Polish line within the first few days after the outbreak of hostilities, and nearly two weeks before the military intervention of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet leaders also prefaced their intervention against Poland in September 1939 with a demand for Lithuania, and the proposal to establish an occupation zone line somewhat farther to the East in Poland. They wished the occupation line to correspond closely to the new permanent frontier between the Soviet Union and Poland. This was a clever move which could be exploited for propaganda purposes, and the Germans, who were engaged in war with the West by that time, were compelled to accept this virtual ultimatum from the Soviet Union.46

Ribbentrop was sincere when he informed the Russians on August 23rd that Germany had made no irrevocable decision to respond to Polish provocations with a military campaign in Poland. Hitler’s first secret announcement that there definitely would be war with Poland came on August 25, 1939, and even this was subsequently contradicted by a new order from the German Chancellor. Nevertheless, both the German and Russian negotiators were reckoning with the likelihood of immediate war between Germany and Poland. Ribbentrop also issued a statement on August 24th, after the signing of the pact, that Germany would take concrete steps to encourage a relaxation of tension between the Soviet Union and Japan.47

Ribbentrop devoted August 24th in Moscow to the establishment of personal contacts with the Russian leaders. He told Stalin that the proverbial wit of the Berliners was quick to respond to any given situation. He had heard a story before he left for Moscow which carried the theme of Stalin’s imaginary decision to join the anti-Comintern pact. Ribbentrop personally hoped for lasting peace between Germany and the Soviet Union, and he knew that the chances for peace would be improved if some means were found to modify the existing anti-Comintern pact, which was directed against international Communism. He hoped in vain that it might be possible eventually to persuade Stalin to abandon his plans for world revolution, and to concentrate on the realization of strictly national Russian interests. His joke about the anti-Comintern pact was an obvious but futile move to prepare the ground in this direction.

Molotov declared in one of his toasts that the Stalin speech of March 1939 had produced a reversal in political relations between Russia and Germany. This was an interesting suggestion, because it implied that the earlier attitude of Russia, rather than of Germany, had been the chief obstacle to an improvement in relations. The general theme of the celebration toasts exchanged by the Germans and Russians was that an era of friendship and mutual appreciation had replaced an era of hostility. This concealed the fact that Russian protestations of friendship were based upon the expectation that Germany was heading straight into a hopeless stalemate war with Great Britain and France. Stalin openly expressed his belief to Ribbentrop that the French Army would offer an enormous obstacle to Germany in the event of war. This pronouncement dispelled the illusion that the Soviet leaders were more accurate than the Western leaders in predicting the shape of things to come. The application of so-called scientific Marxism offered no magic formula for predicting future events.48

Hitler received the German military leaders at the Obersalzberg on August 22, 1939. He discussed the situation with them in morning and afternoon [472] conferences, and he ordered the plans for possible military operations against Poland to be completed by August 26th. He refrained from issuing a final attack order. Hitler described German negotiations with Russia at great length, and he expressed the opinion that the Russo-German pact would discourage Great Britain and France from intervening against Germany in the event of a German-Polish war.49

One version of these conferences was presented by Louis P. Lochner of the American Associated Press to British diplomats at Berlin on August 25, 1939. This material was later cited by a number of historians as a valid record of the conferences, and it consciously or unconsciously influenced the thinking of British diplomats at the time. Otherwise, it would have been dismissed as something too ridiculous to receive serious consideration. The crass propaganda in the material would have been immediately discarded had people been permitted to think normally about important issues. Unfortunately, a furious and uninterrupted war propaganda campaign had been carried on in the West for more than five months, and nearly everyone, regardless of his mental caliber, had been seriously affected.

Why would anyone believe that Marshal Göring danced on the table and shrieked like a savage before a group of austere German Generals? Why would Hitler blandly announce to his Generals that “Göring had demonstrated to us that his Four-Year Plan is a failure and that we are at the end of our strength, if we do not achieve victory in a coming war?” This sounded more like a leaf from the book of President Roosevelt, who, unlike Hitler, was still facing a catastrophic depression. The statement would be sheer nonsense when applied to war with poverty-stricken Poland. Every informed person, including Lord Halifax, knew that Göring was the last person in Germany who would deliver arguments in favor of a general war at this time.50

The memorandum stated that Hitler told his Generals he planned to kill the Polish women and children. This would have been proper material for an American “comic book,” and also for Hitler, if his purpose had been to goad his Generals into an immediate revolt against the German regime. The memorandum claimed that Germany could not hold out in a long war, but added in the same paragraph that “Poland will be depopulated and settled with Germans.” The memorandum also claimed that Stalin was very sick, and that Germany would dismember Russia after his death.

Succinct and reliable references to the meetings of August 22, 1939, are available from the actual participants. The traditions of popular journalism cannot excuse people, from any country, who seek to precipitate wars by spreading lies when feeling is running high.51


Henderson’s Efforts for Peace

Henderson, whose distasteful duty it was to relay the propaganda material from Lochner to Halifax, had been hard at work during the crucial phase of the Western and German negotiations with Russia to persuade Halifax to arrive at an accommodation with Germany before it was too late. He had been urging Polish Ambassador Lipski on his own initiative, ever since August 15th, to seek [473] instructions from his Government for negotiations with the Germans. Henderson admitted to Halifax that Weizsäcker had been pessimistic about the Danzig situation since the Polish ultimatum of August 4th, but he drew encouragement from the fact that the German State Secretary was more detached, calm and confident” than had been the case during the September 1938 crisis.

Henderson hoped that the Italians would produce proposals for a peaceful diplomatic settlement, and he had been assured by Italian Ambassador Attolico that this effort would be made. He urged Halifax to advise the Polish Government to instruct Lipski to make a démarche in Berlin. He pointed out that Polish mistreatment of the Germans “is not a Hitler grievance but a German grievance.” He warned Halifax that “it may be bluff, but I feel bound to say that my belief is that, if driven into a corner, Hitler will choose war.”52

Henderson was particularly irritated by repeated claims in the British press that Hitler had been intimidated by the firm support other Powers were giving to the Poles. He predicted that “history will judge the Press generally to have been the principal cause of the war.” The press, with its vile and irresponsible tactics during this period, was undoubtedly an important factor, but Henderson failed to note that the worst phase of the press campaign in Great Britain followed inevitably from the distorted and dishonest official British version of the events at Prague in March 1939, and from the fantastic Tilea hoax, which had been deliberately perpetrated by Halifax and Vansittart to arouse the British public. The British Ambassador was confusing cause and effect when he assigned the principal blame for the current crisis to the Western press.

Henderson pointed out that an Anglo-German agreement was necessary for German security, and he reminded Halifax that he was quite convinced Hitler sincerely desired such an agreement. It seemed obvious to Henderson that a few resolute steps by Halifax could produce a satisfactory settlement, because “of all Germans, believe it or not, Hitler is the most moderate so far as Danzig and the Corridor are concerned.” He charged that the British Embassy in Warsaw deliberately refused to recognize the actual desperate situation of the German minority in Poland. He observed with keen insight that “Warsaw with its civilized and intelligent, not to say astute clique with which one consorts there, is one thing. Outside in the country the Poles are an utterly uncivilized lot. ‘Calm and restraint.’ Yes, doubtless, at the top and if words mean anything. But elsewhere, no. I have heard too many tales from well-disposed neutrals to believe a word of it.”53

Henderson urged Halifax to consider again the earlier Gafencu plan for a settlement. Hitler had recently told the British Ambassador that the protectorate in Bohemia-Moravia had been a necessity “for the moment,” but that, as far as he was concerned, the area in the future could become anything, provided it was not a bastion against Germany. Henderson recognized this as indisputable proof that successful negotiations might be based on the Prague question.

Henderson explained to a friend at the British Foreign Office that it was no favor to Poland to support her in a war, since, in his opinion, the Poles had much to lose and nothing to gain by going to war. The British Ambassador added in pithy language: “I only pray that we shall not regret leading them up the garden path for the satisfaction of kicking Hitler and his Nazi gangsters in the pants.” Halifax was informed by Henderson on August 22nd that Hitler was acquiring [474] great prestige in Germany by concluding a pact with Russia. He described the news of the pact as a “satisfactory surprise to German public opinion.” The German man-in-the-street now believed that Hitler had turned the trick again, and that there would be no war.

Halifax responded by informing Henderson that British determination to support Poland could not be influenced by Hitler’s diplomacy. He reiterated his favorite theme that he was doing everything to avoid war simply by making the British position clear. This was a clever ruse, based on the fact that British failure to do this in 1914 had provided one of the principal criticisms of British policy at that time. Halifax ignored the fact that the British blank check to Poland was far broader in scope than the one the Germans had given to Austria-Hungary in 1914 in the crisis over the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. Germany was also accused of sharing responsibility for World War I, and the Allied victors at Paris had insisted that Germany and her allies were solely responsible for the war, but no one had ever suggested that this was because Germany had failed to make her position clear. Halifax was working single-mindedly for war in 1939, and the fact that he was avoiding one of the many mistakes made by the British in 1914 did not in any way reduce his guilt in choosing war as the principal instrument of British national policy.54

Halifax responded to the announcement of the coming Russo-German pact by continuing to push the negotiations for an Anglo-French alliance agreement with the Russians. He received passive encouragement in this policy from Bonnet. The French Foreign Minister, despite his actual pessimism, observed philosophically that the pact might prove to be meaningless if restricted to general principles in the style of the Franco-German pact of December 1938. Halifax informed Kennard on August 22nd that Western negotiations in Moscow were proceeding, and the British were more determined than ever to support the French in the question of Russian military operations in Poland.55

General Doumenc informed Marshal Voroshilov early on August 22nd that he had been empowered to support Russian plans for military operations in Poland. He added that he had plenipotentiary powers from Daladier to sign without any reservation a pact which included the other Russian interests and wishes. The French and British were prepared to go further than Ribbentrop in promoting the westward expansion of the Boishevists, but they demanded the price of Russian willingness to participate at the outset in a war against Germany. Marshal Voroshilov replied that the Polish ally of France was a sovereign Power, and that plans could not be concluded for Russian military operations on her territory without her consent. He added that the Poles would have insisted on being present on this occasion had they agreed to give an affirmative answer to the Russian proposal. The Russian military leader lectured the French and British on their alleged betrayal of Czechoslovakia in 1938, and he denounced the failure of the Western Powers to arrive at an agreement with Russia at an earlier date.56

British Ambassador Sir William Seeds accused Molotov on the evening of August 22nd of “bad faith” during the Western negotiations. Molotov blandly replied that the “insincerity” of the British leaders deprived them of any valid basis from which to present such a charge. Nevertheless, Seeds wired Halifax on August 23rd that it was important for the allied missions to remain in Russia [475] “in case the Soviet and Ribbentrop fall out.” Halifax made one last attempt with the Russians shortly before the signing of the Russo-German pact on the evening of August 23rd. He instructed Seeds to assure the Russians that he fully shared their opinion about the indispensability of Russian military operations in Poland, and that he was prepared to offer them full support in such operations. This was tantamount to a British pledge to support a Russian invasion of Poland at the very time they were insisting on going to war with Germany over Danzig, which did not belong to Poland. The Russians had elected to conduct their invasion of Poland independently of the proffered British support, which they regarded as an unnecessary liability.57


Bonnet’s Effort to Separate France from Poland

French Foreign Minister Bonnet was aware that an entirely new European situation had been created by the Russo-German pact. The Soviet Union, the principal eastern ally of France, was willing to conclude a separate agreement with the Germans, and he saw no reason why France should not do the same. He decided on August 23, 1939, to make a determined effort to liberate French foreign policy from British tutelage. This attempt would have succeeded, but for the unrealistic attitude of the French military men and the reversal of Italian policy. Bonnet knew that General Gamelin had been discussing the possible French response to a Russo-German pact with his principal collaborators since August 19th. He requested Premier Daladier to call an emergency meeting of the French Defense Council, which included the military chiefs and several of the key French Cabinet members. He knew that a similar step had been taken by Premier Rouvier in 1905 at the time of the first Moroccan crisis, by Joseph Caillaux in 1911 during the second Moroccan crisis, and by Leon Blum in March 1938 at the time of the German occupation of Austria.

Bonnet hoped to exert on the Poles the same pressure for peace that he had applied to the Czechs the previous year. He realized that the 1921 Franco-Polish alliance would be lost if the attempt was unsuccessful, but he was fully prepared to accept this eventuality. It was his plan to obtain from the military men a clear statement that French prospects in a war with Germany were dubious without the support of the Soviet Union. He knew that the British would quickly abandon their opposition to Hitler if they were deprived of French support.58

Bonnet was troubled about the attitude of General Gamelin, of whom he had no high opinion, although the scholarly French Commander-in-Chief was a favored protégé of the great French military leader, Marshal Henri Pétain. General Décamps had recently complained to Bonnet that Gamelin would never take a position either way in a question of major importance. Bonnet hoped that the conference of August 23, 1939, would prove a notable exception.

The conference met at 6:00 p.m. It was attended by Premier Daladier, Navy Secretary Campinchi, Air Secretary Guy La Chambre, Army Commander-in-Chief General Gamelin, Navy Commander Admiral Darlan, and Air Force Commander General Vuilemin. The Minister for Colonies customarily attended the meetings of the Defense Council, but Bonnet was successful in preventing [476] the attendance of Colonial Minister Georges Mandel, who was a notorious belliciste, on the grounds that the issue did not concern the French colonies. Bonnet knew that Mandel would seek to thwart any major peace effort.59

The meeting took place in Daladier’s office, and the chairs of the members of the Defense Council were arranged in a semi-circle around the Premier’s desk. Bonnet opened the meeting with a discussion of the current European situation. He claimed that the Poles were responsible for the Anglo-French failure to secure an alliance with the Soviet Union. Bonnet announced that France could easily choose between two alternatives concerning Poland. She might offer the Poles unlimited and blind support, or she might force them to compromise on their differences with Germany. Bonnet suggested that the military outlook for France in a war over Danzig should be the primary consideration in determining this choice.

It was soon evident to Bonnet that Ciano’s unfortunate assurance of Italian neutrality on August 18th carried great weight in the conference. Gamelin and Darlan both stressed the fact that Italy would almost certainly remain neutral in a general European war. Bonnet was annoyed by the excessive weight attached by the military men to the Italian attitude. He impatiently asked General Gamelin how long he thought the Poles would be able to hold out against the Germans. Gamelin solemnly replied that the Germans would be unable to encompass the defeat of Poland before the rainy season, and he predicted that fighting in Poland would still be in progress as late as Spring 1940. Bonnet was stunned when Gamelin claimed that French preparations for a war against Germany were already adequate. His suggestion that France should change her policy toward Poland because of her dangerous military situation was completely undermined by the military men.

Bonnet was furious with General Gamelin. He suddenly realized that Gamelin regarded the conclave, which threatened to expose French military unpreparedness, as a personal intrigue directed against the French Army Command. This accounted for the obvious insincerity and lack of realism of his assertions. He did not want to be made a scapegoat by Bonnet, and he did not want British wrath to be directed primarily against himself if France abandoned Poland. Gamelin had taken a sufficiently negative view of French military prospects at the French Defense Council meeting on March 13, 1939, but that was before British policy had changed. Neither Gamelin nor Bonnet wished to intervene for Poland, but they both feared British wrath, and neither of them wished to assume the primary responsibility in defying the Halifax war policy.

Bonnet recalled the details of the French Defense Council meeting called by Premier Caillaux in 1911. Caillaux had reminded the members that Napoleon once had said that a military venture was an unwarranted risk without at least a 70% chance of victory. General Joffre, not suspecting some intrigue when he was being asked to comment on French chances in a war, answered frankly that France did not have the odds ordinarily insisted upon by Napoleon.60

Gamelin himself later contended that, when he said the French Army was prepared on August 23, 1939, he actually meant prepared for an ordinary mobilization rather than for victory in a war against Germany. He added that his prediction about Polish resistance was based on the assumption of Russian neutrality. The ultimate Russian intervention was a poor excuse for Gamelin’s [477] faulty prediction about Poland, because the Polish Armies had been utterly routed by September 17th when the Russians intervened. It was unrealistic to assume that Russia would remain neutral in a German-Polish war after the conclusion of the Russo-German Pact. The claim that France was ready for war against Germany because she could mobilize her forces was childish. One might have used this criterion to conclude that Liechtenstein was prepared for war against Germany. General Gamelin did not suggest any plan for the defeat of Germany in the event of war. He told the conference that France would not honor her military engagement of May 1939 to Poland for a French offensive in the West, but would remain strictly on the defensive against the Germans. He failed to explain what France would do to defeat Germany after the expected defeat of Poland.61

Bonnet was fully justified in feeling that General Gamelin had evaded his responsibility as Commander-in-Chief at the fateful conference of August 23, 1939. Bonnet continued to work for peace, but he did not command the unanimous support of the French Government, which would have been his had the military men presented an honest evaluation of the French position. Bonnet was under strong pressure from London by August 24th to agree on the exact terms of a joint ultimatum to Germany, if a German-Polish struggle broke out over Danzig. The outcome of the August 23rd conference might have been entirely different had Ciano not made his fatal indiscretion to Lorame on August 18th. The combination of Ciano’s duplicity and Gamelin’s weakness struck a dangerous blow at Hitler’s careful calculation that a Russo-German pact would prevent Anglo-French intervention against Germany during a German-Polish war. Hitler had done everything possible to convince Ciano that a revelation of Italian weakness would increase the chances of war. It was unfortunate that Attolico undermined the work of Hitler with Ciano. The Italian Ambassador at Berlin was exclusively concerned about obtaining Italian neutrality, and he ignored the need of an Italian effort to prevent a European war after Hitler refused to accept Mussolini’s terms for a Brenner meeting.

The British Cabinet assembled briefly on August 22nd. A suggestion from Halifax that Great Britain should warn the Germans that the British would intervene in a German-Polish war was approved. It was agreed that Chamberlain should write a letter to Hitler emphasizing British determination, and that Halifax should rush to completion the British negotiations with the Poles for a formal alliance. Halifax was empowered to change the British terms for a pact to meet current Polish objections. It was noted that the Poles were not asking for a British pledge to defend them against the Soviet Union. It was decided that Henderson should deliver Chanberlain’s letter in person, and should reinforce verbally, and with great energy, the arguments which this letter would contain. This step was decided upon without recognizing that it would present Hitler with an excellent opportunity to renew official negotiations with the British for a peaceful settlement.

Halifax informed British Ambassador Loraine at Rome of the decision of the British Government. Loraine replied that he was confident the new development in Russia would not alter Italy’s decision to desert Germany in the event of war.62

    [478]
The Stiffening of Polish Anti-German Measures

The Poles responded to the announcement of the Russo-German pact by intensifying their propaganda campaign against Germany. Mistreatment of the German minority was encouraged by reckless charges that hundreds of acts of violence were occurring against the Polish minority in the Reich. A conflict of opinion between Forster and Greiser resulted at Danzig on August 24th when several Polish customs inspectors were arrested for disturbing the peace. Chodacki demanded that the men be released at once without preferment of charges. Greiser insisted to Forster that the Danzig Government capitulate. He had not favored action against the offending Poles in the first place, and he regarded any attempt to enforce the law in Danzig, when this was displeasing to the Poles, as completely futile.63

The major topic of discussion in Poland was the Russo-German pact. The more Beck considered this development, the greater his satisfaction became. He declared with amusement to Noël that “it is now Ribbentrop who is proving the bad faith of the Soviets.” The official Gazeta Polska alleged on August 24th that the pact was an unsuccessful bluff, because it had produced no effect on the nerves of Poles, Frenchmen, or Englishmen. The conservative Czas called the pact a bluff which had been produced by “the new comedy in Berlin.” The Ilustrowany Kurjer claimed that the Hungarian leaders had denounced Hitler’s willingness to compromise with the Bolshevik peril. One Polish journalist assured the New York Times that the new pact was of no military value to Germany. The Kurier Warszawski announced triumphantly that the new agreement furnished conclusive proof of the weakness of both its partners.64

The Poles took notice of the fact that the old restored German battleship and training ship, Schleswig-Holstein, was scheduled to visit Danzig on August 24th during a trip which had been announced much earlier. The Polish authorities had expressed no objection to the proposed visit, and it was concluded that the ship was too weak to present a military threat to Poland. The Danzig Government had selected Albert Forster to head the Free City administration, and the Poles were informed that he would take his oath of office on August 30, 1939. The Polish Government refused to approve this arrangement. Chodacki submitted an ominous protest note to Danzig on August 24th which declared that full responsibility for all ensuing measures taken by the Polish Government would fall on the Danzig Senate. Bonnet was alarmed by this development, and he instructed Noël to advise Beck to refrain from all military action in the event of a Danzig Senate proclamation on the return of the Free City to the Reich. Beck rejected this advice, and he declared that Poland would respond with military force to any German attempt to annex Danzig. He indicated that he was not opposed in principle to consultation with the French and British, but if action was initiated by the Danzig authorities, the Poles might be compelled by the pressure of circumstances to act unilaterally without consulting the Western Powers.65

Beck’s Danzig declaration was formulated as an official Polish verbal note on the following day, and Szembek presented it to Noël. German Chargé d’Affaires Wuehlisch reported from Warsaw that Polish confidence in assistance from Great [479] Britain and France remained unshaken by the conclusion of the Russo-German pact. It was evident that the Pact had not prompted the Poles to adopt a more moderate policy toward Germany or the German minority in Poland. The German Foreign Office took stock of its huge file of specific reports of excesses against national and ethnic Germans in Poland. More than ten detailed reports were arriving each day, and more than 1500 documented reports had been received since March 1939. They presented a staggering picture of brutality and human misery. Albert Forster had discussed the fate of the Germans in West Prussia and Posen with Edmund Veesenmayer, the special representative of Ribbentrop, on the afternoon of August 23, 1939. It was difficult to decide what advice if any should be given to these unfortunate people in the event of war. It seemed to Forster that they should either be told to stay where they were and defend themselves when attacked, or they should be advised to conceal themselves. Neither prospect was promising, because they had no means by which to resist and little possibility of successful concealment.66

The German Government repeated its earlier pledge to the Slovak Government at Bratislava on August 23rd that the Slovak armed forces would not be required in the event of war or requested to operate outside their own territory. Germany was prepared in case of war to facilitate the return of territories to Slovakia which had been seized by Poland in 1938. The German Government announced that it was willing to guarantee the 1938 Slovakian frontier against Hungary.

The Polish Government on August 25th dealt with a German protest that three German civilian airplanes carrying passengers and flying over the Baltic Sea had been fired upon by Polish batteries on the Hela peninsula. The Poles admitted firing on only one German airplane on August 24th, and they claimed that it had been sighted flying over Polish territory prior to the Polish attack.67

The German press devoted increasing space to detailed accounts of incidents against the Germans in Poland. The Voelkischer Beobachter announced that more than 80,000 German refugees had succeeded in reaching German territory by August 20, 1939, and that some of them had come from distant Volhynia near the Russian frontier. The Western diplomats in Berlin were aware that Poland was now making sweeping charges of German mistreatment of the Polish minority, but it was noted that specific individual incidents, which were common in the German press, were conspicuously lacking. The Polish diplomats in Berlin were asked confidentially why they did not make an effort to assemble exact and detailed information about alleged incidents in Germany. The Poles confided that such incidents were far and few between and hard to find. They claimed that this was not because of German magnanimity, but because Germany desired to preserve the Polish minority as a hostage for the German minority in Poland. This was a ridiculous charge, because the German authorities had concluded, and had made no secret of their opinion, that decent treatment of the Poles in Germany failed to produce the slightest effect on Polish mistreatment of the German minority.68

    [480]
The Decline of German Opposition to Hitler

There was considerable conspiratorial activity against Hitler in Germany at the time of the signing of the Russo-German pact, but this activity was less extensive than during the Czech crisis in 1938. Several small conspiratorial groups continued to hope that the anti-Hitler conservatives, who held most of the commanding positions in the German Army, could be prevailed upon to arrest Hitler during this crisis. It was argued that the Germany of Hitler was interested in recruiting a new officer corps with National Socialist political indoctrination, and that the last of the special privileges of the traditional military caste would be destroyed if the Hitler regime survived. The misgivings of the great majority of the military men approached were not sufficient for them to accept such plans, and this was especially true after the conclusion of the treaty with Russia on August 23, 1939.

The open opposition to Hitler’s policy was more frequent and less dangerous. General Thomas of the War Economy Office prepared a series of memoranda in August 1939 which charged that the pursuit of Hitler’s program at Danzig would lead to a general war. General Keitel, who recognized the importance of this issue, personally presented these memoranda to Hitler for careful consideration. General Ludwig Beck, who had resigned as Chief of the General Staff, wrote a number of letters to his German military colleagues stressing the danger of war. Hjalmar Schacht, who had resigned his presidency of the Reichsbank early in 1939, reassured the German military men that German economic prospects were excellent, and that Germany was the last country in the world to require excessive military preparations or war to solve her economic problems. The evidence was overwhelming that the prominent Germans recognized the need of keeping the peace, and this opinion was also shared by Hitler. The differences of opinion concerned the means of achieving this end. Hitler remained free to make whatever decisions he chose. He was able, like Beck in Poland, to pursue his elected policies without serious disturbance or resistance.69


Hitler’s Desire for a Negotiated Settlement

Hitler hoped to recover the diplomatic initiative through his Kremlin pact of August 23, 1939. The effort launched by Halifax on March 17, 1939, to build a formidable British alliance front in Eastern Europe had failed. Hitler also hoped that Great Britain and France would react to this situation by withdrawing their support from Poland. He knew that his pact with Russia placed him in a strong position to resume negotiations with the Western Powers. His recent success was too sensational to permit new negotiation efforts to be readily confused with weakness. The British Government gave Hitler an excellent opening for his new diplomatic campaign by commissioning Chamberlain to write to him. The British leaders, of course, did not intend to embark on major negotiations, but Hitler had other plans. The presentation of the Chamberlain letter by Henderson on August 23, 1939, was the signal for a major German diplomatic offensive in Great Britain.

[481]
The situation would have been relatively simple for Hitler by August 23, 1939, had it not been for the unpardonable indiscretion of Ciano and the incredible conduct of General Gamelin. The statement of Ciano on August 18th that Italy would not support Germany cushioned Halifax from the impact of the German treaty with Russia, and it gave General Gamelin an excuse to rationalize the unfavorable French military situation, which had been created by the Russian agreement with Germany. The action of Ciano was especially unwarranted because the Italian Foreign Minister knew that Hitler hoped to create the maximum effect of surprise with his Russian pact. Ciano knew that his own pledge to the British would greatly reduce the impact of Hitler’s diplomacy. It was easy to argue in London that the position of Hitler would be insecure if the Italians refused to be loyal to their engagements with him. Italian loyalty to Hitler and a clear decision from France against war on behalf of the Poles would surely have pulled the teeth from the Halifax campaign to launch a preventive war against Germany. The absence of these contingencies made it exceedingly difficult for Hitler to capitalize on his Russian success in negotiations with the British leaders. He was not fully aware of this situation on August 23rd. He knew nothing of the Italian pledge to the British on August 18th, or of the crucial debate in the meeting of the French Defense Council. He failed to appreciate the adamant determination of Halifax for war. He knew that British Ambassador Henderson was opposed to war, and he hoped that the views of the British diplomat at Berlin were shared to some extent by his master at London. Hitler was more optimistic than the facts warranted, but this was mainly because he was not fully aware of the existing situation.

The Russians too were unduly optimistic about their prospects on August 23, 1939. They overestimated the military power of France, and they expected a hopeless military stalemate on the Franco-German front reminiscent of World War I. Stalin hoped to expand his position in Eastern Europe, and to intervene militarily against Germany in the latter phase of a European war, when both Germany and the Western Powers were exhausted. There was one notably great difference in the attitudes of Stalin and Hitler. The Soviet Dictator, like Halifax and Roosevelt, was hoping for the outbreak of a general European war. Hitler considered that a European war would be a great evil, and he was anxious to prevent it. It is ironical to anticipate that the leaders of the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and the United States ultimately joined together in true Orwellian fashion, at Nuremberg in 1945-1946, to condemn the German leaders for deliberately seeking, as “aggressors,” to destroy the peace of the world.70

[483]
Chapter 19


GERMAN PROPOSALS
FOR AN ANGLO-GERMAN UNDERSTANDING


Chamberlain’s Letter an Opening for Hitler

The signing of the Russo-German pact on August 23, 1939, clarified the situation in Eastern Europe. None of the immediate neighbors of Poland were prepared to aid her in an eventual conflict with Germany. Great Britain and France were far away. They had failed to support Poland with extensive credits or military supplies during the months after the Polish partial mobilization of March 1939. The Soviet Union had adopted a hostile attitude toward the Poles. The Polish military situation, regardless of any action taken by Great Britain and France, was hopeless in a war with Germany. Halifax encouraged the Poles to challenge Germany, but he failed to offer them effective support. Hitler hoped that Halifax would draw the logical conclusion from this situation and seek a compromise which would spare Poland from an otherwise inevitable military debacle.1

Henderson went up to the Obersalzberg on August 23, 1939, with a personal letter from Chamberlain to Hitler. He was instructed to convince Hitler of British determination to intervene in any German-Polish war. He was determined to do his official duty regardless of the difference between his instructions and his personal opinions. The German Chancellor he encountered was equally resolved to convince the British that he was not bluffing, and that he was determined to achieve the German program at Danzig. Every prerequisite existed for a stormy argument in which two strong wills clashed. Henderson telephoned in deep gloom to the British Embassy at Berlin at 3:00 p.m. that his first conversation with Hitler had been “unsatisfactory.”2

Chamberlain warned Hitler in his letter that Great Britain would support Poland with military force regardless of the Russo-German pact. He announced that Great Britain was about to take additional military measures. The British Prime Minister asserted that “it would be a dangerous illusion to think that, if war once starts, it will come to an early end even if a success on any one of [484] the several fronts on which it will be engaged should have been secured.” Chamberlain conceded in unmistakable language that Germany could defeat Poland, but he warned Hitler that Great Britain would continue to work for the defeat of Germany after the defeat of Poland.3

Hitler received Henderson again after he had read the letter from Chamberlain. His first comment concerned Chamberlain’s threat of additional military measures. He said: “Should I hear of further measures of this kind being put into effect on the part of Britain, today or tomorrow, I shall order immediate general mobilization in Germany.” Henderson exclaimed that war would then be unavoidable, but Hitler repeated his challenge. The British Ambassador attempted at great length to prove the alleged fairness of recent British foreign policy. Henderson sought to deny, with the aid of considerable sophistry, that British policy had any connection with the Polish refusal of Hitler’s October 1938 proposals for a German-Polish understanding. He noted that the Polish refusal preceded the formal British guarantee of March 31, 1939, by several days. Hitler was unimpressed. He remarked succinctly that the British position was perfectly clear at the time of the Polish refusal, and that “the British press had then stated that the liberty of both Poland and Rumania was being threatened.”4

Henderson was somewhat taken aback when he noted that Hitler blamed the British exclusively for his difficulties with Poland. The British Ambassador impulsively made a personal statement which had no connection with his instructions. He declared with feeling that he had written recently to a prominent German friend that the Fuehrer had required ten years to win Germany, and that therefore he should give Britain more time before concluding that she could not be won. He added that he had personally never desired to see the conclusion of an Anglo-Franco-Russian pact against Germany, and that he would rather see Germany conclude a treaty with Russia than have Great Britain do so.

Hitler seized this opportunity to stress the great advantage to Germany of the new pact, and he concluded: “Make no mistake. It will be a treaty lasting for many years.” Henderson feared that his initiative in the conversation was rapidly slipping away. He sought to place Great Britain’s obligation to Poland on the solemn basis of national honor. The British Ambassador observed: “Throughout the centuries of history we had never, so far as I knew, broken our word. We could not do so now and remain Britain.” Hitler’s response was to scrutinize the British Ambassador closely to make certain that he really was awake, and not speaking in a trance. He concluded the second conversation by observing that he would reply to Chamberlain’s letter within a few hours.

Henderson proceeded to report to Halifax. His two main purposes, aside from indicating that he had carried out instructions, were to emphasize German determination to settle the Danzig question and Hitler’s desire to settle Anglo-German differences. Henderson in the latter connection returned to the question of Prague. He emphasized a new remark from Hitler that it had not been a necessity from the German point of view to establish the protectorate in Bohemia-Moravia, and that this regime was the chance product of a specific crisis situation. Hitler suggested that the Czechs might still be independent today had Great Britain co-operated with Germany in carrying out the provisions [485] of the Munich conference. Henderson wished to remind Halifax of the Gafencu plan of April 1939 for a diplomatic settlement of the existing disputes based on German concessions at Prague.

Henderson was somewhat uneasy about his positive assurance to Hitler that the British had never broken their engagements. Halifax was informed that Hitler had been assured this was the case, “so far as I knew.” Henderson had at least made the gesture of parrying Hitler’s complaint about the German minority in Poland by charging, although without personal conviction, that Hitler was persecuting the Poles in Germany. Henderson was not actually convinced that there was any truth in this Charge. Halifax was informed that Hitler would not retreat, and that he enjoyed far greater support in Germany for his policy than had been the case during the Czech crisis of September 1938.5


Hitler’s Reply to Chamberlain

Hitler’s letter to Chamberlain on August 23, 1939, placed principal emphasis on the intensity of suffering among the Germans of Poland. He hoped that the British would regard this situation from the standpoint of humanity rather than from abstract considerations of policy. He reminded Chamberlain that many prominent Englishmen within the past few years had recognized the gravity of the Danzig-Corridor problem. Hitler accused Chamberlain point-blank of creating the alarmist atmosphere which destroyed the willingness of the Poles to negotiate with Germany. He also accused Chamberlain of encouraging war between Poland and Germany by presenting the Poles with a blank check for British support in any conflict, regardless of its origin. Hitler asked Chamberlain to recognize two facts which were at the root of the trouble between Great Britain and Germany. Germany had informed Poland that the Danzig-Corridor question would have to be resolved with or without Polish cooperation. Great Britain had encouraged Polish intransigence by stating that she would support Poland in any conflict against Germany. Hitler concluded that this situation would destroy his life-long ambition to promote Anglo-German friendship and understanding.6

Hitler, who continued to hope that the British would reconsider their position, was far less pessimistic about Anglo-German relations than was suggested by his carefully prepared diplomatic letter to Chamberlain. He declared at a conference with the principal German leaders at the Berghof, on the evening of August 23, 1939, that he was more than ever convinced that Great Britain in a final showdown would not attack Germany. He attributed a far more rational basis to British policy than the facts warranted when he argued that Great Britain “had no need to wage war and consequently would not wage war.” Marshal Göring was unable to share the optimism of Hitler. He had carefully studied a report received from German Ambassador Mackensen at Rome on the previous day. Italian Foreign Minister Ciano had assured Mackensen that Mussolini did not question the complete sincerity of Hitler. Mussolini recognized that Hitler had a mystical faith that wisdom would prompt the British leaders to avoid the tragedy of a new Anglo-German conflict. Mussolini wished it to be clearly understood in Germany that he did not share [486] this faith despite the recent success of German policy in Russia. The Italian leader, who was mindful of the secret Italian neutrality pledge to the British on August 18th, had more reason than Hitler to believe that the Russo-German pact would fail to discourage the British from attacking Germany.7


The Mission of Birger Dahlerus

Marshal Göring had received permission from Hitler many weeks earlier to launch a private program calculated to improve German contacts with the British. Göring had approached Hitler with this suggestion in early July 1939 after Birger Dalilerus, a prominent Swedish engineer with many contacts in both Great Britain and Germany, had called on Göring to offer his services to Germany as an unofficial negotiator. Dahlerus was motivated by his recognition that Hitler, in contrast to Halifax, sincerely desired to arrive at an Anglo-German understanding. Dalilerus knew that a new Anglo-German war would be an unparalleled disaster for every country on the European continent except the Soviet Union. He informed Göring that the British leaders in July 1939 were determined to attack Germany. Göring said at the time that he doubted the truth of this assertion, but he recognized that the situation was serious. Dahlerus proposed to organize an unofficial conference between important representatives from British Conservative Party groups, and the Germans.

Göring was delighted by the proposal of Dahlerus, and he promised to obtain the consent of Hitler for the plan. The German Chancellor accepted the proposition with alacrity, and Dalilerus was instructed to proceed with his mission on July 8, 1939. Dalilerus decided to go one step further. He received German consent for an ambitious plan to organize an official conference with representatives from the British and German diplomatic services. Dahlerus was disappointed when Halifax rejected this proposal, but he was successful in achieving his original objective. The British Foreign Secretary promised that no steps would be taken by the British authorities to prevent an unofficial conference on German territory.

The meeting ultimately took place on August 7, 1939 at Soenke Nissen Koog, in the Frisian area just inside the German border with Denmark. The German delegation was headed by Marshal Göring and General Bodenschatz, Göring’s immediate subordinate in the German Air Force command. The British delegation consisted exclusively of loyal supporters of the Chamberlain Government appearing in a private capacity. The agenda of the conference was restricted to a preliminary exchange of views, but it was soon evident to both sides that the risk of an Anglo-German war was very great. The Germans agreed to a British proposal for a new conference which would also be attended by French and Italian delegates. This conference had not been held when the Russo-German pact was signed. Göring was deeply disappointed to learn that the British responded to the Russian Pact by withdrawing from the project.8

The abortive Soenke Nissen Koog conference was followed by additional private contacts between the British and the Germans. Göring was worried by the implications of a report to the German Foreign Office on August 16, 1939, [487] from Alfred Rosenberg, the chief of the Foreign Policy Office of the National Socialist Party. Rosenberg also forwarded a copy of his report directly to Hitler. The source of Rosenberg’s information was Baron William S. von Ropp, who was born in the Baltic provinces of Tsarist Russia and later became a British citizen. Ropp, like many of the Baltic Germans from families who had served the Tsarist bureaucracy, was not particularly friendly toward Germany, and he was a devoted supporter of Halifax. He presented the startling suggestion that a British declaration of war against Germany might not preclude an Anglo-German settlement after the defeat of Poland.

Ropp, who had been selected to head the British Air Ministry intelligence service division for Germany in wartime, claimed that there was lively opposition to war with Germany in the British Air Ministry. He claimed that it was obvious to the British Air Force leaders that the Soviet Union would be the principal beneficiary of an Anglo-German war, and that Germany would not desire the destruction of Great Britain and France after her inevitable victory in Poland. Ropp predicted that Great Britain and France would declare war on Germany in the event of a German-Polish war, but he suggested that such a war need not be taken seriously, because it would be possible to conclude peace after the completion of the Polish phase of hostilities.

It was Göring, rather than Rosenberg, who feared the effect of this report on Hitler’s attitude. It was possible that Halifax might be deliberately encouraging the Germans to gamble in Poland in order to involve them in a general war which might result in the destruction of Germany. Rosenberg was inclined to accept the information from his fellow Balt at face value. He concluded that the Poles were engaged in a desperate gamble to provoke war with Germany because they hoped to force the British hand without being at all certain that the British would actually support Poland. The illusory British attitude described by Ropp conformed closely to the wishful thinking of Hitler about the intentions of the British leaders. The Ropp disclosures were a clever propaganda achievement. The situation described by Ropp was ironical in the light of the feverish preparations of British air force leaders for an assault of unprecedented and prolonged ferocity against the unfortunate civilian population of Germany.9

The German Foreign Office also received a confidential report on August 16, 1939, from Paul Legrenier, a French journalist who was sincerely friendly toward Germany. Legrenier insisted that Great Britain and France would not go to war against Germany in a conflict between Germany and Poland arising from trouble at Danzig. He was basing his report on the determination of French Foreign Minister Bonnet not to fight for Polish interests at Danzig, and on the obvious fact that Great Britain would not attack Germany without French support. Joseph Barnes, the Berlin correspondent of the New York Herald Tribune, estimated to the German diplomats on the same day that there was still at least a 50-50 chance that Great Britain and France would not attack Germany. Barnes added that he was basing his estimate on the assumption that Germany would make a great effort to avoid needless provocation of Great Britain and France. The reports of Ropp, Legrenier, and Barnes were received by Hitler on August 16, 1939, before the announcement of the Russo-German Pact. Hitler was convinced that the conclusion of the Pact with Russia would [488] increase the chances for peace. It is not astonishing under these circumstances that he was more optimistic than Göring or Mussolini about the possibilities of avoiding an Anglo-German war. 10

The German Foreign Office was under no illusion about the official policy of President Roosevelt in the current crisis. They knew that his policy was based on the twin assumptions that there should and would be a general European war. There was also reason to believe that some of the American diplomats in Berlin did not share this attitude. British Ambassador Henderson informed the Germans that American Charg6 d’Affaires Kirk was constantly prodding him to insist that Great Britain would fight rather than retreat, but there was ample evidence that Kirk hoped a show of British firmness would prompt Hitler to make new proposals for a settlement. The Germans also knew that Kirk had severely reprimanded Louis P. Lochner, the American journalist, for questioning the determination of Germany to go to war. Lochner was following the tactics of the Polish journalists by claiming that Hitler was bluffing, because he knew that these tactics would encourage German defiance and make war more likely. It was obvious that Kirk would not have intervened with Lochner on his own initiative had he personally favored war, and the German diplomats were pleased to learn that Kirk had denounced his warmongering.11


Charles Buxton’s Advice to Hitler

The Germans had received many rumors about friction between Halifax and Rab Butler, the British Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It was known at Berlin that Butler was opposed to war with Germany. Charles Roden Buxton, the Labour Party foreign policy expert and Quaker leader, arrived at Berlin on a visit on August 15, 1939. Butler and Buxton were close personal friends. Buxton was accompanied to Berlin by the British social worker, T.C.P. Catchpool, who was popular with the Germans because of the relief work he had undertaken in the Sudetenland during the period of Czech rule. Buxton announced that he was in Berlin to discuss an amicable settlement of Anglo-German friction. He had written to Dr. Hetzler, who was Ribbentrop’s personal adviser on British affairs at Berlin, advocating a comprehensive settlement dealing with all points of difference between Great Britain and Germany. Buxton motivated his mission by informing Dr. Hetzler that “I am a good European.”

The personal plan which Buxton presented contained everything which Hitler desired and much more than he would have requested in a settlement with Halifax. It began with the crucial point that the British Empire should disinterest itself in Eastern Europe after recognizing that the German Reich had special interests in that area. Buxton advocated the return of the German colonies held by Great Britain and France, and the convening of an international colonial conference on the basis of the Berlin conference of 1885 for a rational redistribution of colonial territory among the leading colonial Powers. This did not mean that any particular Power would necessarily receive a net increase of colonial territory, but it was hoped that an exchange of territories in specific [489] areas would reduce future points of friction. Buxton also advocated the liquidation of British economic imperialism in Eastern Europe, for instance in Rumania, where Great Britain exerted pressure on the local authorities for unfair concessions at the expense of normal trade. He believed that it would be necessary for Great Britain to disavow her guarantees to Poland, Rumania, and Greece as the only means of terminating unwarranted British intervention in Eastern Europe. Buxton believed that the British Government should atone for their harmful influence in Poland by offering to mediate in the dispute between Poland and Germany. He advocated a program of mutual confidence which would include a new Anglo-German naval treaty, the reduction of armaments, and mutual inspection of the national military establishments in Great Britain and Germany.

The Germans were asked to recognize that the existing territory of the British Empire was the living space of the British nation. They were to agree on a diplomatic conference among Germany, Great Britain, France, Italy, Poland, and Spain for the settlement of European issues. The Germans were to withdraw any alliance commitment they might have with the new Spanish regime on the grounds that any such alliance would threaten either Great Britain or France with encirclement. This point, although Buxton did not know it, involved no actual concession from Germany, because there were no alliance commitments of any kind between Germany and Spain. Buxton did not ask for Spanish withdrawal from the anti-Comintern front, because he recognized that this constituted international ideological solidarity against Communism rather than national alliances.

Buxton expected Hitler to declare to the world that the system of temporary autonomy for the Czechs in the Bohemia-Moravia Protectorate would become and remain firmly established as a permanent autonomy. He was convinced that the implementation of this declaration would be an adequate response to British grievances about earlier German policy at Prague. It was obvious to the German diplomats that Buxton was presenting a very real and vital plan for the settlement of Anglo-German tension, and there were no German objections whatever to the points which he proposed. It was equally clear that the British Government would have accepted this program were Butler rather than Halifax responsible for the conduct of British foreign policy. The Buxton plan would have afforded a marvelous platform for a negotiated settlement had it been presented officially by the British Government. Hitler was aware that Buxton intended him to use these proposals in negotiations with the British Government, and he did not hesitate to do so after the conclusion of the Russo-German Pact. 12


The Confusion of Herbert von Dirksen

The conversations between Buxton and the German diplomats were completed when German Ambassador Dirksen arrived at Berlin from London on August 18, 1939. Dirksen later claimed that he had been anxious to discuss the British situation with Ribbentrop, who was in the Salzburg area at the time. This alleged enthusiasm for a meeting with the German Foreign Minister was not [490] reflected by the Ambassador’s actions. He spent only a few hours in Berlin before departing for his home at Groeditzberg, Silesia. It would have been more logical for him to remain at least a few days in Berlin in an effort to see Ribbentrop. Dirksen, from his home in Silesia, addressed an extensive memorandum to Weizsäcker on Anglo-German relations. He displayed no interest in a personal meeting with Ribbentrop in his accompanying letter. He merely suggested that Weizsäcker should forward his memorandum to the German Foreign Minister.

The Dirksen memorandom contained the suggestion that a study of British motives in extending the guarantee of March 31, 1939, to Poland was essential to any analysis of current British policy in the Polish question. Dirksen recognized that the British guarantee was the product of abstract calculations based on the traditional British balance of power policy. He noted that Poland was the cornerstone of the British encirclement front against Germany. Dirksen believed that it would be necessary for Germany to persuade the British to abandon the encirclement policy as such before there could be any hope of British neutrality in the specific German-Polish conflict.

Dirksen followed this impressive introduction with the astonishing claim that Great Britain was seeking to “overcome her own inferiority complex.” He pointed out that British prestige had suffered from a long series of diplomatic defeats from Japanese, Italian, and German policies during the past few years in Asia, Africa, and Europe. The virtual collapse of the League of Nations was recognized to be a blow to British prestige because Great Britain had occupied the commanding position in that organization. Dirksen failed to note that the attitudes of Chamberlain, Halifax, Simon, and Hoare toward the League of Nations had always been cynical, and that they had never scrupled to undermine the position of the League for their own purposes. He also failed to show why diplomatic reversals, which resulted from excessive British intervention in the problems of other Powers, were sufficient to undermine the notorious superiority complex, unrecognized by Dirksen, of the British leadership. Halifax was encountering no difficulty in intimidating Italy. He was confident that he could dictate French foreign policy, and he knew that President Roosevelt of the United States was eager to respond favorably to any bellicose suggestion he cared to offer. He also knew that Hitler and the other German leaders were intensely pro-British and single-mindedly desirous of promoting Anglo-German cooperation. The share of British trade in the world markets was increasing throughout 1939, and the enormous British Empire had suffered no losses of territory during the ten years which had followed the advent of the world economic depression in 1929. Dirksen gave away his case completely when he concluded that Great Britain had “pulled herself together morally” after the events at Prague in March 1939. He accepted the position of Halifax by declaring that the public adoption of a war policy by Great Britain was an act of moral rehabilitation. Dirksen was the hopeless prisoner of British propaganda.

Dirksen claimed that Chamberlain and the British public were staring at the Danzig situation with hypnotic intensity despite the fact that they were largely ignorant of affairs in that part of Europe. He noted that German publicity about the fate of the Germans in Poland was received with studied scepticism in Great Britain. It was easy to recall that Germany had not complained on this score [491] during the 1934-1939 period when censorship in Germany prevented the German newspapers from exploiting incidents in Poland. The British leaders chose to ignore the fact that Hitler had suppressed unfavorable news about Poland in the interest of achieving a lasting understanding with the Poles.

Dirksen was convinced that Polish military action at Danzig would be followed by British military action against Germany. He insisted that the British would support Poland even if the Poles started military action without any provocation from Germany. He concluded that British armed intervention was inevitable if Germany, for any reason whatever, launched a full military campaign against Poland. Dirksen believed that a German retreat before Polish pretensions might ultimately cause the British to modify their policy toward Poland.

Weizsäcker studied the Dirksen memorandum and forwarded it to Ribbentrop. The German Foreign Minister was annoyed by Dirksen’s inability to resist British propaganda, but he was impressed by the unequivocal warning that Great Britain would intervene in a possible German-Polish war. He was preoccupied, on his flight home from Russia on August 24, 1939, with thoughts about what he hoped would be a last minute diplomatic solution of the German-Polish dispute. He found it difficult to avoid the conclusion that a general diplomatic conference would be the sole possible means of accomplishing this objective. His thoughts returned to the Italian proposals for a conference, despite the objections which Hitler had voiced against the practicability of this plan. He knew that Dr. Fritz Hesse, the German Press Counsellor at London, shared the conviction of Dirksen that Great Britain would attack Germany unless there was a peaceful settlement of the Polish dispute. Ribbentrop knew that Hesse, who had been stationed at London for many more years than Dirksen, was a more astute observer of the British scene than the German Ambassador. He decided on August 24th to recall Hesse to Berlin for personal talks. Ribbentrop also instructed Hesse to prepare a special report for Hitler on the latest developments in England.13

The German Foreign Office received additional misleading information from Italian Ambassador Attolico on August 23rd, before Ribbentrop returned from Moscow. Attolico claimed that British Ambassador Loraine had agreed at Rome on August 20th that his Government would participate in an international conference under favorable conditions. This was a gross distortion of Loraine’s chilly response to Ciano’s conference plan, and Attolico concealed the important fact that Great Britain on the same day had threatened Italy, by announcing that the major British offensive would be conducted against the Italians if Germany received Italian military support in the event of war. The demarche of Attolico gave the German diplomats false hopes that Great Britain might be considering a peaceful settlement with Germany.


Hitler’s Appeal to the British Foreign Office

The German Foreign Office was visited on August 23rd by William Cotton, a British Conservative who supported the Buxton plan for an agreement with Germany. The purpose of the Cotton mission was to persuade the Germans to [492] send Marshal Göring on an incognito trip to England to negotiate with Halifax. The British Foreign Secretary was not enthusiastic about the plan, but he had given Cotton a written statement couched in cool terms which conceded that he was “willing to see Göring.” The absence of positive encouragement from Halifax for the proposed Göring mission caused the German diplomats to fear that an attempt to settle differences in this manner would be abortive and produce a fiasco. Cotton was told that Hitler and Henderson were discussing the problems of Anglo-German relations, and that it was hoped that these renewed negotiations would produce concrete results. A decision on the proposed Göring mission was temporarily deferred, but both Hitler and Göring accepted the statement from Halifax as a commitment which might later be of use in maintaining contact between the two countries. 14

Göring received permission from Hitler to follow up the Cotton mission by dispatching Birger Dalilerus on a new mission to England. Dahlerus was in Paris on the evening of August 23rd when he received a telephone call from Göring, who instructed him to return to Berlin at once. The Swedish engineer arrived at the German capital on the following morning. He assured Göring that he was prepared to devote his full time and energy toward achieving an Anglo-German settlement. He would not desist from this effort unless or until it was demonstrated that such a settlement was an impossibility.

Göring responded by instructing Dahlerus to fly to London as soon as possible. He was to convey an important private pledge from Hitler to the British leaders. Hitler hoped to create confidence by pledging Germany’s word that the negotiations begun with Henderson the previous day would be continued as far as this was within his power, and that they would never be disrupted by any hostile action against Great Britain by Germany. Hitler did not wish the British attitude in the negotiations to be influenced by the existence of any alleged threat of a German surprise attack against Great Britain.

Göring permitted Dahlerus to assure Halifax that the German Marshal, who was responsible for all commands to the German Air Force, would also exert every influence to avert any German overt action against Great Britain while negotiations were in progress. Dahlerus contacted the British diplomats in Berlin after his conversation with Göring. He telephoned the British Foreign Office from the British Embassy in Berlin on the evening of August 24th, and he received permission to fly to London. Dahlerus confided on the telephone that Göring feared Chamberlain might make a declaration to Parliament that further Anglo-German talks would not be tolerated, and he requested that no such decision be made before his arrival in London. Dahlerus departed for London on the morning of August 25th, where he proceeded to play an important role in Anglo-German negotiations. His mission did not come to an end until more than a week later when his services as a negotiator were abruptly rejected by the British leaders. Dahlerus made numerous trips between Great Britain and Germany which extended the contacts between the British and German leaders. Halifax later admitted to the Joint Allied Tribunal which condemned Göring to death at Nuremberg in 1946 that the German Marshal, who employed Dahlerus with the knowledge and approval of Hitler, had done everything possible to preserve the peace during the final crisis which preceded the outbreak of World War II.15
[493]
Mackensen at Rome recognized the importance of the Italian position in the conduct of negotiations between Germany and Great Britain. He continued to hope that Ciano had not revealed recent Italo-German disagreements to the British. Mackensen reported on August p23, 1939, that the Russo-German pact might persuade the Italians to return to a policy of close support to Germany. He had at last received definite information at Rome that Attolico had done everything possible to prevent Italy from supporting Germany in the crisis, and he was now inclined to agree with Weizsäcker about the decisive importance of Attolico in producing the recent change of attitude at Rome. Italian sources now explained that Ciano had “succumbed” to the influence of Hitler at the Obersalzberg, but that Attolico had been successful in changing his mind again. The Italians now emphasized that Germany in May 1939 had promised to do everything possible to avoid war in the years ahead. They wished to concentrate on their program of public works in Albania, Ethiopia, and Sicily, and to prepare for the international exposition at Rome in 1942. It was insisted that the Italian Navy, with only two battleships, was not prepared for a struggle. The Italians also appeared to be positive that Italy would bear the brunt of an Anglo-French attack were she to enter a war. This attitude was not surprising after the secret British threat of August 20th.

Mussolini unlike Bonnet, doubted that Poland could be defeated within a few weeks. He suspected that the United States might intervene directly in a general war before the elimination of Poland. The Italians favored a truce between Germany and Poland regardless of the terms which Germany might have to accept. It was obvious to Weizsäcker after reading the full details of this report that Mackensen was not really optimistic about the influence of the Russian pact on the Italian position. He also received a report from German Finance Minister, Schwerin-Krosigk, who was visiting in Rome, that Ciano did not believe that the Russian pact would have the slightest effect on the determination of Great Britain to attack Germany. It was unfortunate that British Ambassador Loraine had been more effective than Ciano during recent conversations in producing an impression of determination.16


Polish-Danzig Talks Terminated by Beck

Government offices in France by August 24, 1939, were receiving visits from prominent Frenchmen who urged decisive pressure on Poland in the interest of peace. Bonnet was able to tell them that Polish Foreign Minister Beck had at last agreed, with some irritation, to permit Polish Ambassador Lipski to request a general exchange of views with Weizsäcker at the German Foreign Office.

Lipski called on Marshal Göring on August 24th after he discovered that the German State Secretary had departed from Berlin for the day. The conversation between Lipski and Göring took place immediately after the meeting between Göring and Dahlerus. Göring did everything possible to calm the Polish Ambassador, who betrayed considerable excitement and frayed nerves. Lipski’s condition is understandable when it is recalled that he had tried in vain for many months to persuade Beck to permit him to return permanently to Poland. Göring asserted flatly to Lipski that the danger of war between Germany and [494] Poland was being greatly exaggerated in many quarters. He confided that Hitler, as a keen diplomat, was easily able to create the impression of going a great deal further than he actually intended to go. Göring reminded Lipski that the principal cause for the deterioration of German-Polish relations was not the Polish refusal of the October 1938 German offer, but Beck’s acceptance of the British guarantee of March 31, 1939. Göring was confident that German-Polish relations could be straightened out if the problem of the existing entangling alliances was solved by negotiation between Great Britain and Germany. Göring hoped that his remarks to Lipski would contribute to the relaxation of tension in Poland, but Beck concluded that the German Marshal was seeking to lull Poland into a false sense of security.17

The tension at Danzig mounted after Chodacki warned the Danzig authorities on the early morning of August 24th that Poland might retaliate against the appointment of Albert Forster as Danzig Chief-of-State. The Danzig authorities had informed Burckhardt of their decision regarding Forster, but the League High Commissioner suggested that it would also have been wise to inform the League of Nations Committee of Three. Senate President Greiser told Burckhardt shortly before noon on August 24th that no reaction from the Committee of Three could have any effect on the Danzig decision about Forster, and he added that this decision was final. The Danzig Government would refuse to surrender to the Polish threat on this occasion. Burckhardt warned Greiser that the situation was dangerous, and he complained that the attitude of the British had become more stiff and warlike after the visit of Henderson to the Obersalzberg the previous day. Burckhardt’s personal reaction was to send his children from Danzig to Switzerland, although his wife insisted upon remaining in the so-called Free City. The League High Commissioner exclaimed to Greiser that he would ask for his own recall. He was convinced that political developments had run their course and that Danzig would make a final effort to return to Germany within a few days. Greiser and Burckhardt exchanged friendly remarks and agreed to meet later in Germany or Switzerland.

Inconclusive talks with Poland about the customs inspectors had been initiated by Greiser on August 9th after Forster’s return from Berchtesgaden, but these negotiations were terminated by the Poles on the morning of August 24th. Hitler had told Forster that he had no objection to such talks if the Danzig authorities considered that they might be useful, but they had produced no results. The Polish Government decided to end conversations when they received new requests for the reduction of the number of customs inspectors and for the withdrawal of the Polish frontier guards from Danzig territory. The Poles terminated negotiations without considering these proposals. They presented a note of protest which charged that the Danzig authorities interfered with the operations of Polish railway employees and customs inspectors on Danzig territory.

The German Government advised Danzig on August 24th that no arms should be given to any Germans in Poland. The German Government insisted that under no circumstances should the Germans in Poland be advised to resist Polish attacks in the event of a German-Polish war. It was argued that resistance to such attacks at one place would be disastrous to the minority Germans elsewhere in Poland. Forster appealed to Hitler on August 24th for permission [495] to take a strong line with the Poles after the rupture in negotiations on the customs inspectors. Forster contemplated a policy of arrests and of the confiscation of Polish arms in Danzig. Hitler refused to approve these measures because he feared they would produce an immediate conflict.18

The German Government was annoyed when Hungary announced on August 24th that troops would be called up to the Rumanian frontier in response to an alleged military threat to Hungary from Rumania. It was obvious at Berlin that this was a maneuver designed to divert attention from the situation in Poland. Rumanian Foreign Minister Gafencu responded the same day by offering to conclude a non-aggression pact with Hungary. The Hungarians had no intention of accepting this offer, but it compelled them, when combined with German pressure, to tone down their military preparations against Rumania. Regent Horthy of Hungary was convinced that Hitler preferred friendly relations with Poland to war, and he continued to hope that there would be no German-Polish war. He was equally determined to do everything possible in the event of war to secure Hungarian territorial revision at Rumanian expense.


Confusion in the British Parliament on August 24th

Hitler on August 24th was especially interested to receive news about the impact on foreign countries of his treaty with Russia. The neighboring Slovak Government was pleased to receive the German offer to restore the Slovakian territory seized by Poland in 1938 in the event of war between Poland and Germany. The conclusion of the Russo-German pact momentarily convinced the Slovaks that there would be no war. The Tiso Government responded to this situation by requesting Germany on August 24th to support the recovery of the territory taken from Slovakia by diplomatic means. The Slovak leaders predicted that the German dispute with Poland would be settled by an international diplomatic conference, and they hoped that their own claims would be placed on the conference agenda. 19

German diplomats at Paris reported that extremists who were most opposed to Germany, such as Henri de Kerillis, the Right-wing journalist, and Leon Blum, the Socialist leader, were profoundly discouraged by the conclusion of the Russo-German pact. German Chargé d’Affaires Thomsen reported from Washington, D.C., that the pact had decidedly strengthened the hand of the so-called isolationists, who opposed the plans of President Roosevelt for American military intervention in Europe. Thomsen added, however, that the Pact had failed to discourage the efforts of President Roosevelt to prod Great Britain and France into war with Germany.

German Ambassador Franz von Papen reported from Ankara on August 24th that the Turks were tremendously impressed by the news of the Russo-German pact. He added that Turkish Foreign Minister Saracoglu had expressed his regret that the Turks were on the wrong side, from the standpoint of their own security, in the European diplomatic conflict. Saracoglu was “taken aback” by the new situation, and Papen reported with considerable satisfaction that new progress in important economic negotiations between Germany and Turkey had been achieved. The German Ambassador predicted that Turco-German [496] relations would improve steadily in the months ahead. Hitler was pleased with a statement by Belgian Minister Vicomte Jacques Davignon to the Belgian press at noon on August 24, 1939. The Belgian diplomat insisted that an Anglo-German war would be a disaster which could not bring advantages to either side.

Pierre-Etienne Flandin, the former Premier of France, believed that new German proposals for a settlement with Poland might save the peace of Europe. He saw no reason why Germany should not demand the return of the entire Corridor, and he believed that Warsaw might submit to this arrangement under pressure. Flandin referred to the Russians as “born traitors,” and he complained that the British were suffering from a prestige complex because of the German diplomatic success in Russia. He assured German diplomats at Paris that Bonnet. was prepared to be more logical, and to draw the necessary conclusions from the Russo-German pact. There was no point in waging war to defend Poland after the military defense of the Polish state had become an impossibility.20

German Chargé d’Affaires Kordt reported from London at 1:15 P.M. on August 24th that the British Government had issued final orders to prepare the British Air Force for immediate action against Germany. Prime Minister Chamberlain spoke to a special session of the British House of Commons at 3:00 o’clock on the same afternoon. Chamberlain contended that the European situation had become progressively worse since his previous statement to the House on July 31, 1939. He warned the Members that they were facing the danger of immediate war with Germany. Chamberlain admitted that he was in no position to judge the accuracy of claims about the mistreatment of the Germans in Poland. He defended the Poles at great length in general terms, but he appeared to be on the defensive himself. He claimed that Great Britain had reaffirmed her obligations to Poland on August 23rd, the date that the Russo-German pact was signed. Chamberlain proceeded to declare that “in Berlin, the announcement (of the pact) was hailed with extraordinary cynicism, as a great diplomatic victory which removed any danger of war since we and France would no longer be likely to fulfill our obligations to Poland. We felt it our first duty to remove any such dangerous illusion.” 21

Chamberlain pleaded that “nothing that we have done or propose to do menaces the legitimate interests of Germany. It is not an act of menace to prepare to help friends to defend themselves against force.” This statement ignored the fact that Great Britain had offered to surrender Poland to the Soviet Union, and that she would never consent to defend the Poles against Bolshevism. It also overlooked the fact that the British had cultivated so-called special relations of friendship with Poland solely because they regarded the Poles as a useful instrument in furnishing the pretext for a British assault on Germany. Chamberlain might equally well have argued that the British plan to destroy Germany did not threaten legitimate German interests. The legitimate interests of foreign nations in the opinion of Chamberlain were those which enjoyed the special support and approval of the British Government. It was legitimate for the Poles to torture their German minority and to provoke incidents at Danzig because this course of action enjoyed British approval.

Chamberlain spoiled the effect of a speech intended to create an impression of unlimited British defiance by declaring that he had explained to Hitler that Great Britain had no interests of her own in Eastern Europe. He claimed that [497] the primary motive of British foreign policy was to prevent the unnecessary shedding of blood in foreign lands. This was pure cant, but Hitler concluded from these statements that the British might reconsider their decision to attack Germany.

The various Parliamentary factions displayed considerable confusion on August 24th. The Liberal leader, Sir Archibald Sinclair, suggested that a possible attack against the British Empire should be the primary consideration of Chamberlain rather than the defense of Poland. The Communist member, Gallacher, continued to insist that Great Britain should do nothing without a pact of mutual assistance with the Soviet Union. The statement of Ernest Bevin, who spoke for the British Labour Party, was particularly interesting. Bevin insisted that a British guarantee of Poland without support from the Soviet Union was a much too formidable undertaking. He suggested that the time had arrived for a solution of the Polish crisis by further negotiation.22

Hitler concluded, after analyzing the British Parliamentary debate on August 24th, that the united front of the Western Powers against Germany would begin to crack on the following day. He was seeking to strengthen the German position by obtaining a new declaration of support from Italy. Ribbentrop, who had just returned from Moscow, where the Allied military missions were still vainly seeking to negotiate, telephoned Ciano on the night of August 24th. He was instructed by Hitler to request a definite and conclusive statement of Italy’s position. Ciano replied that Germany would receive a statement from Italy on the following day. He carefully refrained from indicating that the Italian response would be negative.23


The Roosevelt Messages to Germany and Poland

President Roosevelt sent insincere peace messages to Germany and Poland at 9:00 p.m. on August 24, 1939. He ignored in his message to Germany the rebuff he had received from Hitler’s speech to the Reichstag on April 28th by claiming that “to the message which I sent you last April I have received no reply.” He proposed a settlement between Germany and Poland by direct negotiation, arbitration or mediation. He was treading on difficult ground, because Poland, whom he favored, rather than Germany, whom he opposed, blocked the resumption of negotiations. The messages from President Roosevelt forced President Moscicki  of Poland to pay lip service to negotiation, although the Polish Government did not desire to resume contact with the Germans. The reply of President Moscicki  was a definite pledge to President Roosevelt that Poland would negotiate, although the Poles actually had no intention of doing so.

President Roosevelt informed Hitler that “it is understood, of course, that upon resort to any one of the alternatives I suggest, each nation will agree to accord complete respect to the independence and territorial integrity of the other.” President Roosevelt imagined that this arrangement would preclude in advance any tangible Polish concessions to Germany, but its terms were entirely consistent with the Hitler offer of October 1938 which the Poles had rejected. The original German proposals were actually based upon the respect of the independence and territorial integrity of Poland. This had not prevented the [498] Poles from rejecting them and from ordering the partial mobilization of the Polish armed forces against Germany. Hitler had revealed to the world the inaccuracies and fallacies in the Roosevelt proposals of April 15, 1939, to Germany and Italy, but President Roosevelt rarely accepted criticism. He blandly concluded his message to Hitler with the statement that the United States was prepared to contribute to peace “in the form set forth in my message of April 14 (advance release of the messages to the American press on that date).” The Roosevelt messages to Germany and Poland were made public at Washington, D.C., at 10:00 p.m. on August 24, 1939. The message to Hitler was not submitted to the German Foreign Office by American Chargé d’Affaires Kirk until 9:00 a.m. on August 25th. Hitler decided to defer his reply to President Roosevelt for several days. He was intent, because of the importance of German-American relations, upon preparing a carefully cogent and courteous exposition of the German position for the benefit of the American President.24

German Ambassador Mackensen had a satisfactory conversation with Mussolini about the Russo-German treaty early on August 25, 1939. The Italian leader warmly assured Mackensen that he approved of this Pact, and he recalled that he had suggested this himself the previous Spring. Mussolini told Mackensen that he was whole-heartedly in accord with Germany’s position in the Polish question. The Italian leader described the worsening of German-Polish relations as “so acute that an armed conflict can no longer be avoided.” He was convinced that the Polish mentality was “no longer responsive to reasonable suggestions, no matter from which side they might come.”

Mackensen was immensely impressed by the attitude displayed by Mussolini in the absence of Ciano or Attolico. Mussolini claimed that the Poles should have responded to Hitler’s original offer by accepting the German annexation of Danzig as an indication that they were sincere in their desire to come to a general agreement with Germany. Mussolini was convinced that “a general conference might have followed” which would have “assured European peace for fifteen to twenty years, as is desired by all.” The attitude of the Italian leader on the morning of August 25th was everything which Hitler could have desired, and the German leader concluded that it would be possible to rely on Mussolini’s full support. He expected a favorable statement from Italy later in the day in response to the earlier initiative of Ribbentrop.

Mussolini and Ciano had renewed their discussion about a general peace conference with Sir Percy Loraine after the announcement of the Russo-German pact. Loraine reported to Halifax on August 23rd that Mussolini wanted peace, and that he would like to mediate in the German-Polish dispute. Mussolini assured Loraine that Hitler would not accept the terms of a general settlement unless they included the German annexation of Danzig. Loraine reported that the Italians were concentrating on an attempt to gain a British concession on this one decisive point. Loraine informed Halifax that both Mussolini and Ciano were convinced that a successful diplomatic conference was the only hope for a solution of the current difficulties.25

American Ambassador William C. Bullitt was advising both Halifax and the French leaders to maintain their military missions in Moscow, and to continue their efforts to detach Italy from Germany. Halifax recognized that the situation in Russia was untenable by this time. The Anglo-French teams had no choice [499] other than to leave Russia empty-handed. Molotov granted an audience to French Ambassador Naggiar on August 25th, immediately after the British and French military men departed from the Russian capital. The Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs took pleasure in announcing to the West that the Poles were exclusively responsible for the failure of Anglo-French negotiations with the Russians for a mutual assistance pact. This announcement confirmed suspicions which French Foreign Minister Bonnet had entertained for many days, and he was inclined for this reason to accept the Russian explanation at face value. Bonnet continued to be furious with the Poles. They had allowed Lipski to engage in an inconclusive conversation with Marshal Göring the previous day, but they had haughtily rejected his suggestion for Franco-Polish consultation on Danzig. The French Foreign Minister was resolved to retaliate by seizing the first opportunity of releasing France from her military obligations to Poland.26

Halifax was no longer concerned about Russia, and he did not share the desire of Bonnet to repress Polish excesses at Danzig. He was primarily interested in creating the impression everywhere in the world that the Russo-German pact had not caused him to reconsider his policy toward Germany. Halifax dispatched uniform instructions to British diplomatic missions in all countries on August 24th. He urged them to accept the superhuman task of correcting the impression that the pact had been a blow to the “peace front” headed by England and France. He also claimed that the pact “had produced no effect” on the British Cabinet. He exhorted his diplomats that the British course was straight ahead under the slogan of “preventing the domination of Europe by Germany.” Halifax did not explain how a revived German nation of eighty million German citizens could fail to be the leading continental Power. After all, it had been said after 1871 that the Germany of Bismarck, with her forty million inhabitants, dominated Europe. The policy of Halifax was calculated to destroy Germany rather than to permit that normal growth and development which for centuries had been considered the natural right of every nation. It was a policy which led to the destruction of a friendly Germany and to the domination of Europe by a hostile Union pledged to overthrow the capitalist system in Great Britain.27

Percy Loraine in Rome exposed himself to ridicule in an effort to meet the diplomatic requirements of Halifax. He informed Ciano on August 24th that the Russo-German pact had given him “the first hearty laugh he had had for some weeks.” The same man had previously informed the Italian leaders that a pact of mutual assistance with Russia was a necessary feature of the British program. The Italians could be pardoned for suspecting that his “hearty laugh” closely resembled an hysterical scream, because they had never heard him laugh. Loraine soon learned that Halifax was under heavy pressure at home on August 24th to modify the uncompromising British stand at Danzig. The British Foreign Secretary confided to Loraine, despite his circular instructions, that Great Britain might ultimately consider the return of Danzig to Germany as part of an international settlement. Loraine was bewildered by this information, and he wondered if Halifax intended after all to encourage Mussolini to take the initiative for a conference, which again might resolve British difficulties. There had been no similar suggestion from Halifax during the entire period from the British guarantee to Poland of March 31st to the conclusion of the Russo-German pact.
[500]
Unfortunately, the momentary weakening of Halifax’s rigid stand at Danzig was of short duration, and he soon concluded that he could maintain his original position against the mounting opposition at home. Gilbert and Gott, in The. Appeasers, attempt to present this incident as a sustained effort on the part of Halifax to come to terms with Germany at Danzig. Unfortunately, this was not the case.28


The German Case Presented by Henderson

Henderson at Berlin was concentrating on obtaining recognition from Halifax of the cruel fate of the German minority in Poland. He was especially contemptuous of the glowing reports about Polish restraint which poured into London from Sir Howard Kennard at Warsaw. Henderson solemnly warned Halifax on August 24th that German complaints about the treatment of the minority in Poland were fully supported by the facts. Kennard received perfunctory advice from Halifax on the same day to caution the Poles. Kennard refused to do this. He insisted to Halifax that there was no reason to warn the Poles to exercise restraint. He dismissed in cavalier fashion all German complaints about incidents in Poland as “gross distortion,” and he claimed that the Germans were creating an atmosphere of panic by urging their nationals to leave Poland. He implied that the shoe was actually on the other foot by praising Beck for ostensibly restraining the Polish press from exploiting “atrocities” committed against the Poles in Germany. He ignored information from Henderson that there were no atrocities committed against the Polish minority in Germany.

Henderson was asking Halifax to face the fact that war between Poland and Germany was inevitable unless negotiations were resumed between the two countries. Henderson knew that the Germans were prepared to negotiate. He again insisted that the Poles should instruct their Ambassador at Berlin to request an interview with Hitler. He pleaded with Halifax that it would be contrary to Polish interests to attempt a full military occupation of Danzig in response to the Danzig attempt to exercise self-determination and return to Germany. Henderson was prompted by knowledge about Polish aims at Danzig, and he knew that the Russo-German pact was beginning to arouse the Danzigers from their mortal fear of the Poles. Hans Frank, the German Minister of Justice, was visiting Danzig, and Henderson concluded that he was advising the Danzigers on their political strategy. Henderson noted that Albert Forster was predicting that Danzig would return to Germany within a few days.29

Henderson wished Halifax to know that Hitler had accused England on August 23, 1939, of seeking Germany’s destruction. The German leader had insisted that he was opposed to war, but he added philosophically that he preferred to face a war crisis at the age of fifty rather than at fifty-five or sixty. Halifax was informed that the remarks of the German Chancellor were the opposite of bluff, and that he would never capitulate. Henderson desired Halifax to learn exactly how he felt about the conversations with Hitler on August 23 : “It was heartbreaking since, as you know, I have held from the beginning that the Poles were utterly foolish and unwise. But there it is and perhaps Providence regards war as necessary to teach us not to do it again. With Russia in his pocket [501] I cannot see Hitler climbing down. If Poland prefers destruction to yielding, I am afraid she will suffer. And so will we. Personally I see no way out.”30

Henderson in reality was a mere shade less pessimistic than his report indicated. His remarks were primarily calculated for their effect on Halifax, and possibly on Chamberlain. Henderson continued to fear that Halifax believed Hitler was bluffing, and he added for good measure that “intimidation will not deter him.” The British Ambassador would have been unable to carry on had he faced the fact that Halifax was pursuing war for its own sake as an instrument of policy. No Ambassador had ever stated the position at a foreign capital more accurately, and Henderson had also added a scathingly effective denunciation of Polish policy. His most striking comment was the suggestion that still another conflict, despite the recent experience of World War I, might be necessary to demonstrate the futility of Anglo-German wars to the British leadership. It would be valid to conclude under these circumstances that there was no reason to hope that the British leaders were capable of learning this obvious lesson. It would be pointless to learn it after the decline and fall of Great Britain and the other Western European nations.


Kennard at Warw Active for War

Kennard deliberately invited a reprimand from Halifax for his irresponsible conduct at the Polish capital. The British Ambassador created the impression on August 24th that he was feeling contrition for once, although it was actually an unrepentant feeling of insecurity at having gone too far in identifying himself with the Polish position. Kennard feared that the British Foreign Office might believe he had let them down on crucial issues of policy by supporting Polish opposition to Russian troop transit and negotiations with Germany. The issue about the Russian troops had become past history, but the question of possible German-Polish negotiations was vital, and the role of the British Ambassador at Warsaw might easily prove decisive. Halifax deliberately declined to reprimand Kennard because he was also opposed to German-Polish negotiations. The British Ambassador was allowed to conclude that the Foreign Office approved of his support to Polish intransigence in all directions, and he proceeded on the same bellicose course. As Gilbert and Gott have pointed out, he was supported in this cause at all times by Clifford Norton, of the Warsaw British Embassy staff, and by Frank Savery, the British Consul-General at Warsaw.

Halifax knew that President Roosevelt, despite his formal message to Poland, agreed that the British should exert no actual pressure on the Poles to negotiate. The main purpose of the Roosevelt messages was to make Germany appear guilty in a dispute which the American President hoped would lead to war. American Ambassador Bullitt informed British Ambassador Sir Eric Phipps at Paris that President Roosevelt was prepared to adopt any proposals which Halifax cared to make for the conduct of American policy. Halifax welcomed this assurance, but he was intensely displeased by the tactlessness and crudeness of Roosevelt’s diplomacy. President Roosevelt had also prepared peace appeals to Italy and the Western Powers on August 24th. He had deliberately insulted Mussolini by addressing his Italian appeal exclusively to King Victor Emmanuel III [502], apparently unaware that it was one of the main objectives of Halifax to separate Mussolini from Hitler. Halifax wired Loraine that he had no idea Roosevelt would take the initiative in this manner, and, above all, grossly insult Mussolini. Halifax added that Great Britain wished to distance herself as far as possible from tactless American peace gestures.31

Mussolini had presented a new appeal for a diplomatic settlement to Loraine on August 24th. Loraine replied that, according to information from Kennard, Beck was “in urgent consultation” with Lipski on the possibilities of new German-Polish conversations. This was an unpardonable exaggeration. Kennard had merely referred to Beck’s grudging acceptance of Bonnet’s plea to permit Lipski to talk to the Germans. Lipski was allowed to engage in a single conversation, which consisted primarily of a German attempt to reassure the Poles. Loraine flattered the Italians by assuring them that they were receiving from him the full text of Hitler’s private reply to Chamberlain, whereas the French would obtain only a cursory summary. Loraine refrained from mentioning Halifax’s instructions about a possible British concession at Danzig. He insisted that the British were not opposed to successful Italian mediation or a conference, but that they could not take the initiative in urging the Poles to sacrifice their rights to the Reich, or to recognize the right of Danzig to return to Germany. Loraine knew that the British alone were in a position to apply effective pressure on Poland.32

Loraine was seriously troubled by Halifax’s suggestion about Danzig, which was inconsistent with the general line of British policy. Loraine wired to Halifax on August 25th to inquire if he really had understood the British Foreign Secretary. He asked bluntly if the British position now called for self-determination at Danzig in exchange for an international guarantee to Poland in which Hitler would participate. Loraine had repeated to the Italians on the previous day that Great Britain refused to urge Poland to accept such a solution. The previous year the British leaders had urged the Czechs to accept the cession of the Sudetenland. Loraine wished to know whether Germany, in the British view, was entitled to Danzig under certain circumstances, or whether she was not. If she was, Great Britain might logically be expected to present this position to all parties concerned, including Poland. It seemed to Loraine that the British stand at the moment did not make much sense.

Loraine was assuming, along with the other British diplomats, that war might break out at any moment. He addressed an urgent warning to London on the morning of August 25th that Italy was not preparing for war, and that it would be a grave mistake for the French to attack her without warning in an opening campaign. Halifax knew that Bonnet would not permit a French attack against Italy, but he was very much concerned about the French attitude toward a possible war with Germany. He had received a message from Bonnet that it would be necessary for the French Chamber of Deputies to approve of any steps leading toward war. Halifax was intensely displeased with this position of the French Foreign Minister. He feared that Bonnet would exploit the opposition to war in France in an effort to avoid French obligations to Poland.

Halifax was annoyed with the Dahlerus mission from the start, because the Swedish engineer repeated the tactics of Henderson in stressing Polish guilt for the excesses against the German minority in Poland. Dahlerus had [503] telephoned the British Foreign Office again on the early morning of August 25th shortly before flying to London. He mentioned Göring’s inconclusive conversation with Lipski, and he added that the German Marshal was alarmed by the impact of fresh incidents involving the Germans in Poland. Dahlerus added candidly that “Beck is a good man but they do not obey him and are getting wild.”33

Kennard at Warsaw continued to oppose the idea that the mistreatment of the Germans in Poland constituted a serious problem. He disliked Henderson’s suggestion that Lipski should discuss the possibilities for a settlement with Hitler. Kennard insisted that it would be a mistake for Lipski to see Hitler at all. He offered an odd explanation for this attitude. Kennard feared that Hitler, at the last minute, would make some attractive new proposal to Poland, which might, after all, separate Poland from the Western Allies. This is an excellent illustration of the perverse attitude of the British envoy in Warsaw. He did not propose means to avoid the unparalleled catastrophe of a new World War. He was merely concerned that at the last minute England might be deprived of some useful ally in the great struggle.

The response of Halifax to Kennard was exceedingly limited in scope. He merely warned that the Poles should take care not to commit acts which would reveal them as the aggressive party. He advised that they should accept the formality of registering a favorable response to President Roosevelt’s peace appeal to Poland of August 24th. Kennard stubbornly refused to notice the deportation treks of brutally mistreated Germans into the Polish interior, and he would not admit that untoward events were taking place in the German minority areas. He claimed to Halifax that he was taking one adequate step which would prevent the occurrence of incidents. He was instructing General Carton de Wiart, chief of the British military mission in Poland, to inform Beck that it was necessary to avoid incidents. General de Wiart, who later commanded the ill-fated British military expedition to Norway, has recorded that he was in no position to influence Polish policy toward the German minority. 34


The August 25th Göring Message to London

Dahlerus submitted a careful memorandum at the British Foreign Office on August 25th about Göring’s remarks on the previous day. He reminded his British hosts that their seven countrymen at the Soenke-Nissen-Koog conference earlier in the month were unanimously convinced of the sincerity of the German Marshal. They all agreed that Göring “personally would support any attempt to arrive at a settlement.” Göring had insisted that this evaluation should also apply to Hitler. He denied that there were any differences whatever between his position and that of the German Chancellor. Göring was working along lines decided upon by Hitler. Hitler wished for a peaceful settlement which would not sacrifice the national dignity of Germany recently regained after so great an effort. Göring had one main point to offer. If the British would reconcile themselves to a strong Germany on the European continent, Germany, in return, would aid, rather than oppose, the British Empire. Above all, Göring believed it was important that neither Power should intervene in the internal [504] affairs of its neighbor. Göring was convinced that two commercial spheres of respective economic concentration could be defined by the two trading nations. He proposed British priority in the Far East and German priority in the Near East as a tentative suggestion. Göring was careful to stress that it would still be possible to renew the 1938 German proposals to Poland.

Dahlerus wished to confirm Göring’s assertion that all ultimate decisions in German foreign policy rested with Hitler. Dahlerus and Göring hoped that a British special representative could come to Germany to negotiate, because they “felt that the Fuehrer could not possibly leave Germany, and such a discussion must therefore take place in Germany.” It was not difficult for the British to accept the general validity of this point. Chamberlain himself had assured Hitler at Munich the previous year that it would not be opportune for Hitler to visit Great Britain within the near future because of the hostile reception he would receive. Chamberlain recognized that Hitler strongly desired to visit Great Britain when conditions were more favorable. It was obvious at the same time that the atmosphere in Great Britain was even less favorable for a Hitler visit in 1939 than had been the case in 1938. It was unnecessary for Dahlerus to elaborate on this point.

Dahlerus insisted warmly that it was evident to him from his intimate knowledge of Germany “that the German nation as such certainly does not want a war, but desire to build up their own country and endeavour to establish a higher standard of living for the whole nation.” He could imagine that some radical persons in Germany, as in every country, might welcome war, but he assured his British hosts that the opposite was true of Göring. He could not personally speak for Hitler, because he had deliberately avoided meeting him in order “not to be persuaded or influenced by his strong personality.” He knew from what he had heard that Hitler was strongly individualistic and “extremely sensitive,” and that it was necessary to handle him with tact. Dahlerus concluded his first meeting with the British diplomats by reminding them of Göring’s promise that Hitler would come very far to meet any offer from Great Britain.35


Hitler Disturbed about Italian Policy

A serious and almost fatal situation began to develop at Berlin during the afternoon of August 25, 1939. Hitler, who was anxiously awaiting news about the British situation, was also much concerned about the Italians. He had good reason to be. There had been no further confirmation from Rome of Ciano’s pledge to Germany on August 13, 1939. Bernardo Attolico, who feared that Mussolini might throw caution to the winds at the last minute and remain loyal to Hitler in the real sense of the word, fired a final bolt of warning at the Italian leaders at 11:15 p.m. on August 24th, after Ciano’s ambiguous telephone conversation with Ribbentrop. His warning formed the basis of the consultation between Mussolini and Ciano on the morning of August 25th, between Mussolini’s conversation with Mackensen and the official Italian reply to Ribbentrop’s appeal. Attolico claimed with deliberate exaggeration that Henderson was completely negative about his last conversations with Hitler. He asserted it was a virtual certainty that the Germans would address an ultimatum [505] to the Poles on the evening of the following day; otherwise they would not have requested a final clarification of the Italian position. Attolico claimed that Ribbentrop was frustrated by his Moscow mission, and that he was doubtful about the pact concluded with Russia. This was completely untrue, but the Italian Ambassador was not interested in giving Mussolini an accurate report on German conditions. His sole interest was to prevent Italy from rendering support to Germany according to the terms of the May 1939 Pact of Steel.

Attolico’s effort was completely successful. Mussolini was actually inclined to give Germany full support at the time of his conversation with Mackensen. He had drawn up a lengthy memorandum which demanded immediate Italian intervention if Great Britain and France attacked the Reich. The Italian leader recoiled when he received Attolico’s warning, which indicated, without any actual basis, that the Germans would force the issue with the Poles on the following day. Attolico’s comments about Henderson and Russia were especially important. The former suggested that British intervention was a certainty, and the latter indicated that Mussolini might not receive indirect economic aid from Russia in the event of war.36

The prospect of an open repudiation of the German alliance was intolerable to Mussolini. Ciano was at hand to suggest a means by which Mussolini might square the circle. He wrote a letter in which he formally offered to support Germany, but he stipulated conditions for German aid which the German Reich could not possibly meet. Ribbentrop later commented that Germany did not possess the transport equipment to convey goods and strategic raw materials to Italy within the time schedule indicated, even provided that such materials were actually available in Germany, which was by no means the case. Hitler received the Mussolini letter by telegraph in two parts. He realized when he had received the complete message that the Italian leader was deserting him at this crucial moment. He could see at a glance that the Italian move might be the decisive factor in the situation. Hitler’s primary interest in Italian support was not that they should help him to wage war, but to discourage the British and French from attacking him. Hitler hoped that the Italians had at least informed him of their decision prior to communicating this information to the British and French. Concern about Italy and Great Britain prompted Hitler to make a momentous decision. He suddenly decided that it would be necessary to settle his account with the Poles without delay, before the British recovered from their surprise at the Soviet-German Pact or became aware of the true Italian position. He was convinced that delay might make a general war inevitable.37


Hitler’s Alliance Offer to Great Britain

Hitler had earlier requested British Ambassador Henderson to call at 1:30 p.m. to receive formal German proposals for an Anglo-German agreement. He received Henderson on schedule and informed him that the Danzig question would be settled, and that his pact with Russia precluded the danger of a Russo-German war. He reminded Henderson that he had no aspirations in Western Europe, and that he wished the British Empire to remain prosperous and strong. He added that the colonial problem could be relegated to the far-distant future, [506] and he asserted that it would be unwise in any event to discuss such problems until Great Britain and Germany had reached an agreement for the reduction of armaments.

The German leader reminded the British Ambassador that his purpose in arranging the meeting was to present a formal offer for an Anglo-German agreement. Germany wished to follow up her treaty with Russia by concluding a treaty of friendship with Great Britain. Hitler wished to criticize remarks made on the previous day by Chamberlain and Halifax in the British Parliament. He denied the Chargés of the British leaders that Germany entertained plans of world conquest. Hitler reminded Henderson that the integral parts of the British Empire comprised 40 million square kilometers of land. Germany occupied a modest area of less than 600,000 square kilometers. Many nations occupied formidable places between the top British position on the list of large Powers, and the German position farther down the list. For instance, the Soviet Union contained 19 million square kilometers, and the United States of America 9 ½ million square kilometers. Hitler refused to concede that any German plans to conquer the world could be feasible.

Hitler told Henderson that this did not change the fact that Germany faced an acute problem in her own immediate neighborhood. He was determined to regulate conditions in a part of the area lost by Germany twenty years earlier, and this meant Danzig and the Corridor. The only possible result Hitler could see from the Prime Minister’s speech of the previous day was a bloody and incalculable war. He was prepared to take every possible step to avert this catastrophe, and he was now presenting terms for the comprehensive agreement with Great Britain which he had always desired. His offer was predicated on the assumption that Great Britain would be willing to recognize German obligations to Italy just as Germany accepted British obligations to France.

Hitler hoped the British would be prepared to declare in principle that they did not oppose the eventual consideration of German colonial claims. He was prepared to proceed along the lines of the Buxton plan, and to assume the greatest and most complex commitment on behalf of Great Britain that had ever been offered by any foreign political leader. This commitment was no less than his willingness to place the entire power of the Reich at the disposal of the British for the defense of the British Empire at any point and any time. The British leaders themselves, of course, would be free to decide in any threatening situation when and if they needed this aid. Hitler believed that an arrangement of Anglo-German differences would create conditions of complete security for both Powers, and it was obvious that a drastic reduction of armaments would be immediately feasible. He was willing to sign a guarantee at once that Germany desired no change in the status quo throughout Western Europe. Hitler added delicately that, if his proposals failed and war ensued, Great Britain would not emerge as a stronger Power, whatever the outcome. He declared that the vital interests of Germany required him to make his entire offer conditional on a settlement of the German-Polish dispute along lines acceptable to Germany. 38

Henderson desired an Anglo-German agreement, and he was deeply moved by his meeting with Hitler on August 25, 1939. The British Ambassador offered a number of personal observations when he relayed Hitler’s remarkable offer to [507] Halifax and Chamberlain. He noted that Ribbentrop was present during his entire conversation with Hitler, but that the German Foreign Minister remained raptly attentive without offering any comments. Henderson assured Halifax that he did not take the liberty to discuss the individual points of Hitler’s offer without instructions from London. The British Ambassador had centered his remarks on the German-Polish dispute, which had become the crucial point in Anglo-German relations. He admitted that he had taken a personal step on his own initiative. He had warmly recommended that Hitler and Beck meet once again to settle their difference and to avoid war. The British Ambassador noticed that the German leader became silent and contemplative at the mention of this remote prospect. Hitler then suddenly exclaimed that if his differences with the Poles could be settled, he would be able to end his life as an artist rather than as an alleged warmonger. He added fervently that the very last thing he could possibly desire would be to turn Germany into nothing better than a military barracks. Henderson warmly recommended to Halifax that Hitler should be given an opportunity to demonstrate his good intentions. 39


Hitler’s Order for Operations in Poland on August 26th

Hitler believed that he had no moment to lose after this conversation. He wished to settle with the Poles while the impact of his agreement offer was still fresh, and before the British and French discovered that Italy did not intend to support him. He was convinced that his only real chance to settle the Polish dispute by isolated military action in a local war had arrived, and that hesitation at that moment would cost Germany great suffering in the time ahead. Hitler telephoned General Walther von Brauchitsch, the Commander-in-Chief of the German Armed Forces, immediately after the departure of Henderson. He ordered formal and full-scale military operations against the Poles for the following morning at dawn. General Wilhelm Keitel, the Chief-of-Staff, distributed orders by 3:05 p.m. on August 25th for the launching of “Operation White.” The commands were received by the individual German Army commanders on the various sectors in the East, and by the commanders of the Siegfried Line in the West, where the relevant defensive preparations were soon underway. Polish telephone communications through Germany were interrupted by order of the German military authorities shortly before 3:00 p.m. on August 25th. Polish Foreign Minister Beck was worried by this development, but he concluded that it might be part of the war-of-nerves rather than an indication of a coming attack. The Poles did not order the mobilization of their last reserve units. An attack on August 26th would have found the Poles much less prepared than was the case when the German-Polish war actually broke out nearly a week later.40

Polish Ambassador Lipski called at the German Foreign Office twice on the afternoon of August 25th to present complaints about recent German border violations. He announced that the Polish border guard, Edmund Piatkowski, had been shot and killed from ambush at the Donnersmarck Park along the Upper Silesian frontier. He also announced that a German Corporal named Kapenhagen was shot and killed inside the Polish frontier in the Bialystok district. Lipski complained that Kapenhagen had penetrated Polish territory with [508] a patrol of ten German soldiers. The Germans complained about two Polish air attacks over Danzig Bay against a German pontoon airplane from Pillau, East Prussia. They also objected to Polish violations of the German frontier. These incidents were a commonplace indication of the chaotic conditions resulting from the German-Polish crisis.41


The Announcement of the Formal Anglo-Polish Alliance

Hitler contacted Otto Dietrich, his personal press chief, and inquired if news of any important policy changes had been received from Great Britain and France. Dietrich was obliged to concede that he had no important developments of any sort to report. A break in the tense and anxious waiting came at last at 5:00 p.m. when the German News Bureau announced that a formal Anglo-Polish alliance pact was about to be concluded at London. The negotiations between the British and the Poles on the previous Saturday, August 19th, had ended on an inconclusive note. It had been agreed to resume discussions on Tuesday, August 22nd, but British Legal Counsellor Fitzmaurice cancelled the talks because the British Cabinet was considering a change of policy in response to the announcement of the Russo-German Pact. Halifax broadcast a short talk to Poland on the evening of August 22nd which stressed Anglo-Polish solidarity, but he refused to discuss the terms of a possible Anglo-Polish alliance with Polish Ambassador Raczynski on August 23rd. The British Cabinet decided to accept the Polish alliance terms and to abandon their own previous reservations, but the Poles were not informed of this decision until the morning of August 25, 1939. Raczynski obtained permission from Beck at Warsaw to complete the negotiation and to sign the treaty.

The Anglo-Polish alliance treaty of August 25, 1939, contained a secret protocol which provided that the treaty would be applied exclusively against Germany. The London Times carried a story on the morning of August 25th from their Berlin correspondent to the effect that a German-Polish war would inevitably produce the annexation of extensive Polish territories by the Soviet Union. The first official revelation that the British Government was not obliged to defend Poland against the Soviet Union was made by Rab Butler in the House of Commons on October 19, 1939, more than one month after the invasion of Poland by the Soviet Union. By that time the British were fully embarked on their campaign against Germany inspired by their alleged desire to defend the territorial integrity of Poland. The British merely agreed to consult with the Poles in the event of aggression against Poland by the Soviet Union. It was stipulated that Great Britain would not recognize the annexation of Polish territory by any third Power without obtaining the consent of the Polish leaders. This provision led to tremendous British pressure on the Poles during World War II to accept the annexation of Eastern Poland by the Soviet Union.42

The public terms of the alliance were not received at Berlin from the German diplomats in London until 4:00 am. on August 26th, but the announcements at London in the early evening of August 25th contained the gist of the treaty. The two Powers offered full support to each other against German acts of aggression. They agreed on full military support against “any action by an [509] European Power (i.e. Germany) which clearly threatened directly or indirectly the independence of one of the contracting parties and was of such a nature that the party in question considered it vital to resist it with its armed forces.” The British in this article subscribed to the same doctrine of indirect aggressor which had justifiably occasioned such extensive criticism when it was proposed by the Soviet Union. The Russians had favored the doctrine of so-called indirect aggression because they desired a blank check to intervene against neighboring Powers. The British were renewing their unconditional blank check to Poland by promising to support her in similar circumstances.

It was further stipulated that aggression in the first article would include threats to the independence or neutrality of other European states when such threats would allegedly constitute a danger to either contracting party. The third article stipulated that so-called economic penetration by Germany could be interpreted as aggression. The fourth and fifth articles provided for military consultation and the exchange of information. The sixth article provided that new understanding with other Powers would not limit existing obligations. The seventh article required that the two Powers would not conclude a separate peace in the event of war, and the final article announced that the pact would come into effect when it was signed for a period of five years.43

The London radio broadcast a false report a few minutes after the initial announcement of the treaty with Poland. It was stated that three German bombers had been forced down over Polish territory by Polish anti-aircraft batteries and pursuit airplanes. The actual signing of the treaty with Poland took place at 5:35 p.m.44

Hitler had at last received decisive news about British policy on August 25th, but for him it was a step in the wrong direction. The news of the Anglo-Polish Pact persuaded Hitler that the British might attack Germany despite the German treaty with Russia. He was faced with a terrible dilemma. If he retreated, the Germans of the East, including Danzig, would be abandoned to the cruelty and arrogance of a hostile Poland. If he took effective action against the Poles, the British might unleash another general European War.

Halifax received two urgent appeals from Henderson shortly before the Polish treaty was signed. The British Ambassador stated frankly in his first message that he favored the acceptance of Hitler’s offer for an agreement. He urged Halifax to give the German proposals serious consideration. The second message reported a major atrocity against the Germans in Poland which had taken place on the same day. Henderson never relied on official German information concerning these incidents, and he was basing his report on confirmation which he had received from neutral sources. The latest atrocity had taken place at Bielitz, East Upper Silesia. The Poles were forcibly deporting the Germans of that area, and compelling them to march into the interior. Eight Germans were murdered and many more were injured during one of these actions on August 25, 1939. Henderson feared that the Bielitz atrocity would be the final straw to prompt Hitler to invade Poland. He made no secret of the fact that he [510] deplored the failure of the British Government to exercise restraint over the Polish authorities.45

Hitler had invited French Ambassador Robert Coulondre to call on him at 5:30 p.m. on August 25th. Hitler met the French Ambassador on schedule and described the latest incidents against the Germans in Poland. lie informed Coulondre that war between Germany and Poland could be expected at any time. The German Chancellor added that under these circumstances there was little point in discussing further German relations with Poland. He believed that it was much more important to discuss what the future might hold in store for France and Germany.

Hitler assured Coulondre that he wished to avoid war with France. Nevertheless, he exclaimed: “I will not attack France, but if she joins in the conflict, I will see it through to the bitter end.” He emphasized the importance of the Russo-German Pact. After some time he added: “I believe I shall win, and you believe you will win: what is certain is that above all French and German blood will flow, the blood of two equally courageous peoples. I say again, it is painful to me to think we might come to that.” Hitler requested Coulondre to convey these sentiments to Premier Daladier.46

Coulondre replied vigorously to Hitler. He gave his “word of honor as a soldier that he had no doubt whatever that in the event of Poland’s being attacked, France would assist her with all the forces at her command.” He also gave Hitler his word of honor that France would now do everything within her power to compel the Poles to moderate their policies. Hitler replied: “I believe you; I even believe that men like M. Beck are moderate, but they are no longer in control of the situation.” Coulondre commented that Hitler was quite right in believing the French Ambassador was personally convinced France would emerge victorious in a coming war. The French envoy wished to add that in a profound and fundamental sense, he feared that the only real victor would be Leon Trotsky, who was momentarily living in exile in Mexico, but whose disciples could be found in every country of the world. Coulondre noted that this reference to the fiery Russian-Jew, whose stormy and destructive career was well-known to Hitler, produced an electric effect. He did not know that he was talking to Hitler in the very hours of decision. Keitel’s orders to the commanders had gone out at 3:05 p.m.. It would not be even theoretically possible, after 9:30 p.m., for Hitler to halt the German war machine, which was already in motion toward Poland.47

There was a long pause before Hitler pensively asked Coulondre: “Why, then, did you give Poland a blank check?” The French Ambassador did his best to answer this difficult question. He discussed the events of March 1939 in great detail from the French angle. Hitler listened silently to this exposition for a long time. Coulondre finally finished his remarks. There were a few brief personal exchanges, and the interview was over.

Hitler immediately requested a conference with Ribbentrop, who was patiently waiting close at hand. The two men briefly discussed the situation, and Hitler complained that he had received two very bad pieces of news on this one difficult day. One was the defection of Italy, and the other was the conclusion of the Anglo-Polish Pact. Hitler was astonished that these two developments occurred in the wake of his treaty with the Soviet Union. He was [511] sufficiently flexible to agree with Ribbentrop that his analysis of the Anglo-French position was probably wrong. Hitler required more than ordinary courage to meet this situation. If his evaluation of the Anglo-French position was incorrect, then his order for operations against Poland was a great blunder. This order was issued strictly on the assumption that local operations against the Poles would not plunge Europe into a general war. Fortunately, Hitler possessed courage in full measure. The German forces had still not invaded Poland. Halifax still did not have his war for the balance of power.

Hitler requested a conference with General Keitel, who was near at hand, at 6:30 p.m.. on August 25th. The German Chancellor ordered the German operations against Poland to be suspended as soon as practicable for an indefinite period. Hitler knew this was feasible, because it was one of the many hypothetical situations he had discussed earlier with General von Brauchitsch. Of course, Hitler had been assured that there were a million chances that something would go wrong, that communications somewhere would break down, or even that orders would become confused or be disobeyed. The Bulgarians had stumbled into the Second Balkan War under similar circumstances in 1913, and they had suffered a crushing defeat. Hitler preferred to take the one million chances rather than be guilty of blundering into a general war in the style of the European leaders of 1914. Keitel contacted General von Brauchitsch and relayed Hitler’s order that “the already started ‘Operation White’ will be stopped at 20:30 hours (8:30 p.m.) because of changed political conditions.” When Colonel Hans Oster, one of the German Counter-Intelligence chiefs and a member of a small conspiratorial group against Hitler, heard this news, he exulted: “The Fuehrer is done for!”48

Oster was convinced that Hitler’s act of courage would lead directly to disaster but he was wrong. Despite Colonel Oster and his fellow-conspirators, the German military machine in 1939 was more efficient than the small Bulgarian Army of 1913. A few serious slips and subsequent grave incidents did in fact occur, but they passed almost unnoticed in the general chaos along the German-Polish frontier. The attempt to halt operations against Poland was successful.

Hitler had still not lost the game. He was faced with a terrible dilemma, but he saw it more clearly than before. Perhaps some third alternative to a general war, or to submission to Polish atrocities, could still be found. It was up to Hitler as diplomat and not as soldier to explore and test these possibilities. Hitler was especially mindful of his recent offer to the British for an Anglo-German agreement. He hoped that German concessions to Great Britain might prompt the British leaders to persuade the Poles to resume negotiations for a diplomatic settlement of the German-Polish dispute. Hitler was willing to follow up his proposals to Great Britain with new proposals to the Poles. His principal motive in doing so would be to avoid the tragedy of a new Anglo-German war.49

[513]
Chapter 20


THE NEW GERMAN OFFER TO POLAND


Halifax Opposed to Polish Negotiations with Germany

The new German offer to Poland on August 29, 1939, was the most important development during the several days after Hitler’s decision of August 25, 1939, for a last diplomatic campaign to settle the German-Polish dispute. The terms of a new German plan for a settlement, the so-called Marienwerder proposals, were not disclosed to the Poles until August 31, 1939, and they were less important than the offer to negotiate as such. The terms of the Marienwerder proposals were essentially nothing more than a tentative German plan for a possible settlement. These elaborate terms would have required nearly a year to carry out had the Poles accepted them, and in this sense they revealed a German intention to substitute negotiation for force once and for all in German-Polish relations. The German Government insisted again and again that these terms were formulated to offer a basis for unimpeded negotiations between equals rather than to constitute a series of demands which the Poles would be required to accept. There was nothing to prevent the Poles from offering as a substitute the private Polish plan for the partition of the Danzig territory, or, for that matter, from presenting an entirely new set of proposals of their own.1

The Germans, in offering to negotiate with Poland, were announcing to the world that they favored a diplomatic settlement over war with Poland. The Poles, in refusing to negotiate, were announcing that they favored war. The refusal of Halifax to encourage the Poles to negotiate indicated that the British Foreign Secretary also favored war. He chose to ignore Hitler’s offer to accept the British guarantee of Poland once the Danzig dispute was settled by negotiation. The important thing would have been for the Poles to resume negotiations, and to permit the opening of the door which Beck had closed without any adequate reason in his speech of May 5, 1939. The willingness of the Poles to negotiate would not have implied their readiness to recognize the German annexation of Danzig, nor would it in any way have implied a Polish retreat.
[514]
The Poles could have motivated their acceptance with the announcement that Germany, and not Poland, had found it necessary to request new negotiations.2

Beck undoubtedly would have adopted a different attitude toward the situation had Halifax insisted that he agree to compromise with Germany. The greatest worry at the Polish Foreign Office for several days after August 25, 1939, was that the British would change their minds about attacking Germany, and decide at the last moment not to honor their obligations to Poland. It was natural for Beck to conclude under these circumstances that it would be wise to provoke a conflict with Germany as soon as possible, and before the British leaders changed their minds. It was unrealistic to expect Beck to compromise with Germany unless and until there was pressure from Great Britain for him to do so. Indeed, Hitler did not presume to suggest negotiations until he had received a promise from the British that the Poles would accept them. Unfortunately, the British had no satisfactory basis for making this promise on August 28, 1939, and they did nothing to redeem it after it was made. Gilbert and Gott greatly exaggerate when they insist that on August 28, 1939, “British pressure on Poland to accept direct negotiations with the Germans had been successful.” In reality, no serious British effort was ever made to compel them to do so.3

The British never received more than a perfunctory assurance from Beck that Poland would negotiate with Germany. The sole indication that the Polish leaders might negotiate was Beck’s confirmation on the afternoon of August 28th of the public reply of President Moscicki  to President Roosevelt on August 25, 1939. The Polish President accepted Roosevelt’s suggestion for direct negotiations because the Poles had “always considered (them) the most appropriate method.” The Polish President added that he would not accept arbitration, because he did not believe that foreign statesmen understood the vital interests of Poland. The Polish Government for this reason was not prepared to accept the results of arbitration. The British realized that Beck’s confirmation of the statement of the Polish President about direct negotiations was merely for the record, and they never made a genuine effort to obtain concrete information about the alleged Polish willingness to engage in direct negotiations with Germany.


The Polish Pledge to President Roosevelt

President Roosevelt received the text of President Moscicki’s message on August 25, 1939, and forwarded it to Hitler. Roosevelt emphasized to Hitler that he had a binding promise from Moscicki that Poland would engage in direct negotiations with Germany. The American President added that “all the world prays that Germany, too, will accept.” Hitler knew that the message from President Roosevelt was merely a propaganda gesture to discredit Germany, and he was sufficiently shrewd to recognize that a promise made by Poland to the United States was not worth the paper on which it was written. The Poles knew that Roosevelt would support any Polish move to increase the prospect of conflict with Germany and that the American President would not react unfavorably if they refused to honor a pledge to negotiate with Germany. Hitler also knew [515] this, and hence he concentrated on his effort to convince the British that the poles should negotiate rather than seek to exploit the meaningless Polish response to President Roosevelt.4

Beck assured American Ambassador Biddle shortly before midnight on August 25, 1939, that war between Germany and Poland was inevitable. He claimed that Poland had an adequate legal basis for a declaration of war against Germany, in case the Germans failed to take the initiative against Poland within the next few days. Beck denied that there was any truth in the Bielitz massacre, which had been confirmed by neutral sources. He claimed instead that a Polish soldier had been killed by the Germans on August 16, 1939, and that the Germans had proceeded to cut open the stomach of the corpse and to conceal in it the skull of a baby. This story was widely repeated by Polish spokesmen in the days and years which followed, although no attempt was ever made to document the incident. They failed to realize that this type of savagery was based upon certain primitive voodoo-like superstitions in Eastern Europe which were not shared by the Germans. It would have been an unique historical event had modern Poland elected to base a declaration of war on this fantastic charge. American Ambassador Biddle was much impressed by the aggressive attitude of Beck. He predicted to President Roosevelt that Poland would present a series of ultimata to Germany if Hitler backed down in the Danzig dispute.

Beck was impressed by a public German announcement on August 25, 1939, that the Tannenberg and Nuremberg conclaves had been cancelled. The cancellation announcement, and the impressive number of incidents between the Germans and Poles on the following day, convinced the Polish Foreign Minister that a German attack would come at any moment. He did not conclude until August 27th that Hitler, after all, had taken no decisive military measures. French Ambassador Noël claimed that Beck was a very sick man at this time. The French diplomat charged that he was suffering from aggravated fatigue, tuberculosis, and an excessive addiction to stimulants. The Polish Foreign Minister ultimately died of tuberculosis in Rumania in 1944, after the British authorities had denied him permission to come to England. The French Ambassador, who detested Beck, delighted in conveying the impression that the Polish Foreign Minister was both morally and physically decadent.5

German troops at the Slovak-Polish frontier had begun their advance on the morning of August 26, 1939, before countermanding orders reached them, and they crossed into Poland at Jablonka Pass. Fortunately, the Poles were not holding a position there, and an engagement was avoided when the Germans speedily retreated a considerable distance across the frontier and into Slovakia. The Poles engaged German patrols in nearly a dozen skirmishes in the Dzialdowo region directly north of Warsaw and across the East Prussian frontier. The engagements ended when the German units were suddenly withdrawn. It was significant that these serious incidents occurred on two of the most crucial sectors of the German operational plan. A massacre of minority Germans in the Lodz area and constant violations of the German frontier from the Polish side tended to deflect attention from these incidents. A Polish warship on August 26, 1939, fired at a German civilian transport airplane on which State Secretary Wilhelm Stuckart of the Ministry of Interior was returning from Danzig. Stuckart and the Danzig leaders had discussed the legal problems involved [516] in the projected return of Danzig to the Reich.

Hitler’s reversal of military orders naturally created perplexity in the German Army. One of the German Generals was dispatched to the Wilhelmstrasse on the night of August 25, 1939, to inquire indignantly why the soldiers had been sent out if it was intended to settle differences with Poland by diplomatic means. The German Foreign Office had no ready answer with which to meet this embarrassing question.6


Hitler’s Failure to Recover Italian Support

Hitler was primarily concerned about improving his contacts with the British leaders, but he also hoped to persuade the Italians to renew a loyal relationship with Germany. He had hastily dictated a preliminary reply to Mussolini’s message before receiving Henderson on the afternoon of August 25th. He complained to Mussolini that the situation in Poland was intolerable, and he requested the Italian leader to be mindful of the diplomatic gains which resulted from his pact with Russia. He assured Mussolini that he would have complete understanding for Italy in a similar situation, and that the Italians would be able to rely on his support.

Attolico delivered a second message from Mussolini to Hitler at 6:00 p.m. on August 25th. Mussolini reminded Hitler that he favored the treaty with Russia, and that he could see it was producing favorable diplomatic effects in such countries as Rumania and Turkey. He promised Hitler that Italy would offer political and economic assistance to Germany in a localized German-Polish war, but he insisted that intervention in a general war would not be “opportune” without the vast quantities of German material which Italy would require for such an effort.7

Hitler telephoned German Ambassador Mackensen in Rome at 7:40 p.m. on August 25th. He wished the Italians to be more specific in formulating their requirements for weapons and materials, and to include nothing which was not considered absolutely indispensable. He promised to give careful consideration to Italian requirements. Mackensen reported at 11:30p.m. that Mussolini would forward an exact list of Italian needs to Berlin on August 26th. Mussolini declared that he remained anti-Communist despite his support of the Russian treaty for tactical reasons, and the German Ambassador assured the Italian leader on the basis of instructions from Berlin that his country would also remain unswervingly anti-Communist in her policies.

The exact list of Italian requirements was received in Berlin at 12:10 p.m. on August 26th. It included 6 million tons of coal, 2 million tons of steel, 7 million tons of petroleum, 1 million tons of timber, and many tons of copper, sodium nitrate, potassium salts, colophony, rubber, turpentine, lead, tin, nickel, molybdenum, tungsten, zirconium, and titanium, including 400 tons of the latter. The Italians requested 150 anti-aircraft batteries and ammunition for the Turin-Genoa-Milan-Savona industrial quadrilateral. There was also a separate list of German machinery required by the Italians. The Germans were informed that the lists would not have been necessary had Italy had adequate time for her own preparations.8

Hitler replied to Mussolini a few hours later. He declared that Germany could furnish the coal and steel, but that it would be impossible to supply the petroleum. He reminded Mussolini that Germany herself was required to use substitute materials for copper, because adequate supplies were not available. He believed that it would be impossible for Germany to deliver the entire supply of 150 major anti-aircraft batteries before the conclusion of hostilities in Poland, if war were to break out there within the next few days. He reminded Mussolini that Attolico had insisted that the entire material would have to arrive before hostilities were Italy to support Germany. Hitler concluded that it was impossible to meet the Italian terms. He requested suitable military demonstrations and active propaganda support from the Italian leader. He did not realize that the Italians had given assurances to the British which would render any demonstrations pointless. He concluded with the warning that Germany might have to solve the eastern question “even at the risk of complications in the West.”

Mussolini attempted to modify the terms by informing Hitler at 6:42 p.m. on August 26th that Attolico, in his zeal to prevent an Italian commitment to Germany, had misunderstood his instructions. It was necessary to have the anti-aircraft batteries at once, but it would have been satisfactory to extend the other deliveries over a period of twelve months. Mussolini hastened to note that Hitler had conceded it would be impossible to supply certain strategic materials indicated on the Italian lists, and that therefore “it is impossible for you to assist me materially in filling the large gaps which the wars in Ethiopia and Spain have made in Italian armaments.” Mussolini also insisted that a peaceful solution of the current dispute was essential for the peoples of both Italy and Germany. It was evident to Hitler that there was no point in further efforts to persuade Mussolini to renew full Italian support to Germany in the current crisis.9


Halifax Hopeful for War

There was considerable expectation in London and Paris during these days that war between Germany and Poland would break out without further important diplomatic developments. Bornet complained that several prominent Frenchmen advocated the fantastic idea of attacking Italy in revenge for an inevitable defeat of the Poles by Germay. Léon Blum, the French Socialist leader, declared to British Ambassador Sir Eric Phipps that war was almost certain, although he added, with a careful eye on responsibilities, that he hoped Hitler was not “so demented” as to attack Poland. 10

Halifax informed Kennard on the night of August 25th that Count Raczynski was “very firm” at the signing of the Anlo-Polish pact. Raczynski had expressed indignation over an alleged “kind of freikorps” in German Silesia, which ostensibly was raiding Poland. It was obious that this was a feeble and misleading attempt on the part of the Polish Ambassador to distract attention from the massacre of the German minority at Bilitz. Halifax, who was ever mindful of Mussolini’s conference plan, carefully tested Raczynski’s reaction to the proposition of surrendering Danzig, which did not belong to Poland, in exchange [518] for an international guarantee of Poland’s frontiers. He informed Kennard with satisfaction that Raczynski had rejected this idea with scorn, and had insisted that the Allied nations concentrate exclusively on maintaining a “stiff attitude” toward the Germans. Kennard replied to Halifax that Beck would not accept an obligation to consult with Great Britain before taking decisive action at Danzig. The British Ambassador was pleased with Beck’s attitude on this important point.11

Phipps reported from Paris that Bullitt had received new instructions from President Roosevelt designed to facilitate a closer coordination of British and American policy against Germany. The American President suggested that everything possible should be done by propaganda to bring down the German regime in revolutionary chaos. Roosevelt believed that wireless propaganda should be broadcast to Germany around the clock. He expected that it would produce a great effect to argue in advance that Hitler would be solely responsible for any war. He hoped that the pacific desires of the German people might be exploited to undermine the loyalty of Germans toward their Government after the outbreak of war.

Henderson continued to do what he could at Berlin to preserve peace. He contacted Polish Ambassador Lipski again on August 25th and urged him to discuss the problem of the German minority in Poland with the German Government. Henderson reported to Halifax that Italian Ambassador Attolico was horrified at the prospect of war. Attolico had declared with indignation that warmongers such as Anthony Eden should be hanged. Henderson avoided criticizing Attolico’s statement about Eden in any way. Eden, to be sure, had worked with Churchill to sabotage appeasement, but the chief role in the scuttling of the appeasement policy had been played by Halifax, the man to whom Henderson addressed his report.12

Sir Ronald Lindsay, the British Ambassador to the United States, addressed a series of final reports to Halifax prior to his return to England and his replacement by Lord Lothian. Lindsay indicated that Roosevelt was delighted at the prospect of a new World War. The American President had damaged his prospects in May 1939 with his unsuccessful attempt to pull the teeth from the American neutrality laws, but he assured Lindsay that he would succeed in emasculating this legislation after the outbreak of war. He admitted that he would be forced to delay a new effort to do so “until war broke out.” The American President also promised that he would not actually abide by the neutrality laws if he was compelled to invoke them. He would frustrate the purpose of the laws by delaying a proclamation of neutrality for at least five days after the outbreak of war. He would see that war material in the interim was rushed to the British in Canada in enormous quantities. Lindsay reported with his usual excessive moderation that there “was every indication in his language that the American authorities would be anxious to cheat in favor of His Majesty’s Government.”

Roosevelt also promised Lindsay that he would delay German ships under false pretenses in a feigned search for arms, so that they could be easily seized by the British under circumstances which would be arranged with exactitude between the American and British authorities. The British Ambassador was personally perturbed that the President of one of the important countries could [519] be gay and joyful about a tragedy which seemed so destructive of the hopes of all mankind. He reported that Roosevelt “spoke in a tone of almost impish glee and though I may be wrong the whole business gave me the impression of resembling a school-boy prank.” It was an American and world tragedy to have at this important juncture a President whose emotions and ideas could be rated by a friendly Ambassador as childish.

Halifax was inclined to regard the attitude of the American President as a product of one of the most successful British efforts in colonial propaganda. The American President, who was an enthusiastic militarist, had accepted the idea of World War II as his best escape from the hopelessly unsuccessful policies with which he had failed to cope with the economic depression in the United States. The British Foreign Secretary had studied the fantastic Lochner report about the alleged remarks of Hitler to his military men on the Obersalzberg on August 22nd. He wired Loraine in Rome on August 26th that recent information from Berlin indicated that Hitler had some kind of Polish partition in mind. His purpose was to convey to Mussolini the idea that the German leader was too extreme in his plans, at the expense of the Poles, to be amenable to a reasonable settlement of German-Polish difficulties. Halifax hoped in this way to discourage Mussolini’s ideas for a diplomatic conference.13

The British Foreign Secretary was extremely pleased by the solidarity with which the British nation appeared to support his policy after the first shock caused by the Russo-German pact. George Lansbury, the former British Labour Party leader, and James Maxton, the Independent Labour MP from Scotland, were the only men who had spoken for non-intervention in a possible German-Polish war, in the Commons debate of August 25, 1939. Halifax was also satisfied with the attitude of the London and provincial press, and he was pleased that a threatened railway strike had been called off because of the diplomatic crisis. 14

Halifax suggested to Kennard early on August 26th that the Polish leaders might be wise to seek the approval of the German Government for the expulsion of the entire German minority in Poland. The British Foreign Secretary believed that the return of these people to Germany would deprive Hitler of his complaints about the Polish mistreatment of the German minority. He noted that Hitler had been willing to conclude a similar agreement with Italy concerning the Germans of South Tirol in January 1939. Halifax ignored the fact that Hitler had concluded the January 1939 agreement with a Power not fundamentally opposed to collaboration with Germany. The Poles were unwilling to consider this proposition because they feared it might entail the departure of the Polish minority in Germany from regions which they later hoped to annex to Poland.l5

Henderson sent a last report to Halifax warning that Germany was in a state of disguised partial mobilization, before departing for London on the morning of August 26th. He also wrote a personal letter to Ribbentrop from the British Embassy in Berlin at 7:30 on the same morning. He informed Ribbentrop that he was leaving for London to explain the “big proposition” for an Anglo-German agreement which Hitler had made on the previous day. He urged Ribbentrop that a peaceful settlement of the Polish question would be the best possible basis for such an agreement. Henderson mindfully remarked [520] to Ribbentrop, “for four months Herr Hitler has shown great strength in his patience.” He believed that Hitler should hold out a bit longer because of the tremendous stakes involved. He asked Ribbentrop to tell Hitler that it would be an unworthy delay on the part of the British Ambassador were he not to return to Berlin later that day or the next. Actually, Henderson was not allowed to return to Berlin until the evening of August 28, 1939. He begged Hitler to believe in his good faith, and he concluded his letter to Ribbentrop with the statement that another Anglo-German war would be the greatest possible catastrophe which could happen to the world. It was tragic that Halifax persisted in regarding this undoubted catastrophe in another way.16


British Concern About France

The British were intent on holding France in line after Hitler lost the support of Mussolini in the Polish question. American Ambassador Bullitt reported to Roosevelt that Daladier refused to be deceived by the claim that Hitler would abandon Danzig and retreat before Anglo-French pressure. British Ambassador Phipps admitted that Daladier was increasingly doubtful about supporting Poland, but the British diplomat claimed that his own energetic intervention had thus far restrained the French Premier from publicly announcing his disgust with the Poles. Phipps conceded that his own influence over Daladier was secondary to that of Bonnet, who favored serious Anglo-French consideration of a lasting agreement with the Germans. Sir Eric Phipps was also concentrating his attentions on Vice-Premier Camille Chautemps in the hope that he might counteract the influence of Bonnet on Daladier. Phipps was compelled to admit that Chautemps was one of the many members of the French Cabinet “less inclined to support Poland by force of arms.”17

Phipps announced that he hoped to convert Chautemps to a policy of permanent French cooperation with Great Britain in peace and war. He wished Halifax to believe that he was doing everything humanly possible to support his policy in France. He believed that Halifax under these circumstances would permit him to express his own personal disagreement with the unconditional war policy pursued at London. The British Ambassador admitted that he personally favored an abiding Anglo-German agreement rather than another Anglo-German war, and he humbly requested Halifax to devote serious consideration to the latest proposals from Hitler. The earlier fears of American Ambassador Bullitt were confirmed. Phipps, the influential former British Ambassador to Germany and brother-in-law of Sir Robert Vansittart, favored peace rather than war. The majority of British leaders with expert knowledge on Anglo-German relations continued to favor peace rather than war despite the policy of Lord Halifax. This group included Prime Minister Nevile Chamberlain, George Lansbury, Lord Lothian, Lord Astor, Lord Londonderry, Viscount Rothermere, Sir Horace Wilson, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Rab Butler, Ambassador Sir Eric Phipps, and Ambassador Sir Nevile Henderson.

Chamberlain complained to American Ambassador Kennedy after the outbreak of World War II “that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war.” Kennedy himself was convinced that “neither the French nor the [521] British would’ have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington.” Kennedy in 1939 was subjected to constant pressure from the American Ambassador at Paris, and he placed primary emphasis on “Bullitt’s urging on Roosevelt in the Summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland.” Kennedy was instructed by President Roosevelt on the telephone ‘to put some iron up Chamberlain’s backside,” a gratuitous instruction because Chamberlain had abdicated control over British policy to Lord Halifax in October 1938. Kennedy, Bullitt, and Roosevelt never succeeded in understanding this situation. They were neither well-informed, nor astute about discovering facts for themselves, and Halifax never chose to confide in them. The subsequent sting of conscience which caused Chamberlain to complain to Kennedy about America and the Jews was an attempt to shift the blame rather than a full confession. He was merely saying in different words that he and his friends might have found the courage to challenge Halifax had not the latter enjoyed the support of President Roosevelt. This was undoubtedly a defensive rationalization, because none of them ever displayed the slightest inclination to oppose Halifax. Furthermore, Halifax had decided upon a policy of war with Germany long before the German occupation of Prague, and before Roosevelt attempted to exert any considerable bellicose pressure on the British leaders. Halifax had stirred Roosevelt against the Germans before Hitler went to Prague, rather than the other way around. Roosevelt was a novice in international affairs compared to Halifax, and it was inconceivable that he could exert a decisive influence on the British Foreign Secretary.

Halifax had considered an Anglo-German war inevitable ever since 1936, and he never wavered in his campaign to destroy Germany, from October 1938, when he assumed personal control over British policy, to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939. He was more than a match for Chamberlain, the Unitarian business leader from the Midlands, or for any of his soft-spoken friends. He had refrained from wresting control over foreign policy from Chamberlain until the British leader returned from Munich to face the hostile critics within his own Conservative Party. He had never seriously criticized Chamberlain’s conduct of policy until he was in a position to dominate it himself. Halifax would have been amused to hear Winston Churchill telling his friends in August 1939 that he feared the British Government “would run out over Poland.” This was the wrong way to put it. Halifax was primarily worried by the possibility that France would run out over Poland. This was the only event which would prompt him to abandon his own policy of war against Germany.18

General Edward Spears of the British Expeditionary Force accompanied Winston Churchill on a tour of the Maginot Line in August 1939. He remained in France on a special mission to prepare for the arrival of British troops. General Spears, who enjoyed many contacts with prominent people in France, complained that “I could sense hostility amongst people I had known quite well, and it was very unpleasant.” He noted that these people believed France was merely an instrument of an unreasoning British campaign to destroy Germany. The attitude of the French people in August 1939 was not essentially different from what the attitude of the English people had been before Halifax initiated [522] his public campaign to destroy Germany on March 17, 1939. A. P. Scotland, a leading British military intelligence expert, noted that there was much pro-German and pro-Hitler sentiment among the ordinary business people of London in March 1939. This attitude was modified in the subsequent months by an unprecedented propaganda campaign.19


The Hitler-Daladier Correspondence

Hitler had written a personal letter to Daladier on the evening of August 25, 1939, during the hours of uncertainty about his attempt to cancel military operations against Poland. Hitler greeted Daladier as a statesman who had experienced the futility of World War I during four long years in the trenches of the Western Front. Hitler hoped that he and Daladier deplored in equal measure the prospect of a new conflict between France and Germany.

French Ambassador Coulondre delivered a lengthy reply from the French Premier on August 26th. Daladier informed Hitler that France found it necessary to offer her support to Poland, but he assured the German Chancellor that the people of France desired to live at peace with Germany. He promised that France and her Allies would follow a policy of good will rather than seek to exploit German difficulties for unworthy purposes.20

Daladier had expressed similar sentiments in a radio address to the French nation on the previous day. His speech was a vain attempt to restore the unity of France which had been torn asunder by the Russo-German pact. The French Government had suppressed the principal Communist newspapers, L ‘Humanit~ and Ce Soir. Most of the French press on August 25th and 26th expressed the hope that there would be some possibility for a peaceful solution. Charles Maurras charged in L’Action Française on August 25th that the existence of the Siegfried Line rendered futile any French attempt to aid Poland. He claimed that “it would be just as though one man were to run his head against a stone wall, to help another who was being murdered on the other side.” L’Excelsior carried a sensational story which it claimed had originated with Polish diplomatic sources in Paris. It suggested that the Polish Government in new negotiations might permit Germany to have Danzig and a road to East Prussia, provided that the road was constructed by Polish engineers. It was further claimed that the Poles would be willing to remove their High Commissioner from Danzig, and that they would request the League to do the same, provided that the Germans renewed their offer to respect existing Polish economic rights at Danzig. This feature story raised hopes in France that it would be possible to settle the current dispute through bilateral negotiations between Germany and Poland.21

Coulondre made a vigorous appeal for peace after Hitler had read the letter from Daladier. The French Ambassador insisted that a war fought with modern arms would above all be a great tragedy for the women and children of Europe. Coulondre noted that these carefully calculated words produced a great effect on Hitler. There was a long pause, after which the German Chancellor observed pensively: “Yes, I have often thought of the women and children.” The French [523] Ambassador noted that Ribbentrop, who was also present, refrained from joining in the conversation.22

Hitler wrote a careful reply to Daladier, which Ribbentrop personally delivered to the French Ambassador on the following day. The French Ambassador was filled with new hope that there would be no war after his conversation with Hitler on August 26th. Hitler recapitulated his requirements for a settlement of the Danzig issue in his letter to Daladier on August 27th. The German Chancellor reminded Daladier that he was not seeking a quarrel with France, and that he had gladly renounced Alsace-Lorraine. He asked Daladier what his feelings would be if Marseilles, a French port city more than twice the size of Danzig, were converted to a Free City, and were forced to accept constant lawless acts and usurpations from a smaller neighboring Power.

Hitler assured Daladier that a German-Polish war would be catastrophic, because the entire Polish state, as it was now constituted, would be lost. Hitler added with sadness that he was forced to conclude that the French would act as Germany was acting in a similar situation; Germany could not reverse her position, and react as the French in defending such an unsatisfactory Free City-Corridor aggravation. Hitler’s letter ended abruptly on a sharply pessimistic note: “Unfortunately, as stated earlier in my letter, I see no possibility open to us of influencing Poland to take a saner attitude and thus to remedy a situation which is unbearable for both the German people and the German Reich.”23

Hitler actually hoped that pressure from the French and British would prompt the Poles to accept a compromise. He hoped that his pessimistic letter would persuade Daladier to take energetic steps with the Poles. The Germans requested the French not to release the Hitler-Daladier correspondence to the public, but this suggestion was ignored by the French leaders, and the correspondence received full publicity in the French press. The German diplomats at Paris reported that Hitler’s comment about Marseilles, in the native region of the French Premier, was especially effective.

Hitler requested Ribbentrop to extend a pledge to Coulondre, in response to the remark about the European women and children made by the French-diplomat the previous day. Hitler promised not to take the initiative, in the event of hostilities, in the waging of war against enemy civilians. This pledge was later strictly observed. It was rendered inoperative by the indiscriminate British bombing campaign over Germany which had been planned as early as 1936. Hitler was also facing the possibility that he might soon be at war with Poland, and Great Britain and France. He wrote to Mussolini on August 27th that “should, as mentioned, the big war start, the situation in the East will be solved, before the two Western Powers can achieve any success.”24

State Secretary Weizsäcker had invited American Chargé d’Affaires Kirk to call at the German Foreign Office on the evening of August 26th. Weizsäcker conveyed Hitler’s acknowledgment of the two recent messages from President Roosevelt, and Kirk expressed his pleasure at this act of courtesy. Weizsäcker advised Kirk that it would be more timely to present warnings in Warsaw than at Berlin. German Chargé d’Affaires Thomsen reminded Hitler on August 28th that Roosevelt would do everything he could to encompass the downfall of Germany. He predicted that Roosevelt would employ ruthless tactics to force active American participation in a European war despite opposition from [524] American public opinion. Thomsen was convinced that American raw materials and machines would be made available to Great Britain and France immediately after the outbreak of war, and that this measure would be popular because it would aid in overcoming the extensive unemployment. Thomsen concluded that the existing American neutrality legislation would be either abrogated or circumvented.25

The German Foreign Office was interested in a report from German Minister Wilhelm Fabricius at Bucharest which arrived in Berlin at 7:45 am. on the 27th of August. The report conveyed information from General Tenestu, the Rumanian Chief-of-Staff, who Germans knew had close contacts with the French military leaders. He predicted that Poland would refuse a diplomatic settlement, and that war would follow between Germany and Poland. He was convinced that Great Britain and France at the last moment would decline to intervene in a German-Polish war. The prognosis of General Tenestu was based on information from French military sources. It was a great encouragement to Hitler after Italy’s defection, and the conclusion of the Anglo-Polish alliance treaty.

Hitler feared that he could not afford to forfeit the favorable season for operations against the Poles in case they refused to negotiate. The almost exclusively dirt roads of Poland were a proverbial sea of mud during the autumn rainy season. He ordered the German armed forces to be prepared for possible operations against Poland at dawn on August 31st. This was not a repetition of his final attack order of August 25th, but rather a return to previous operational orders which had required the completion of preparations for a possible campaign against Poland by August 20, 1939.26

Hitler was informed by the German diplomats in Dublin on August 26th that Ireland would remain neutral in the event of an Anglo-German war. The Irish Government wished Hitler to make a statement, in the event of war, favoring the reunion of Ulster with the rest of Ireland. The German Government opposed this proposition because it would be construed as German interference in the affairs of the United Kingdom. The German Government sympathized with the sufferings of partitioned Ireland, but they did not relish the prospect of protracting possible hostilities with the British by raising the Irish question.


Hitler’s Desire for Peace Conveyed at London by Dahlerus

Birger Dahlerus, who was conducting an unofficial mission for Germany, had conferred in London with Halifax on August 25th and 26th. The British Foreign Secretary was careful not to insist openly that an understanding between Great Britain and Germany was impossible. Halifax was unable to deny that Hitler’s response to Chamberlain’s letter of August 23, 1939, had reopened the official channels of negotiation. Dahlerus had much difficulty placing a call to Germany on August 25th. This is not surprising when one considers that he was attempting to call shortly after Hitler’s cancellation of military operations. He at last succeeded in contacting Marshal Göring at 8:00 p.m. Dahlerus relayed the result of his first discussion with Halifax, and he noted that the German Marshal was obviously much excited by developments in Berlin, which were unknown [525] to his Swedish friend. Göring emphasized that the situation was extremely serious, and that an Anglo-German conference was very much to be desired. He added that it would be an asset of incalculable importance if the British decided to return a favorable response to the agreement offer which Hitler had given to Henderson that same afternoon.27

The Swedish engineer conferred with Halifax on the morning of August 26th, after the arrival of Henderson in London. He informed Halifax of his conversation with Göring on the telephone the previous evening. Halifax presented Dahlerus with a personal letter to Göring, which recommended direct German negotiations with the Poles. Dahlerus requested the German diplomats at London to inform the German Foreign Office that he would return to Berlin at 5:30 p.m. on the same day. The Swedish envoy arrived at Berlin on schedule, and he delivered the letter from Halifax to Göring. He conferred with Hitler for the first time on the night of August 26th. He engaged in further conversations with Göring after his interview with Hitler and before flying back to London for what the German leaders hoped would be conferences of decisive importance with the British. Above all, he was scheduled to receive information about the British reply to Hitler’s offer of August 25th.

Dahlerus was in London on August 27th conferring with the British when Hitler received a message from Mussolini which produced a marked effect on Hitler’s subsequent treatment of Italy in the Anglo-German negotiation. The Italian leader requested that everything possible be done in Berlin to prevent the outbreak of war with the Poles for at least three or four years. Hitler, who believed that there would either be a diplomatic settlement with the Poles or war in the very near future, was annoyed with this suggestion, which seemed to indicate an unrealistic attitude toward the crisis he was facing.28

The British leaders assured Dahlerus on August 27th that a formal reply to Hitler’s offer would soon be made, and that, in the meantime, they were willing to convey informally the substance of their response~ The essence of the British reply was that an agreement for collaboration with Germany was acceptable in principle, but that the British would continue to support the position taken by Poland in the Danzig dispute. This meant that Great Britain and Germany were faced with an immediate conflict over the Danzig issue. Halifax was prepared to assure Hitler that Great Britain would welcome any new attempt by Germany to settle her differences with Poland by direct negotiation. Dahlerus conferred with Chamberlain and a number of officials at the British Foreign Office before returning to Berlin for a new conference with Hitler.

The German Chancellor was extremely pleased with the results of the Dahlerus visit to London on August 27th. His most pressing question at this point was whether or not Halifax was willing to consider an eventual Anglo-German alliance. Hitler assured Dahlerus that he would be willing to accept the British commitment to Poland once Germany had settled her own differences with the Poles. He believed that the British would recognize that he had made an important concession when he ceased to regard their guarantee to Poland as an obstacle to an Anglo-German understanding. Hitler then raised the crucial point. He insisted that it was necessary for the British to persuade the Poles to negotiate with Germany. Otherwise nothing would be accomplished, war would be inevitable, and a favorable opportunity for an Anglo-German understanding would be lost.
[526]
Dahlerus immediately contacted the British diplomats in Berlin to inform them that he strongly endorsed Hitler’s response to Halifax’s suggestions. He promised the British that the position of the Poles in any negotiation would be incomparably stronger than that of the Czechs at the time of the collapse of Czecho-Slovakia. Dahlerus also informed the British diplomats that Hitler was prepared to accept an international guarantee of Poland as part of any settlement. The Swedish engineer confided that Hitler was much impressed with what he regarded as British sincerity in seeking to compose Anglo-German differences.

Dahlerus telephoned a further report to the British diplomats at Berlin from the German military base at Oranienburg, not far from the German capital. He informed Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes, the British Chargé d’Affaires, that Hitler was now prepared to deny support against Great Britain to any third Power, including Italy, Japan, and Russia. Hitler believed that he was justified in offering this pledge, because Italy, his only ally, was refusing to support Germany against attacks from Great Britain and France. Hitler was convinced that this pledge would add strength to his earlier offer of support to the British Empire.

Dahlerus noted in a special report to the British that Göring had made a very realistic suggestion on August 26th. The German Marshal insisted that Germany wanted only the facts from both Dahlerus and the British, and that no concern should be given to avoid the wounding of German feelings. Göring believed that this frankness was necessary if the serious obstacles to an Anglo-German understanding were to be cleared away successfully. Dahlerus assured Halifax that personal contact with Hitler had convinced him that the German Chancellor did not desire war. Nevertheless, both Hitler and Göring had warned him that there would be war if a settlement was not achieved soon, and that Poland, in this unhappy event, would be divided into two occupation zones by Germany and the Soviet Union. Dahlerus was convinced that neither Hitler nor Göring favored this development over a negotiated solution. Dahlerus believed that he had done everything possible to prompt the British to make constructive suggestions in their reply to Hitler. There was nothing further to do but wait for the test of the official British note.29


Kennard Opposed to German-Polish Talks

Ribbentrop telephoned the German Embassy at Rome several times on August 27th to urge the Italians not to disclose to the British and French their neutral position in the current crisis. Ciano claimed to Mackensen that the true Italian position was known only to a very narrow circle in Italy, and Mussolini assured the German Ambassador that he would seek to meet German wishes “cento per cento (100%).” The Italians also promised to strengthen their forces somewhat along the French frontier and in Libya. Mussolini wired Hitler at 4:30 p.m. on August 27th that the “world does not and will not know before the outbreak of hostilities what the attitude of Italy is.” The course of European history would probably have been very different had the Italians actually maintained this attitude during the previous ten days instead of hastening to disclose their neutrality to the British Government. The Germans remained suspicious about Italian policy, but they were totally unaware of the true state of affairs.

The Poles were in a state of feverish excitement over the renewal of diplomatic activity between Berlin and London. Raczynski protested to Halifax that the London Times on August 26th had stressed Henderson’s dedication to peace in describing his talks with Hitler on August 25th. The Poles, who wished for the outbreak of war as soon as possible, were alarmed whenever the word ‘peace’ was mentioned. Raczynski claimed that the article in the Times could be interpreted as an attempt to separate Great Britain from Poland. The Polish Ambassador flatly denied that any negotiation plan from Hitler could offer a reasonable compromise, although he failed to explain to what extent, if any, the Poles would consider a compromise solution of the crisis. He claimed that Hitler was seeking to complete the encirclement of Poland and to divide the Allies. Halifax asked Raczynski if he did not believe that Germany might attack Poland at any moment. The Polish Ambassador replied evasively that the Germans might not dare to attack. He predicted that their next step would be a maneuver to separate Rumania from Poland. The Polish diplomat was apparently not aware that Hitler was not confronted with this task in Rumania. Rumanian Foreign Minister Gafencu on that same date, August 27th, had presented Germany with a formal pledge of Rumanian neutrality in any German-Polish war. King Carol of Rumania had also expressed his conviction that Great Britain and France would not attack Germany. The Rumanian sovereign had recently returned from a visit to Turkey, and he was impressed by the fact that the British were behind schedule on their deliveries of war material to the Turks. 30

British Ambassador Kennard at Warsaw in his report to London vigorously denounced the possibility of renewed negotiations between the Germans and the Poles. He reminded Sir Alexander Cadogan that he had earlier denounced Henderson’s proposal for Lipski to seek an interview with Hitler. Kennard was thinking exclusively in terms of an inevitable war, and he feared that Hitler interest in negotiating with the Poles was a “German maneuver to break up our front.” He was scornful about earlier British policy, and he warned that neutral observers inspecting minority conditions in Poland should not constitute a new “Runciman mission.” He deplored the constant talk about avoiding incidents, and he claimed that the Poles had the right to “react” to German provocations. Kennard also emphasized that the Polish Government would refuse to negotiate on a possible exchange of minorities with the Germans.

Kennard had received five detailed documents from the British Foreign Office which contained confidential accounts about the mistreatment of the German minority in Poland. Kennard’s mendacious reply to this material was nothing if not succinct: “So far as I can judge German allegations of mass ill-treatment of the German minority by Polish authorities are gross exaggerations if not complete falsifications.” Kennard added testily that the various exceptions to this statement were the result of German “provocation” since March 1939. Kennard proceeded to give a new twist to his instructions about warning Beck against excesses. He would impress on Beck the need of “proving [that] Hitler’s allegations about the German minority are false.” The British Ambassador hoped that it would be possible to force the facts into the pattern of his preconceived notions.

One might wonder how Kennard would have reacted toward the fate of his [528] own relatives in Brighton, or elsewhere in England, under a foreign rule which permitted daily atrocities. Kennard complacently accepted a threatening Polish attitude which also involved the immediate safety of his own countrymen. The Poles hoped to stifle a possible Anglo-German rapprochement. They demanded immediate information concerning any British reply to proposals from Hitler. They warned that, although their mobilization was virtually complete, they would immediately take additional military measures in the event that they considered any British reply unsatisfactory. They insisted that the sole purpose of Hitler’s maneuvers was to destroy the “peace front.” Kennard added that Beck refused to discuss minorities, and that he did not wish neutral observers to witness conditions in Poland. Kennard indicated that he was personally pleased with the stand the Polish Foreign Minister was taking in these important questions.31

Count Ciano followed up his misleading assurances to the Germans on August 27th with a personal telephone call to Lord Halifax. The Italian Foreign Minister informed Halifax that, on the basis of the friendly relations existing between Great Britain and Italy, he wished to urge the British Government to grant serious consideration to Hitler’s offer for an Anglo-German agreement. He urged Halifax to encourage the Poles to negotiate with Germany. His telephone call occurred at a time when the Britjsh Foreign Office was preparing a very complacent analysis of the current situation. According to this analysis, the “fact that Herr Hitler regards the Secretary of State’s message to Field-Marshal Göring as satisfactory and is quite content to hold his hand shows that the German Government are wobbling. This was confirmed yesterday by a member of the German Embassy, who said that the signature of the Polish Pact had fallen as a bombshell.”32

The Pact had truly been a bombshell, although the German diplomat who confessed this fact to the British was known to them as a man of doubtful patriotism. Indeed, German Chargé d’Affaires Theo Kordt at London was passing along more information at this juncture to the British Government than to the German Foreign Office at Berlin. This did not mean that Great Britain, regardless of the situation in Poland, was in a position to intimidate Hitler indefinitely. Hitler’s hesitation, unlike that of Mussolini, was not produced by any fear of British military power, which in itself could never defeat Germany, but by a sincere friendship for the British Empire. The conclusion at the British Foreign Office on August 27th that it would be wise to be “conciliatory in form,” but “be absolutely firm in substance,” was not an adequate formula for the preservation of peace. The absolute firmness the British diplomats had in mind was a rigidity of policy which precluded pressure on Poland for a diplomatic settlement with Germany.

The most serious delusion at the British Foreign Office on August 27th concerned the allegedly favorable military position of Great Britain. It seemed to the British diplomats that the “latest news from Turkey and Italy was highly satisfactory. If war were to break out and Italy did not march, the moral effect on the German people would be tremendous and they would not feel compensated by dubious Russian assistance.” The German people were unenthusiastic about a new war, but it was exaggerated to assume that anything Italy might do could seriously impair their morale. The man-in-the-street in [529] Germany, not to mention responsible military figures, placed a little value at this time on the military importance of Italy. It would be easy for Hitler to convince the people that it was in the best interest of Germany for Italy to stay out of trouble. The British analysis of the military situation concluded on the sorry note that the “latest indications are that we have an unexpectedly strong hand.”33

Hitler delivered a private speech to the other German leaders on August 27th in which he stressed his hope for an agreement with Great Britain. The British case was so weak in reality that Hitler was convincing himself anew, with each further analysis of the situation, that it could not possible be either their intent or their interest to go to war for Poland. Unfortunately, the desire of Halifax and the British Foreign Office staff to lead a coalition into war against Germany permitted them to rationalize the existing situation in a reckless and superficial manner.

Karl von Wiegand, a well-informed American journalist from the International News Service of William Randolph Hearst, discussed the situation with British diplomats in Berlin on August 27th. He was able to inform the German diplomats later in the day that Sir Nevile Henderson personally favored a solution of the current crisis in the German sense. Nevertheless, Henderson had been skeptical about the results of his latest mission when he departed for London on the previous day. He had told his staff at Berlin that he doubted if the British Cabinet would support his efforts for a peaceful solution. Henderson knew that peace could not be maintained unless there was a compromise. He was prepared to advocate at London the return of Danzig to Germany and adequate German transit facilities to East Prussia. The British Ambassador was convinced that the original German offer to Poland was the best possible basis for a compromise settlement of German-Polish differences.34

The Russians were arguing day after day that the British had only themselves to blame for their weak position. Marshal Voroshilov, the chief Russian negotiator in the recent military talks with the West, explained in a special interview with Izvestia (The News) on August 26th that it was naive of London to argue that Russian negotiations with Great Britain and France had been broken because of the pact with Germany. Voroshilov pointed out that, on the contrary, the pact with Germany had been signed because of the deadlock in the Western negotiations, and that this deadlock, in turn, rested on the British guarantee to Poland and on Polish intransigence. Voroshilov was actually exploiting the pretext he had used to disrupt the negotiations with the West rather than revealing the true nature of Soviet policy, which had been based for many months on the hope of Russian neutrality in the early phase of a destructive Anglo-German war. His statements were a clever and plausible justification of Russian policy, calculated to create the maximum discontent about Polish policy in Great Britain and France. This did not mean that the Russians were playing the German diplomatic game. They had promised Ribbentrop to send a new Ambassador to Berlin to succeed Merekalov, who had been recalled, but they failed to do so during the week following the return of Ribbentrop from Moscow. They were also extremely dilatory in responding to a German request to deny the widely circulated rumors that Russian troops were actually being withdrawn from the vicinity of the Polish frontier. At last, [530] on August 28th, Molotov issued a laconic démenti which explained that the reported Soviet troop withdrawals had no factual basis. Ribbentrop was not satisfied with this statement. He believed that an announcement of a Russian troop concentration against Poland might encourage the Poles to negotiate. He telephoned Moscow on August 28th to request Molotov to take this step. Molotov refused to comply, and German Ambassador Schulenburg reported on August 29th that the Soviet Foreign Commissar continued to neglect the appointment of a new Russian Ambassador to Germany. The Soviet Union, in defending their own policies, had no desire to aid Hitler in achieving a peaceful settlement of the German-Polish dispute.35


The Deceptive British Note of August 28th

The British had decided to delay their formal reply to Hitler’s offer of August 25th until the evening of August 28th, and Henderson was compelled to remain in London in order to convey it personally to Hitler. The British Ambassador, who had expected to return to Germany with the British reply on August 26th or 27th, considered the delay at London irresponsible and inexcusable. Hitler was far less concerned about the situation, because, being uninformed as to the facts, he continued to hope that the British were taking energetic steps at Warsaw to persuade the Poles to compromise.

Dahlerus continued to supply the British with vital information for successful negotiations with Germany. He advised the British not to refer to Roosevelt’s messages in their formal reply. This advice was unnecessary, because the British had avoided any public connection with the measures of Roosevelt. Dahlerus realized that President Roosevelt’s messages had prompted the Polish Government on August 25th to issue a formal platonic statement favoring negotiations with Germany, which was entirely contrary to their real intention. Dahlerus stressed Hitler’s hope that Poland would offer a meaningful pledge to Great Britain concerning her willingness to negotiate. Hitler feared, after his previous experiences, that the Poles would seek to avoid negotiations. The British themselves had stressed the possibility of German-Polish negotiations, and Hitler believed that they should make an effort to persuade the Poles to comply with this plan.36

Dahlerus renewed this argument in his conversations with the British leaders on August 28, 1939. Halifax had not made the slightest effort up to this point to sound out the Poles about negotiations. Halifax did not desire a settlement of German-Polish differences, but it is difficult to explain, from the purely tactical viewpoint, why he was so dilatory about going through the motion of at least sounding out the Poles. It was evident to him from the recent reports of Kennard and from conversations with Raczynski that Polish intransigence was sufficiently great to withstand peace efforts of a casual nature. His own position might have appeared superficially more favorable on the record had he made some earlier effort to convey the impression that he took seriously his own suggestion about German-Polish negotiations.

Halifax might never have reacted to this situation at all had it not been for the constant prodding of Dahlerus. At last, on August 28th, at 2:00 p.m., [531] Halifax wired Kennard that the Polish reply to Roosevelt indicated that the Poles were willing to negotiate directly with Germany. He informed Kennard that Great Britain naturally expected Poland to conduct herself accordingly. Kennard, who was opposed to further German-Polish talks, decided to head off possible British pressure on Poland by replying nonchalantly the same afternoon, that Beck was quite prepared to enter into direct negotiations with the Germans at once. The absence of any details about specific proposals for a settlement made it obvious to Halifax that no really serious British démarche had been taken at Warsaw. Halifax’s irresponsible treatment of Kennard’s report produced endless confusion. The Polish Government had made no important declaration of policy on August 28th, and Beck noted afterward that the first direct appeal he received to renew negotiations with the Germans came much later from Lipski at Berlin. Halifax made not the slightest effort to persuade Kennard to undertake a genuine demarche in behalf of negotiations at Warsaw. The confusion was compounded because Halifax informed the other British diplomatic missions of his latest exchange with Kennard. The German Embassy at Budapest reported to Berlin at 3:10 p.m. on the following day that the British Government had exerted pressure on the Poles to negotiate with Germany on the basis of the Hitler speech to the German Reichstag on April 28 1939. Hitler had announced in this speech that he was withdrawing his earlier offer to Poland, but that he would welcome negotiations with the Poles on some new basis. Beck was actually telling Kennard that the original October 1938 German offer remained entirely unacceptable in all of its points. There had actually been no British pressure whatever on Poland when the report from Budapest was received at Berlin at 6:40 p.m. on August 29, l939.37

It was significant that Halifax did not instruct Sir Eric Phipps to inform Bonnet of what was taking place at Warsaw. The British Foreign Secretary undoubtedly feared that if he did Bonnet would insist upon exerting genuine pressure on the Poles. French Ambassador Noël did not receive instructions to urge the Poles to negotiate until early on August 30, 1939, after Bonnet had discovered from Berlin that Hitler was preparing a specific plan for a German-Polish settlement. The French then proceeded with alacrity to exert pressure on the Poles, but it was very late, and they received no support whatever in this effort from the British side. Halifax and Kennard had deliberately made a complete mess of Hitler’s suggestion for Anglo-French diplomatic pressure in favor of a peaceful settlement at Warsaw.

Kennard never relaxed in his persistent efforts to encourage Halifax to disregard the fate of the German minority in Poland. Kennard, in a special report on the afternoon of August 28th, played upon the frontier incidents which had occurred early on August 26th during the German effort to cancel military operations against Poland. He was jubilant because he had discovered inaccuracies in the detailed German descriptions of two incidents among the thousands which had been described and reported. Two cases of mistaken identification of the instigators of incidents were used with utter sophistry by Kennard to suggest that all of the incidents must be ipso facto untrue. The partisanship of the British Ambassador was too intense to permit fairness, honesty, or objectivity. Kennard ignored every other consideration in his single-minded effort to aid Halifax in plunging Poland, Great Britain, and France into a disastrous war against Germany.38
[532]
Dahlerus urged the British at London on August 28th that time was of the essence in avoiding war. The British did not need this reminder. They had learned from their own contacts among the Germans about the perilous incident of the German attack order of August 25th and its last minute successful cancellation. Dahlerus was permitted by the German leaders to inform Halifax that the German Army would be in final position to strike a devastating blow at Poland on the night of August 30/31. Göring was allowed by Hitler to convey as much information as possible about the new proposals to Poland which were being prepared and discussed in Germany. Dahlerus informed the British on the afternoon of August 28th about the essential substance of the offer later known as the Marienwerder proposals. Göring realized that it would be an important assistance to successful negotiations if the British realized in advance that the German position remained moderate despite the uninterrupted crisis since March 1939.

Göring anticipated that the Poles might be reluctant to conduct important negotiations on German soil. He instructed Dahlerus to inform the British that the luxurious yacht of the well-disposed Swedish industrialist, Wenner-Gren, the chairman of the Electrolux corporation, would be an ideal location for a Baltic Sea conference off the Polish coast. The British had been informed of the military plans of the German Army, the important terms of a negotiation offer not yet arranged in paragraphs, and a convenient neutral location for negotiations between Germany and Poland. Göring naturally expected that all of this important information would be relayed to Warsaw, but the only item Halifax selected for Kennard was the revelation of the German military plans. Halifax knew that emphasis on German military preparations, without mention of the German desire to negotiate with Poland, would be the greatest possible encouragement for drastic new Polish measures to increase the danger of war and reduce the chances for a negotiated settlement. 39

Henderson was prepared to fly from London at 5:00 p.m. on August 28th with the official British reply to Hitler’s offer for an Anglo-German understanding. The British Ambassador wired ahead to Berlin that he wished to meet the German Chancellor as soon as possible, but that there would be some delay after his arrival, until the British Embassy staff at Berlin translated the official British text into German. The reply which Henderson carried to Germany was a most interesting document. The British Government took notice of the fact that Hitler had made his offer conditional on the settlement of the German-Polish dispute. The British would insist that any settlement of the controversy with Poland be subject to an international guarantee by a number of Powers including Poland and Germany. Halifax wished Hitler to know that the Polish Government had declared its willingness to negotiate directly with the German Government. It is surely an understatement to observe at this point that Halifax had displayed surprisingly small concern about verifying an allegedly sincere Polish declaration of such obvious importance. No doubt Halifax would have shown more care and energy in this matter had he actually desired a negotiated settlement of German-Polish differences.

Hitler was reminded in the British note that an Anglo-German conflict resulting from failure to reach a settlement “might well plunge the whole world into war. Such an outcome would be a calamity without parallel in history.” Halifax’s intention was to warn Hitler that the British would again seek to plunge the rest of the world into conflict with Germany in the event of war. It was, of course, a tragedy that Halifax did not for one moment believe his own statement that an Anglo-German war would be a supreme calamity, despite the fact that it contained more truth than anything else he had ever written. Halifax would have ceased working for war and would have joined the leaders of France, Germany, and Italy in the search for peace had he believed his own words. This development alone would have been quite sufficient to save the entire situation.40

Birger Dahlerus returned to Germany on August 28th. He discussed the London situation with the German leaders before Henderson called on Hitler at 10:30 p.m. with the formal British reply. The Swedish engineer announced that Halifax refused to accept the Buxton proposal for German defense of the British Empire, which had been featured by Hitler in his offer to Great Britain. Halifax, in contrast to Buxton, seemed to regard this suggestion as an affront to the British nation implying that the British were unable to defend their world-wide possessions. It was difficult to understand Halifax’s attitude on this point, because the Anglo-Japanese alliance of 1902-1922 had provided for Japanese defense of British possessions in East Asia. The British leaders had abandoned their earlier policy of ‘splendid isolation’ as early as 1902 when they concluded this alliance with the Japanese. Dahlerus believed that Halifax was pleased with Hitler’s suggestion that colonial claims would not be discussed until disarmament had been achieved. Halifax was prepared to insist that the Soviet Union should participate in an international guarantee of the Polish frontiers. The Germans doubted if the Russians would accept this proposal, but they had no objection to an effort in this direction. Göring feared, from what Dahlerus had said about the German offer to defend the British Empire, that the official British response to Hitler’s offer would not be favorable. Hitler was optimistic, because he was counting on the British to persuade the Poles to negotiate. He had not expected Halifax to accept at once the full text of his proposals for an Anglo-German agreement. Hitler believed that a settlement would be in sight if the formal British reply corresponded to the indications he had received from Dahlerus.41

The meeting between Hitler and Henderson on the night of August 28/29 took place in a very friendly atmosphere. Hitler was favorably impressed with the formal British reply, and he hoped that the British genuinely dreaded the prospect of another futile and disastrous Anglo-German war. There was heated conversation again on the Polish question, but this did not destroy the fundamental harmony of the meeting. Hitler began to discuss the new proposals he was planning to offer Poland, and he knew that the British leaders had previously received considerable information about them from Dahlerus. Hitler admitted that he was sorely tempted to request revisions of the confusing Upper Silesian border, which ran through kitchens, bathrooms, barnyards and mines. Polish rule in Upper Silesia had been exceptionally harsh, and the Allied and Associated Powers had been particularly dishonest about their choice of methods to transfer this territory to Poland in the first place. Hitler said that he would not tempt fate by raising this issue, because he knew that any change in the status quo of the area now would seriously affect vital Polish economic interests.
[534    ]
Hitler briefly interrupted his discussion with Henderson to arrange a conference between Ribbentrop and Göring on the proposed terms of a new German offer to the Poles. Henderson inquired when the German proposals would be completed for submission to the Poles. Hitler suggested that the work might be completed by the time Germany presented her reply to the British note of August 28th. Midnight had struck, and it was early August 29th. Hitler assured Henderson that at least the note to Great Britain would be ready the same day. Henderson feared that he had created the impression that Hitler was expected to reply in what might be considered undue haste. He wished to assure Hitler that this was not the case: “It took us two days to draw up the note. I am in no hurry.” Hitler replied with great seriousness: “But I am!”42

The German leader was in the unenviable position of seeking a diplomatic settlement without exposing Germany to a protracted two-front war. The German military planners had warned him that the success of “Operation White” was conditional on launching operations not later than September 1st. The British had wasted much time in replying to Hitler’s offer of August 25th, and the German leader was determined to do everything possible to increase the speed of the negotiations.

Henderson hoped to encourage Hitler by recalling the traditional Anglo-German amity of the good old days. He cited a familiar schoolbook quotation from Prussian General Blücher to his troops on the eve of the battle of Waterloo in 1815: “Forward, my children, I have given my word to my brother Wellington, and you cannot wish me to break it.” Hitler, with a combined feeling of amusement and sadness, remarked that “things were different 125 years ago.” Henderson replied stoutly: “Not so far as England was concerned.” The German Chancellor refrained from further comment, and, after all, Henderson was right. The British were pursuing the same archaic balance of power theory in 1939 that had prompted their unrelenting wars against France from 1793 until the final defeat of Napoleon in 1815. It was merely an incidental feature that now Germany, and not France, suffered from the single-minded hostility of Great Britain. This was merely because Germany, in the course of an evolution determined primarily by natural causes, had replaced France as the, leading Power in the European continental region west of Russia. This was the main reason for the change. Little else, including the threat from the Soviet Union, seemed to matter. The uncompromising rigidity of British foreign policy in a rapidly changing world has prompted much admiration. This does not change the fact that the policy which promoted British strength in 1815 was the fatal instrument of the British decline that began in 1939.43

Henderson, in any lengthy conference with Hitler, could not resist throwing his instructions to the winds and putting everything on a personal basis. The British Ambassador suggested to Hitler on this occasion that he could solve his problems by renewing his October 1938 proposals to Poland. This undoubtedly would have produced a speedy solution had Henderson, Butler, or Lothian been conducting British foreign policy, but it was scarcely a very promising suggestion with Halifax unreservedly supporting the Polish position at Danzig. The British Ambassador eagerly assured Hitler that in this way he “could at a stroke change in his favour the whole of public opinion not only in England but in the world.”

The current crisis would have ended on a very satisfactory basis had this actually been the case.


Hitler’s Hope for a Peaceful Settlement

There was a brief interlude of very great optimism in Hitler’s immediate circle following the conversation with Henderson on the night of August 28/29 and the reception of the British note of August 28th. This optimism seemed fully justified by the unequivocal but utterly false British assurance that the Poles had been induced to agree to renewed direct negotiations. It may be argued that Hitler and his entourage were extremely naive to believe any assurance which came from London. This was undoubtedly true, but it was simply not apparent to Hitler that the British had anything to gain by misrepresenting the Polish position.

Hitler, in his enthusiasm for the British Empire, was inclined to give the British leaders more credit for intelligence and integrity than they actually deserved. Halifax was quite prepared to play along with this feeling in Berlin, to a certain extent. He believed that this would be useful in maintaining British influence in Italy. He telephoned Ciano on August 29th that the response to the British formal reply, and the discussion in Berlin the previous evening, gave reason “to hope for” a settlement, and, with double caution, Halifax added that at least he “hoped so.” He wished to convince the Italians that he was genuinely desirous of a peaceful settlement, and that the last British move had left the situation in excellent shape. It was now Hitler’s move. The Italians were expected to blame the man in Berlin if things suddenly became worse again. The British Foreign Secretary offered the platonic gesture of assuring Ciano that he hoped Mussolini would persevere in his search for peace.44

Hitler’s mood of optimism at Berlin was shared by Bonnet at Paris. France, like Poland, had virtually completed her mobilization by this time. Bonnet reminded Sir Eric Phipps of the old military and diplomatic axiom that mobilization means war. He declared that he could not cease wondering at the fact that France could call up 2,700,000 fighting men without any German warnings or threatening military measures. Bonnet confided that the military authorities would call up at the most another half million men in the event of a formal mobilization order. Phipps noted that Bonnet discussed these serious problems with apparent lightness of heart. The French Foreign Minister was again optimistic about the chances for preserving peace.45

Italian Ambassador Attolico had assured Weizsäcker on the evening of August 27th that Mussolini had a special plan for an international diplomatic conference in case the Poles refused to accept bilateral negotiations with Germany. Mussolini was prepared to insist that Danzig return to Germany, as part of any settlement. The Italian Ambassador telephoned the German Foreign Office on the evening of August 28th to request a copy of Hitler’s latest letter to Chamberlain. He had received misleading reports about the mission of Dahlerus to England, and his impression that Hitler had written to Chamberlain again was incorrect. Weizsäcker assured Attolico that Hitler had never intended to write to Chamberlain before receiving the official British reply [536] to the German offer of August 25th. He attempted to convince the suspicious Italian Ambassador that Germany would keep Italy fully informed of important developments in the Anglo-German negotiation.

Ribbentrop invited Attolico to call at the German Foreign Office on August 29th to discuss latest developments. He told Attolico that he hoped for a peaceful settlement after the latest conversation between Hitler and Henderson. Attolico wished to know the nature of the German reply to the British note of August 28th, but Ribbentrop indicated that the German answer was not yet ready. He gave the Italian diplomat some hint about German intentions when he confided that he had been advised by Henderson to invite the Poles to negotiate at Berlin.

Ribbentrop admitted that Hitler was sceptical about the success of new negotiations with Poland. Attolico agreed with this opinion, and he insisted that a diplomatic conference of the principal Powers offered greater promise for a settlement. Ribbentrop did not deny this, but he insisted that Hitler was wise to follow British advice and to seek direct contact with the Poles. It seemed obvious to Ribbentrop that the Poles, rather than Germany, would be blamed for any failure to establish contact. Attolico wished to offer Ribbentrop some encouragement. He told the German Foreign Minister that Papal Nuncio Orsenigo believed that there had recently been an improvement in the Polish attitude. Ribbentrop was inclined to attribute this to British influence. He would have been shocked to learn that the British Ambassador at Warsaw, Sir Howard Kennard, had not made the slightest effort to induce the Poles to accept talks with Germany. Ribbentrop was warned by German Chargé d’Affaires Wuehlisch at Warsaw on August 29th that the great majority of informed Poles considered that war with Germany was inevitable, but he continued to hope that Beck would respond to British pressure, which did not exist.46

The optimism at Paris and Berlin was shared at Rome after the telephone conversation between Ciano and Halifax. Mussolini claimed in a message to Hitler at 4:40 p.m. - on August 29th that the British note to Germany of the previous day offered an adequate basis for a satisfactory settlement. Mussolini also made the revealing comment that his relations with Paris were cool, but that he was now in a position to intervene diplomatically at London. He did not admit that his relations with the British had been improved by the devious Italian promise not to intervene militarily if Great Britain attacked Germany. He concluded optimistically that a peaceful solution was assured, and “the rhythm of your splendid achievements will not be disturbed.”47

Dahlerus had telephoned the British Foreign Office from Berlin at 7:00 a.m. on August 29th to inform Halifax that Hitler was optimistic about a peaceful settlement. Halifax received an angry warning from Beck shortly afterward that the Polish Government was contemplating new measures against Danzig. Beck complained that the Danzigers were displaying increasing reluctance to expedite the normal shipments of Polish goods from the Free City harbor into Poland. He was completely unaware that Halifax had assured Hitler that Poland was prepared to negotiate for a definitive settlement of the Danzig issue with Germany.48

Henderson wired additional information to Halifax shortly after noon on August 29th about Germany’s forthcoming reply to Great Britain, and about [537] her new proposals to the Poles. The British Ambassador announced that Hitler had decided not to raise the dangerous Upper Silesian question, and that he would restrict his proposals to Danzig and the Corridor region. Henderson added that Göring was anxious to receive some indication about the attitude of the Poles toward new negotiations. The Germans had decided to request the British Government to serve as intermediary in approaching the Poles. Henderson warned London that Göring feared the Poles would be stubborn and “try to ruin Germany by being so obstructive that war would be inevitable.” Henderson emphasized again that Hitler was prepared to participate immediately in an international guarantee of any satisfactory results achieved in a new Polish-German negotiation.

Henderson was more anxious about the situation than Göring, because he had received no indication that the British Government had actually advised the Poles to negotiate. He knew that a terrible fiasco would result if Halifax failed to take steps at Warsaw. He wired Halifax again on the afternoon of August 29th to plead for a British step in Poland insisting that the Poles at least agree to negotiate with the Germans. He rejected the argument often used by the Poles to the effect that Germany’s sole interest in negotiation was to split the Anglo-Polish front. Henderson flatly denied that Hitler believed such an objective was feasible. The British diplomat argued that Hitler knew he would have an Anglo-German war on his hands unless he could arrive at a German-Polish diplomatic settlement acceptable to the British. He emphasized to the British Foreign Secretary that Hitler preferred a negotiated settlement to any war, including a local war. Above all, Hitler had admired the Poles too long to desire their destruction.

Henderson followed these elaborate arguments a few minutes later with a new appeal. The British Ambassador urged that the French should be encouraged to join with Great Britain in applying strong pressure at Warsaw. The British Ambassador correctly suspected that Halifax had made no effort whatever to obtain French support for moderation at Warsaw. Henderson insisted that “the question of exaggerated prestige and amour propre on the part of Poland must not be allowed to stand in the way of a fairly negotiated settlement based on an international guarantee.”49


New Military Measures Planned by Poland

Within minutes of Henderson’s latest appeals on the 29th, which were ignored by Halifax, a telegraph arrived at London from Kennard. He wished to inform Halifax that the Polish Government had decided upon general mobilization. The Polish military plans stipulated that general mobilization would be ordered only in the event of a Polish decision for war. Halifax was primarily to blame for this rash Polish decision which made a German-Polish war virtually inevitable. He had failed to inform the Poles of Germany’s peaceful intentions, but he had informed them that the German forces would be in their final positions for operations against Poland by the night of August 30/31. It was difficult to criticize the Poles for reacting as they did to Halifax’s one-sided version of Göring’s disclosures. Evil memories of 1914 were awakened by the [538] news from Kennard. Historians of all nations had attributed great importance to the sequence in which the various nations had mobilized at the outbreak of World War I. The fact that the Russians and the French had declared general mobilization before the Germans in 1914 was rightly considered a matter of very great importance. Halifax should have been able to foresee the inevitable consequences of his deceitful policy at Warsaw, yet he was irritated by the Polish decision. He knew that Germany would defeat Poland in a war, and he knew that the calling up of another half-dozen Polish divisions could not avert the debacle. The Poles would merely incur greater responsibility for starting war without preventing the ruin which would inevitably befall them in the event of war. Halifax had decided, with cool and deliberate calculation, to exert pressure on the Poles to delay their mobilization.

Kennard had no advance instructions from which to deal with the announcement by Beck. He decided on the spur of the moment to advise general mobilization, but to discourage publicity about it. This ignored the fact that the Poles had no plans for a so-called secret mobilization in the German style. The Germans, without any publicity, had reached a stage of partial mobilization equivalent to that of the Poles and the French. With great reluctance, Kennard carried out the later instructions from Halifax, and he advised the Poles to delay mobilization. Nevertheless, he capitalized on the fact that Halifax had not stipulated how long the mobilization should be delayed. He wired Halifax at 6:45 p.m. that the Poles had agreed to delay the posting of their mobilization notices for a few hours. This was really no concession at all. The Poles intended the first day of mobilization to follow the day of the announcement. It would have created confusion had the Polish authorities posted announcements late on August 29th for a mustering of reserves at dawn on the following day. Beck had not made his original disclosure to Kennard about Polish intentions to complete their mobilization until the afternoon of August 29th. The Poles, in deciding to post their announcements before noon on Wednesday, August 30th, were tacitly rejecting the advice of Halifax for them to delay this decisive step.50

The prospect of Polish general mobilization was overshadowed by the news which Halifax received from Kennard a few minutes later. Beck had received vague rumors that Poland might seriously be requested to resume negotiations with Germany, and he decided to head off any such step by disclosing in advance that the Poles would refuse to do so. Beck declared flatly to Kennard that he was unprepared to grant any concessions to the Germans, and therefore he saw no point in negotiations. He explained that he would not accept any part of the proposals which he had rejected earlier in March 1939. Halifax received this statement with evident satisfaction, and he deliberately neglected to address any further communications to Warsaw for a lengthy period. He knew that Kennard would stoutly support Beck’s fanatical intransigence. After all, if the Germans inquired why Halifax had stated that the Poles were prepared to negotiate, it would be simple to point to the meaningless Polish pledge in response to Roosevelt’s message of August 24, 1939.

These facts were unknown at Paris, Berlin, and Rome, where an atmosphere of increasing optimism prevailed. Halifax was also optimistic, but for the opposite reasons. The French, German, and Italian leaders hoped for peace. [539] Halifax was reasonably certain that there would be war. He did not want war for its own sake, but he believed that the destruction of Germany, which could be accomplished only by war, would be a brilliant achievement. He had worked for war unceasingly during the past ten months, and he sensed that his triumph was close at hand. He failed to realize that his success would produce the eclipse of his own country. He ignored still another urgent telegram from Henderson that it would be in the vital interest of Poland to accept promptly a German invitation to negotiate. Halifax knew that the Poles would be doomed in the event of war, but he cared nothing for the fate of Poland.51


The German Note of August 29th

Hitler by this time had approved the finishing touches on the German reply to Great Britain. He agreed that the German-Polish dispute had become a crucial factor in Anglo-German relations. He confirmed his desire for a peaceful settlement and his willingness to negotiate with the Poles. Hitler wished the British Government to advise Poland to send an emissary to Berlin on the following day, Wednesday, August 30th. He emphasized that urgency was required by the pressure of events, and he wished the British to know that Germany expected the arrival ef a representative from Poland not later than midnight on August 30th. Henderson was received by Hitler on the evening of August 29th, and the official German note was presented to him at 7:15 p.m.

Dahlerus telephoned the British Foreign Office from Berlin a few minutes after Henderson had been received by 1-litler. He wished Halifax to know that Hitler and Göring were very pleased by the British attitude toward Germany revealed in the British note of August 28, 1939. Dahlerus assured the British that the German reply would reach London the same evening. It was noted at London that the Swedish engineer was “very cheerful and exuberant.” He obviously believed that his labors were nearing a successful conclusion. Woermann at the German Foreign Office, on the evening of August 29th, told the Swiss, Lithuanian, and Slovak Ministers that prospects were favorable for a diplomatic solution of the Polish crisis as a result of Anglo-German talks.52

Halifax received a further communication from Kennard a few minutes after the call from Dahlerus. The British Ambassador confirmed the Polish decision to post general mobilization notices the following morning, and added that he had received the tart reminder that such notices could not be kept secret. Kennard had approved the Polish measure, despite the fact that Bonnet had instructed French Ambassador Noël to protest vigorously against general mobilization. Kennard minced no words in defending the Poles against possible criticism from Halifax. He bluntly accused Halifax of prompting the Polish move by passing on the information from Göring about German Army plans. Kennard concluded that the Poles “would hardly be justified in refraining from every possible measure of defense.”

Beck requested Kennard to inform Halifax that there was only one development which could prevent the Polish general mobilization scheduled for 8:00 o’clock, on the following morning. This would be an explicit statement from Hitler that Germany had abandoned Danzig once and for all, and that she [540] would never again seek to improve her transit communications to East Prussia through the Polish Corridor. Beck announced that he was prepared to receive and study the full text of Hitler’s reply to Great Britain at any hour. Poland would proceed with her military measures unless Hitler retreated. Beck had previously made it perfectly clear that he would not negotiate with Germany.53

Hitler engaged in a lengthy discussion with Henderson about the German note to Great Britain of August 29th. Hitler emphasized that he would not object to the British guarantee of Poland if he could settle German differences with the Poles. The British had guaranteed Poland’s vital interests and independence, and the German proposals of October 1938 had conveyed no intention of attacking one or the other. Hitler explained that the German draft of new proposals to the Poles was not yet complete, but that it would be finished very soon. He denied that his urgent request for a Polish emissary, which was addressed to the British rather than the Poles, constituted an ultimatum to Poland. Hitler, who noticed that Henderson was concerned about the time factor in the German plan, did his best to establish sound reasons for immediate negotiations, because he had no intention of sacrificing once more for no good purpose the carefully prepared operational plans of the German Army. Hitler defended his urgent request for a prompt Polish response at great length, and he succeeded at last in reassuring Henderson.54

Henderson departed from his conference with Hitler with the conviction that it would be possible to prevent a war between Germany and Poland. He contacted London at once, and he warmly recommended that the British Government make every effort to persuade the Poles to accept the German offer to negotiate on the exact terms laid down by Hitler. The British Foreign Office received the summary text of Hitler’s reply at 9:15 p.m. on August 29th. There was ample time for the British Government to contact Warsaw, and for the Poles to send an emissary to Berlin at any time on the following day. Henderson indicated that Hitler had agreed to consult with the Soviet Union about an international guarantee to Poland. Ribbentrop actually informed Soviet Charg6 d’Affaires Ivanov before midnight on August 29th that Germany favored the participation of the Soviet Union in any international arrangement concerning Poland. Henderson did not attempt to deny that the German note had the flavor of an ultimatum, but he repeated Hitler’s arguments for the launching of negotiations with the greatest possible speed.55


The German Request for Negotiation with Poland

The Poles, of course, were completely free in their choice of a man for the mission to Berlin. There were ample men in Poland who could be trusted not to accept proposals merely because they were German. The Poles had in the past been brilliant in leading Hitler on without conceding anything, and they were presented with an excellent opportunity to repeat the performance. Beck elected not to modify in any degree his unconditional challenge to Germany of March 26, 1939. He believed that Poland would be defeated by Germany no matter what time of year operations started, but he feared that he might lose British and French support if the conflict was delayed. A decisive warning from the [541] British that he definitely would lose their support unless he negotiated would have prompted him to negotiate, but Halifax, who did not desire peace, had no motive to issue such a warning. Bonnet urged Beck to accept Hitler’s offer as soon as he heard about it, but he was unable to achieve anything at Warsaw without British support.

Hitler was optimistic because he was completely out of touch with the actual British position represented by Halifax and Kennard despite the efforts of Henderson and Dahlerus. Henderson emphasized to Halifax on the night of August 29th that he had inquired if Germany would negotiate with Poland on a basis of full equality. Hitler had replied promptly and with unmistakable emphasis: “Of course!” Hitler added that he would inform the British Government of his suggestions for a settlement with Poland either shortly before or after the arrival of a Polish emissary. Henderson assured Halifax that these terms would be moderate.56

Henderson admitted that his interview with Hitler had been “stormy,” and that the German Chancellor was indignant about the latest atrocity and mob-action bulletins from Poland. Henderson also knew, however, that Attolico, who had called on Hitler immediately afterward, had found the German Chancellor quite calm. Henderson was quite willing to attribute Hitler’s earlier excitement to the importance of the issue involved in the Anglo-German negotiation. The British Ambassador had realized at once that a tangible basis for a settlement had been achieved, and he proceeded to support Hitler s initiative with all the energy he could command.

Henderson’s first and obvious step was to contact Coulondre. The British Ambassador knew from his conversations with Bonnet in July 1939 that the French Foreign Minister would welcome Hitler’s proposals for a solution of German-Polish difficulties. Henderson was able to convince Coulondre without much effort that the Hitler plan deserved full support. The French Ambassador had the full details of Hitler’s cancelled operational order of August 25th, and he accepted this as indicative that a German-Polish war could be avoided. Coulondre, who was called the Huguenot diplomat because of his staunch Calvinism, presented the argument for the Hitler plan at Paris with great force. Above all, the French Ambassador insisted that strong pressure should be applied at Warsaw to bring a Polish emissary to Berlin on time. On the other hand, he saw no merit in Henderson’s suggestion that the Polish Government be advised to send Beck to Berlin, and he did not recommend this at Paris.57

Henderson displayed his usual independence by approaching the Poles in Berlin without waiting for instructions from London. He urged Lipski before midnight on August 29th that Poland could and should send a special envoy to Berlin the following day. Lipski naturally informed Beck of this new development without delay, and the Polish Foreign Minister responded shortly after midnight by calling in Kennard. The British Ambassador was poorly equipped to discuss the situation, because he had received virtually no information from Halifax about the German reply to the British note of August 28th. Beck postponed his discussion with Kennard pending the arrival of adequate information from London.

Halifax had merely informed Kennard that Hitler’s reply “does not appear  [542] to close every door.” He might have added that Hitler was trying to open doors rather than to close them, and, above all, he was seeking to open the door slammed by Beck on May 5, 1939. There was a curious air of leisurely detachment in Halifax’s reaction to Hitler’s important offer. Halifax appeared to be more concerned in conveying his unreserved approval of Kennard’s arguments in support of the Polish general mobilization. Halifax made the cynical statement that Great Britain “could not take the responsibility of advising the Polish Government against any action which they consider necessary for their security.” This was really carrying the blank check policy to extremes. It obviously included acceptance of the Polish position that negotiations with the Germans also presented a threat to the security of Poland.58

Halifax persisted in adding that the Poles should do everything possible “to avoid advertising” their general mobilization, although Kennard had previously explained that they would advertise it to the greatest possible extent on the following morning. He repeated the time-worn admonition, which had for months been made ridiculous by the conditions in Poland, that the Poles should take care not to provoke the Germans. Halifax made the significant admission to Kennard that he was entirely depending on him for the conduct of British policy in Poland. He complained that Raczynski at London seemed to be out of touch with his Government. He virtually gave Kennard a free hand to conduct British policy at Warsaw as he saw fit. He knew that Kennard would do nothing to encourage the preservation of peace.

Halifax passed on to Kennard the full text of the German reply of August 29th shortly after midnight. He restricted himself to the vague comment that the German reply appeared to be not unpromising. Needless to say, this very restrained favorable comment failed to influence the British Ambassador at Warsaw, who had opposed Henderson’s earlier suggestion that Lipski discuss the general situation with Hitler.

Kennard decided to advise Beck to reject Hitler’s offer for negotiations. He argued in a subsequent report to Halifax on the morning of Augst 30th that it would “be impossible to induce the Polish Government to send Colonel Beck or any other representative immediately to Berlin to discuss a settlement on the basis proposed by Herr Hitler.” He concluded melodramatically that Poland would sooner fight and perish than submit to such humiliation. The fact that Hitler was willing to negotiate in the face of countless provocations from Poland made no impression on Kennard.59

The situation at Warsaw was really quite incredible. Kennard knew that his Government had dishonestly assured Germany on August 28th that Poland was prepared to negotiate seriously with Hitler. Yet, it was unethical of Kennard even under these circumstances to advise Poland not to negotiate. This did not trouble either Halifax or Kennard. Halifax replied to Kennard later on August 30th that the Poles should desist from firing on the German minority, and should make some effort to restrain their reckless radio propaganda, which had been called to his attention at London. He expressed no disapproval of Kennard’s decision to urge Beck not to negotiate with Germany.60

Kennard had a decisive advantage over Henderson in the Polish crisis. The British Ambassador at Warsaw had been in perfect step with Halifax’s diplomacy since October 1938, whereas Henderson, who had been sent to Berlin by [543] Chamberlain to carry out the policy of appeasement, was sadly out of step. The situation was not changed by the fact that Henderson was more popular at Berlin than Kennard at Warsaw. Kennard’s hatred of the Germans was so irrationally intense that the Poles concluded, as they did about Churchill, that he was somewhat unbalanced. They also did not care for his pedantic and dogmatic manner. Henderson was highly respected at Berlin, where good-humored anecdotes were told about his scrupulously correct manners and impeccable sartorial elegance. Hitler referred to him affectionately in his absence as the man with the flower,” because Henderson always wore a boutonnière. The reserved manner of the British Ambassador prohibited the joviality which had characterized the relations between Hitler and François-Poncet, but there was universal agreement among the German diplomats that Henderson was a credit to his craft. Henderson performed his finest work during the hectic days of the Polish crisis, but it was a largely wasted effort because Halifax did not desire the peaceful settlement which was supposed to be the objective of all constructive diplomacy.

Henderson supplied Halifax with voluminous information about his recent conversations with Hitler, and he added many personal touches to his accounts. He confided that on August 28th he had gone to meet Hitler “fortified by half a bottle of champagne.” There was no doubt that he wished to make the best possible showing, and he hoped that the champagne would mellow his habitual reserve. He hastened to offer proof to Halifax that his head had remained clear on that occasion. Upon confronting Ribbentrop as well as Hitler, he made certain that the Foreign Minister, with his linguistic accomplishment, received the English original text of the British note, and that Hitler received the German translation. Henderson did not bother to emphasize that he was on a sufficiently informal footing with the German leaders to justify this procedure. A strict regard for formal protocol would have required him to present both copies to the Chief-of-State, and to allow him to make his own disposition of the documents.

Henderson communicated information of an extremely important nature to Halifax on the morning of August 30, 1939. He told Halifax that Birger Dahlerus, who was prepared to fly to England at any time, had been instructed to tell the British leaders that midnight August 30th was not an unconditional deadline for the arrival of a Polish emissary, and that Berlin was not an unconditional location for a German-Polish conference. The Germans were prepared to consider any alternative suggestions. Henderson reminded Halifax that a meeting on the Swedish yacht near the Polish coast remained open as an adequate alternative. He repeated to Halifax the gist of the terms the Germans were about to offer the Poles. They planned to suggest a plebiscite in the northern tip of the Corridor, with the losing party to receive a transit route over the Corridor. Gdynia, which was indisputably Polish, was not to be included in the plebiscite proposition, because the Germans had no desire to deprive Poland of her base on the Baltic coast. Henderson repeated that there would be no reference to East Upper Silesia in the German proposals.61

Henderson carefully described his meeting with Lipski on the night of August 29th. He had read to the Polish Ambassador the full text of Hitler’s reply to Great Britain before the German note had reached London. The British [544] Ambassador warned Halifax that Lipski “expressed himself as quite hopeless,” and that he was convinced that his Government at the most would permit him “to see Herr Hitler” without allowing him to negotiate. Lipski did not expect the Polish Government to send a special emissary to Berlin. Henderson believed that vigorous British diplomatic steps at Warsaw would modify this recalcitrant Polish attitude. Henderson emphasized that Hitler did not want war, but he would be unable to avoid war unless some last chance was offered to him.62

There was complete clarity at London, Paris, and Warsaw by the morning of August 30th about the latest German offer to Poland. The German Chancellor recognized that a diplomatic solution of the German-Polish dispute would produce a favorable atmosphere for an Anglo-German understanding along the lines of his offer to Halifax on August 25, 1939. He had appealed to the British to advise the Poles to accept direct negotiations with Germany. The British had responded by informing Germany on August 28th that Poland was prepared to negotiate. Hitler informed Henderson on the following day that he was preparing tentative proposals for a settlement with Poland, and that he wished the British Government to invite Poland to send a special emissary to Berlin on August 30th. Because of the urgency of the crisis situation existing between August 30th because of the urgency of the crisis situation existing between Germany and Poland. The British received an additional assurance shortly afterward that Germany would accept the arrival of a Polish envoy somewhat later than midnight August 30th, and that Berlin had merely been suggested for negotiations. It would be perfectly satisfactory to negotiate at some other place. The many and definite conciliatory steps taken by the German Government to avoid war with Poland during these days actually left very little to be desired.

The Germans on the early morning of August 30th were completely unaware of the situations at London and Warsaw. They did not realize that the August 28th British assurance of Polish readiness to negotiate was an inexcusable hoax. Halifax had neither requested nor received any indication from Poland that the Poles were willing to negotiate on a serious basis. The Germans did not realize that the Polish authorities at Warsaw on August 29th had decided to declare general mobilization on the following day, and that this step had been expressly approved by Halifax. They did not know that the British Ambassador at Warsaw had responded to the German offer to Poland of August 29, 1939, by advising the Poles not to negotiate with Germany. Indeed, Hitler did not suspect that Halifax was doing everything possible to promote war and nothing to prevent it. The German Chancellor would have abandoned his latest hope for a settlement with Poland much earlier had he been aware of the actual situation. It was completely hopeless to invite the Polish Government to negotiate when the British Government was urging them not to do so. British diplomacy at Warsaw on August 29th and 30th was a dishonorable and mendacious violation of the assurance to Germany in the British note of August 28th. The British Government for several days had fostered the false impression that they favored direct negotiations between Poland and Germany. Their advice to the Poles not to negotiate was an act of brazen duplicity unhappily characteristic of the British diplomatic tradition, which was based on cynical ruthlessness toward friend and foe alike. The excellent opportunity for a peaceful settlement between Germany and Poland was destroyed by Halifax’s diplomacy, and the doom of Poland was assured.

[545]
Chapter 21


POLISH GENERAL MOBILIZATION
AND GERMAN-POLISH WAR


Hitler Unaware of British Policy in Poland

The German leaders assumed during the last few days of intense crisis before the outbreak of the German-Polish war that Great Britain had exerted pressure at Warsaw for Polish negotiations with Germany. The British Government allowed this impression to persist unchallenged at Berm. This was inconsistent with the earlier claims of Halifax and Chamberlain in 1939 that they were seeking to avoid war by making their position crystal clear. Halifax was no less guilty, in this case, of failing to make the position of the British Government clear than his kinsman Sir Edward Grey during the last phase of the pre-World War I crisis in 1914. Hitler’s attitude during the last days of the 1939 crisis might have been different had he realized that the British Government, despite their assurance to Germany on August 28th, had never seriously advised Poland to negotiate. Halifax left Hitler entirely in the dark about this most important item. Hitler naturally assumed that Poland was defying Great Britain by refusing to negotiate, and that Polish defiance would be construed at London as a breach of the Anglo-Polish alliance. He naturally assumed that Poland had broken her engagements to Great Britain by refusing to negotiate with Germany after having first promised to do so. In reality, the contention in the British note of August 28, 1939, that Poland had assured the British Government of her readiness to negotiate was, as we have seen, a deliberate deception. The iniquity of this deception was afterward compounded when the British Government refused to advise Poland to accept negotiations with Germany.


General Mobilization Construed as Polish Defiance of Halifax

The general mobilization notices were posted throughout Poland by the afternoon of August 30, 1939. The news of this latest Polish challenge to Germany was officially confirmed in a report to Berlin from the German Embassy at [546] Warsaw. Woermann at the German Foreign Office explained to Hungarian Minister Szt6jay on August 30th that the news of the Polish general mobilization was a great blow to the prospects for peace. He reminded the Magyar diplomat that there had been high hopes in recent days for a renewal of negotiations between Poland and Germany which would lead to a diplomatic settlement of the crisis between the two neighboring nations. These hopes were now destroyed. The Polish mobilization move was construed by the officials of the German Foreign Office as a definitive answer to the latest German offer to Poland, although Hitler, Göring, and Ribbentrop continued to hope until the evening of the following day that the Poles would change their minds and agree to send an emissary to Berlin. Poland’s own General Kazimierz Sosnkowski, who had formerly been the chief military collaborator of Pilsudski, told allied journalists four years later that it was the Polish general mobilization order which rendered inevitable the German-Polish war. In retrospect, Sosnkowski insisted that Hitler could do nothing further to avert the war after this event.2

The Polish press on August 30, 1939, announced the decision for general mobilization, and it carried an official communiqué from the Polish Government motivating this decision. Foreign Minister Beck, who drafted the communiqué, audaciously insisted to the world that Poland had supported all efforts for peace by Allies or neutrals, but that these efforts had produced no reaction from Germany. The Polish Foreign Office on the morning of August 30th had received a report on the latest developments from Lipski, but Beck did not permit the slightest hint that the Polish Government was actually sabotaging the latest German peace effort by announcing general mobilization. The public statement by Beck contained allegations which were exactly the reverse of the actual situation. Beck claimed that Polish policy since August 25, 1939, conformed to the assurance given to President Roosevelt by President Moscicki. In reality, the Polish Government was violating the pledge to the American President by continuing to disapprove of direct negotiations with the Germans. The military motivation for the Polish step sounded somewhat more plausible to informed persons. The Polish military authorities pointed out that German troop moves in West Slovakia, where German troops had been stationed since March 1939, suggested that Germany was preparing a major front on the Polish left flank. It was allegedly necessary for Poland to call up additional troops in order to cover her extended front with Germany. The explanation of this military factor impressed Hitler, and it prompted him to hope that the mobilization order did not mean that Poland would not negotiate with Germany.3

The latest Polish reservists to be called to the colors were frequently told by their officers that Poland had presented a three hour ultimatum to Germany on August 29th. The purpose of this entirely fanciful ultimatum was supposedly for Germany to change her policy immediately and to renounce aspirations at Danzig. The recruits were told that Hitler had requested 24 hours to consider this ultimatum, and that the Polish Government had generously granted time to him. This caused the imaginary Polish ultimatum to expire on August 30th instead of August 29th. The recruits were told that their Government might have ordered general mobilization one day earlier, on August 29th, had it not [547] been for Hitler’s clever ruse in gaining time for his own preparations. The legend that Poland had postponed her final mobilization measures for one reason or another was extremely convenient. It enabled the Poles to argue later that their poor military showing against Germany resulted exclusively from their devotion to peace, which had prevented their leaders from taking the necessary precautionary military measures in time.4

The Polish press on August 31st offered a wide variety of reasons for general mobilization. The argument about the alleged threatening situation in Slovakia received major emphasis, but there was comment about a new crisis at Danzig which supposedly had influenced the decision of the Government. The other factors mentioned were the need to answer German propaganda, recent border incidents, German troop concentrations in the North, and the alleged refusal of Germany to negotiate with Poland.

Birger Dahlerus arrived at London on the morning of August 30th, shortly before Halifax received confirmation from Kennard that Poland was actually carrying out general mobilization. The Swedish envoy explained recent developments at Berlin to Chamberlain and Halifax in painstaking detail. No Government had ever been informed more promptly or fully of events in a foreign capital during a major crisis. Halifax forwarded the full text of the German reply of August 29th to Secretary of State Hull in Washington, D.C., shortly after listening to Dahlerus.5


Hitler’s Offer of August 30th to Send Proposals to Warsaw

Dahlerus and Göring conversed on the telephone at 12:30 p.m. on August 30th following the conversation of the Swedish envoy with Chamberlain and Halifax. Göring repeated that he was almost certain that Hitler would include the proposition for a plebiscite in the tip of the Corridor in his new proposals to Poland. Dahlerus at the moment was not interested in the details of the tentative German plan. He pointed out that the British were arguing that Hitler was exerting too much pressure on the Poles in seeking to persuade them to consider his negotiation plan. Dahlerus asked Göring if it might not be possible to arrange for Lipski to receive the proposals on August 30th and relay them to Warsaw for further consideration.

Göring personally favored this idea, but he was unable to extend a German commitment without consulting Hitler. It was agreed to resume the telephone conversation after Göring had discussed the situation with the German Chancellor. Göring contacted Dahlerus again at 1:15 p.m. after talking to Hitler. The German Marshal first referred to the German proposals, which were now completed. He assured Dahlerus that they were “fabulous (fabelhaft).” He wished to add that there was no intention at Berlin to submit the terms to the Poles for unconditional acceptance, because these proposals were merely intended as a basis for discussion. He told the Swedish envoy that Hitler had decided to reject the suggestion for Lipski to relay the proposals to Warsaw, because this would not permit any indication that Poland was prepared to negotiate. Hitler was willing to permit a special representative from Poland to “fetch” the proposals and carry them to Warsaw. Hitler believed that this [548 concession would meet any British objections about undue pressure without denying the Poles an opportunity to demonstrate their willingness to negotiate for a peaceful solution.

Hitler’s thoughtful suggestion was both reasonable and extremely practical, and Göring was pleased with this latest development. He believed that this would remove the last British objection to the specific program for negotiations which had been suggested by Hitler. He was amazed when Dahlerus telephoned at 3:00 p.m. that the British did not like Hitler’s new plan, and were insisting that the Germans agree to allow Lipski to go home with the proposals. Hitler’s cogent point that the Poles should also display at least some concrete readiness to negotiate was ignored. Göring was incensed. He declared that he would not discuss this question with Hitler again, and he insisted that a Polish representative must come to Berlin. Göring had been quite proud of the fact that Hitler was willing to go so far in sacrificing the German operational plan and in risking a protracted two-front war in the cause of saving the peace. The British refusal to consider this vitally important concession came to Göring as an unexpected and discouraging blow. At one stroke, Berlin’s optimism was challenged by new doubts and fears. The news about the Polish general mobilization arrived shortly afterward.6

Göring feared that the favorable position of Germany in Europe would be lost by involvement in another senseless war. He had persuaded Hitler to adopt an extraordinarily flexible position toward negotiations with the Poles, and Halifax was aware of this situation. The British Foreign Secretary responded by vaguely suggesting, in instructions to Kennard on the afternoon of August 30th, that Beck should agree in principle to eventual direct negotiations with the Germans, because “no opportunity should be given them for placing the blame for a conflict on Poland.” These instructions indicated that Halifax was unwilling to contemplate a peaceful settlement of the crisis, and that he was merely interested in shifting the blame for a war to Germany. It was simple for Kennard to explain to Beck that Halifax wished for a vague platonic statement rather than an actual Polish commitment to negotiate with Germany.7


Hitler’s Sincerity Conceded by Chamberlain

British Ambassador Henderson at Berlin hoped to forestall a hopeless fiasco by warning the Germans that it might be necessary to wait a little longer for a favorable response to the German negotiation plan. He telephoned Weizsäcker on the morning of August 30th that it was not certain whether or not the British Government could procure a Polish emissary the same day. He attempted to create the impression that everything possible was being done by the British diplomats to prevail on the Poles to negotiate. Henderson was able to inform Ribbentrop at 5:30 p.m. on August 30th that he had received a message for Hitler from Chamberlain. The British Prime Minister wished the German Chancellor to know that the official British reply to the German note of August 29th would reach Berlin before midnight on August 30th. The British Prime Minister recognized that the exchange of views between the German and British Governments during the week since August 23rd indicated that Hitler was [549] genuinely desirous of achieving an Anglo-German understanding. Indeed, this desire on the part of Hitler had been evident to the British leaders for the past six years.8

American Ambassador Kennedy reported from London on August 30th that Chamberlain stubbornly refused to concede that Great Britain could advise the Poles to make concessions to Germany. There was no apparent reason why this should be the case, and, in any event, the main point was not whether the Poles should make concessions, but whether or not they should negotiate at all with Germany. The British Ambassador at Warsaw had advised the Poles not to negotiate with Germany. Otherwise there was nothing in European diplomatic experience which suggested that one ally could not advise another to make concessions. The Russians had not hesitated to advise the French to make concessions to Germany during the Second Moroccan Crisis in 1911, and Pilsudski had advised the French not to retaliate when the Germans revived their system of military conscription in March 1935. Chamberlain admitted to Kennedy that it was the Poles, and not the Germans, who were unreasonable. Kennedy informed President Roosevelt: “frankly he (Chamberlain) is more worried about getting the Poles to be reasonable than the Germans.” It was especially tragic under these circumstances that the British Prime Minister was unwilling to make any effort to influence the Poles.9


Henderson’s Peace Arguments Rejected by Halifax

Soviet Foreign Commissar Molotov was informed by Schulenburg on the morning of August 30th that Germany had requested a Polish emissary, and that it was intended to present reasonable proposals at Berlin for a settlement. The Russians feared that the latest diplomatic effort by Hitler might be successful, and that war between Germany and Poland, and with it very favorable Soviet prospects for westward expansion, might be averted. Stalin decided to reverse his earlier policy of assumed indifference toward the situation in Poland. The Tass news agency, the entire Russian press, and the Russian radio suddenly announced on the afternoon of August 30th that the Soviet Union was massing her armed forces along the Polish frontier. The Russian move was an obvious effort to encourage the Germans to take a stronger line with the Poles. It was announced before word of the general mobilization in Poland was received in Moscow. The Russians also promised to send a military mission, consisting of three Red Army officers and their secretaries, to Berlin on the morning of August 31st. The Germans had earlier waited in vain for some indication about the arrival of the promised military team. The Russian mission, despite the latest Soviet promise, did not actually arrive at Berlin before the outbreak of the German-Polish war.10

Henderson made a number of futile attempts on August 30th to persuade Halifax that a Polish emissary should be sent to Berlin. He reminded Halifax that a Polish diplomat could fly to Berlin from Warsaw m 1 1/2 hours. The British Foreign Secretary refrained from comment, but he informed Henderson that Dahlerus would fly from London to Berlin on the evening of August 30th. He added that the persistent Swede intended to arrive at the British Embassy [550] before 10:30 p.m. with information about the British response to Hitler’s note of the previous day. Halifax carefully avoided giving any impression that the message would contain hopeful news.11

Henderson responded by warning Halifax that outrages against the Germans in Poland were rapidly increasing in number, and that they constituted the most dangerous factor in the existing precarious situation. The British Ambassador suggested that Pope Pius XII would be willing to employ special nuncios in an effort to protect the minority by introducing at least some element of neutral intercession on their behalf. Halifax ignored this suggestion, but he informed Kennard at Warsaw that Great Britain wished to “deprive” Hitler of the excuse of outrages against the German minority as a “pretext” for employing force against Poland. Halifax added that the Polish leader should be urged to maintain “discipline.” This was wasted effort, because Kennard was manifestly unwilling to exert pressure at Warsaw for more decent treatment of the Germans.

Henderson knew that Halifax was not responding effectively to his warnings about the consequences of Polish misconduct against the Germans. The British Ambassador decided to employ an elaborate argument in an effort to influence Halifax. He argued that Hitler’s power thrived on the willingness of the outside world to tolerate and ignore the injustices inflicted on the Germans. He wished Halifax to recognize that Hitler’s position in Germany was being strengthened because of the failure’ to protect the German minority in Poland. He claimed that it would be in the interest of Great Britain to intervene energetically on behalf of the minority, and to promote the settlement of the Corridor problem and the return of Danzig to Germany. Henderson suspected that Halifax sympathized with the suggestion of President Roosevelt “to get the German army and nation to revolt against the intolerable government of Herr Hitler.” Henderson advised Halifax that ideological warfare against Hitler would always remain ineffective unless Great Britain was at last willing to demonstrate that she favored fair and reasonable conditions for the German people.

Henderson hoped to influence Halifax by reassuring him that he entertained no animosity toward Poland. He sought to excuse the intransigence of the Poles, which had been much in evidence since the first Polish ultimatum to Czechoslovakia in October 1938. The British Ambassador suggested that perhaps the Poles had rejected the German proposals in March 1939 because they had been alarmed by the pro-German course of Slovakia or the German success at Memel, rather than because they failed to recognize the intrinsic merit of the German offer. Henderson hoped to be absolved from the possible Chargé that he was one-sided in his approach, or failed to sympathize with the Poles. His various arguments failed to produce any effect, because Halifax was not interested in the attitude of Henderson toward Poland, and he was definitely hostile toward the project of restricting his campaign against Germany to mere ideological warfare. Halifax wished to discredit Hitler by forcing him to shed German blood in a disastrous war which would end in the defeat and ruination of Germany. Halifax believed that the sole effective method of opposing Hitler was to kill as many Germans as possible. He had employed clever propaganda to convert the majority of his countrymen to the same opinion.12

[551]
A Peaceful Settlement Favored in France

The situation in France was entirely different. The French press on August 30, 1939, revealed a far greater interest in preserving peace than in killing Germans. Marcel Pays, the editor of L‘Escelsior, pointed out that there would be a good chance for an agreement between Germany and Poland if the British could be prevailed upon to secure the consent of Poland to negotiations. Lucien Bourgues complained in Le Petit Parisien that the issue of peace or war was in doubt because the British were not going far enough in urging a peaceful settlement. Le Jour and L ‘Echo de Paris agreed that no chance for peace should be missed, no extended hand should be rejected, and no effort should be made to humiliate Germany. Yves Morvan reported for Le Journal from London that Hitler had been moderate and reasonable in his recent talks with the British and French envoys at Berlin. Le Figaro insisted that Hitler’s hesitation during the past six days was “an example of reason” rather than mere “caution, fear, or weakness.” Edith Bricon of La Republique deplored the fatalism about war in England and Poland, and she insisted upon the need to repeat to everyone concerned that possibilities for a peaceful solution of the German-Polish problem still existed. Rene Gounin reminded the readers of La Justice that France was as ready as ever to negotiate with Germany. Genevieve Tabouis, who had advocated intransigence or even war in many previous crises, predicted that Mussolini would resolve the current crisis by presenting a successful conference plan at the last minute.13

French Foreign Minister Bonnet was shocked to learn that the Poles had proceeded to order general mobilization despite his efforts to restrain them. He continued to insist that the Poles send an envoy to Berlin. He requested Halifax to consider a plan to reduce tension by suggesting the withdrawal of German and Polish troops from the positions which both sides were occupying at the frontier. Bonnet failed to enlist the support of Halifax for this proposition, and he discovered that his various measures to influence the Poles were not effective without British support. He could not fail to note the contrast between his own efforts to improve the situation, and the almost complete inaction of Halifax. 14

French Ambassador Coulondre made a further effort at Berlin on August 30th to impress Lipski with the seriousness of the situation. The French diplomat informed his Polish colleague of the full details about the narrow margin by which Hitler had succeeded in cancelling German military operations against Poland on August 25th and 26th. He insisted to Lipski that there was great internal opposition in Germany to war against France and Great Britain, and that a small amount of conciliation from the Polish side might make it possible to exploit this situation in order to avoid war. Coulondre suggested that the situation might still be saved if Lipski, in his capacity as Ambassador, would request the German proposals for relay to Warsaw. The French diplomat admitted that the Germans were insisting on a special Polish envoy, but he argued that the internal opposition to war was so great that Hitler might well decide to make the best of the situation, and to give the proposals to Lipski. Coulondre added that there would be no hope at all unless something was done from the Polish side in response to Hitler’s offer. The foreign diplomats at Berlin [552] were in agreement that there was tremendous opposition to war in Germany. American Chargé d’Affaires Alexander C. Kirk flatly asserted in a report to President Roosevelt at 1:00 p.m. on the following day that the German people, like the American people, were opposed to war. 15


The Unfavorable British Note of August 30th

Halifax sent fateful instructions to Henderson at 6:50 p.m. on August 30, 1939, which virtually destroyed the last chance of avoiding a German-Polish war. These instructions contained the British reply to the German note of August 29th. The British leaders categorically rejected Hitler’s proposal that they advise the Poles to send a representative to Berlin for direct German-Polish negotiations. Halifax, who had not consulted Warsaw in this important matter, condemned the German proposal, “which is wholly unreasonable.” It was the unpleasant duty of Henderson to tell Hitler, when the hour of midnight struck, that Great Britain flatly refused to advise the Polish Government to comply with the German plan. Lipski later recalled that the Polish diplomats correctly concluded after this British decision that Kennard at Warsaw occupied a far stronger position in influencing British policy than did Henderson at Berlin.16

Halifax advised Kennard in the vaguest of terms that the Poles should be encouraged to contemplate eventual negotiations with the Germans. He explicitly informed him that Great Britain would never request Beck to formulate actual proposals for an agreement with the Germans. The British had applied pressure on the Poles to accept the penetration of Poland by Soviet troops ten days earlier, but they refused to exert pressure on Poland to resume direct negotiations with Germany. This appears especially grotesque when one recalls that the Poles considered the Soviet Union to be their principal enemy, and that Halifax had taken the lead in assuring Germany that Poland was prepared to resume negotiations.

Göring had sent Dahlerus to London on August 30th to explain carefully point by point Hitler’s reply of August 29th. The German Marshal, after the shock produced by his unsatisfactory telephone conversation with London at 3:00 p.m., received additional advance information that the British response of August 30th would be unfavorable. Dahlerus reported on the early evening of August 30th, after discussing the situation with the British leaders, that “it was obvious that by that time the British Government had become highly mistrustful, and rather inclined to assume that whatever efforts they might make, nothing would now prevent Hitler from declaring war on Poland.” It was difficult to understand their mistrust, because they had received an uninterrupted series of encouraging statements about Hitler’s attitude from Henderson and Dahlerus. It was perfectly obvious from the German note of August 29th that Hitler preferred a peaceful settlement with Poland rather than war. The British leaders, in taking this position with Dahlerus, were claiming that they should sit with their hands in their laps and do nothing. There was not the slightest justification for this attitude. They quickly recovered their capacity for action when it became a question of extending a local German-Polish war [553] into a general European war. It appeared that British diplomacy in 1939 was exclusively preoccupied with preparing and promoting war, and that it immediately ceased to function when confronted with the task of protecting the peace.17

Halifax had considered and rejected an alternative proposition prior to despatching his unpromising instructions to Henderson at 6:50 p.m. on August 30th. The plan which Halifax rejected consisted of advice to the Germans to forward their proposals to the German Embassy at Warsaw in order to seek contact for negotiations at that point. Halifax concluded that this suggestion would be too great a concession to the Germans. He merely instructed Henderson to inform Hitler that Warsaw was exercising restraint and that Poland was calm. Henderson knew only too well that this assertion reflected unrealistic reports from Kennard rather than information from reliable neutral sources, but it was his duty to present it to Hitler as the official attitude of His Britannic Majesty’s Government.

Halifax professed to fear that Hitler’s recent proposals for an Anglo-German understanding would have unfavorable repercussions for Great Britain. He wired Henderson that an Anglo-German alliance was not a feasible subject for practical politics, and he warned him not to mention it as a remote possibility. Halifax was aware of the earlier remark Henderson had made to Hitler about the need for patience in the effort to win Great Britain for an alliance, and he knew that his latest instructions denying the remote possibility of such an alliance would be a distinct disappointment to the British Ambassador. Halifax explained that reference to a possible alliance might “create the worst possible impression in the United States and all friendly countries.” It was evident that Halifax was no longer including Germany among the friendly countries, although he knew that there was no war between Germany and Poland, and that Hitler was seeking an understanding with Great Britain. Halifax merely informed Henderson that in principle the British were willing to conclude ordinary treaties with Germany, and that this would remain the attitude of the British Government as long as there was no actual Anglo-German war.

The British Embassy in Berlin was inundated at this time by Germans of all descriptions and from all walks of life. Henderson was swamped with assurances that the German people did not want war. The British Ambassador was told that there was fear and confusion in German military circles at the prospect of a general war. Other people assured him that they would continue to sympathize with Great Britain no matter what happened as a result of the present British stand. These people did not suspect that the man to whom they were confessing their anxiety no longer had the slightest influence over British policy. Henderson would have helped them by negotiating an understanding with Germany had he been in a position to do so, but he had realized for several days that he was powerless. 18

No one in the position of the British Ambassador could be blamed for desisting from further efforts to prevent war, but Henderson never stopped trying. It is this fact, combined with his unquestionable British patriotism and his determination to stand by his own country through thick and thin, regardless of the dreadful blunders of the British leaders, that make his mission to Berlin a study in courage. He tried every possible tactic to persuade Chamberlain to [554] express his own views, and to encourage the British Prime Minister to resume leadership at the British Foreign Office before it was too late. He made a special effort to convince the British leaders that he had always been firm with Hitler, and he recalled that he had bombarded Hitler with arguments and answers in the conversation of August 28th, which had apparently turned out very favorably for Great Britain.

Halifax continued to advise Chamberlain to ignore the complaints of Henderson and others about the attitude and policies of Poland. He received a very useful letter from Count Raczynski on August 30th. The Polish Government in this letter solemnly swore that no persecution of the German minority was taking place in Poland. The American journalist, WL. White, later recalled that there was no doubt among well-informed persons by this time that horrible atrocities were being inflicted every day on the Germans of Poland. The pledge from Raczynski had about as much validity as the civil liberties guaranteed by the 1936 constitution of the Soviet Union.19

It was clever of Halifax to claim that further intimate Anglo-German conversations would displease President Roosevelt. Chamberlain had been severely criticized for failing to respond favorably to an impractical proposal from Roosevelt, in January 1938, for a grandiose diplomatic conference, which would not only have failed to commit the United States to the British imperialistic program, but undoubtedly would have weakened the effort of Chamberlain to increase British influence in Italy. Lord Lothian had succeeded Sir Ronald Lindsay as British Ambassador to the United States. Lothian, like Henderson at Berlin, favored a peaceful understanding with Germany, but he was a disciplined diplomat who subordinated his own personal views to the requirements of Halifax’s war policy. The new British Ambassador was destined to play a more active role behind the scenes of American politics than any previous British diplomat. Lothian confirmed Lindsay’s judgment that there was “nothing neutral” about Roosevelt’s attitude. The American President insisted that “the most serious danger from the standpoint of American public opinion would be if it formed the conclusion that Herr Hitler was entangling the British Government in negotiations leading to pressure on Poland by England and France to abandon vital interests.” It was obvious to Lothian that Roosevelt wanted war in Europe.20

The American President knew that a diplomatic settlement of the European crisis would extinguish his own plans for American military aggression in Europe. Lord Lothian assured Halifax that the partisanship of Roosevelt extended to the minute details. Roosevelt intended to urge the belligerents at the outbreak of the expected war not to bombard civilians, because he hoped in this way to protect Warsaw, one of the Allied capitals. Lothian knew that Roosevelt would never object to a later effort by Great Britain to massacre the civilian population of Germany by means of mass bombing attacks. Roosevelt confided to Lothian that his primary objective at the moment was to evade American neutrality legislation after the outbreak of war. He was intent on renewing the struggle in the American Congress to remove the legal embargo on war material. He promised that he would refuse to admit from the very start of hostilities that aluminum sheets for airplanes were “aeroplane parts” or that airplane engine blocks had anything to do with airplanes. [555] Lothian confirmed the report of his predecessor that Roosevelt was delighted at the prospect of a new World War. This warlike attitude of Roosevelt was exploited by Halifax in adducing artificial arguments for closing the door on further negotiations with Hitler. There was actually no reason to fear that President Roosevelt would be in a position to cause trouble for Great Britain in the event of a negotiated settlement in Europe. The American President did not have the support of Congress or public opinion for his aggressive foreign policy, and he was nearing the end of his final presidential term, final according to the sacrosanct political tradition established by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. It was obvious that he would need a crisis of the greatest dimensions, such as a big war in Europe to campaign successfully for further terms of office. It would have been easy for the British Government to improve relations with a more conciliatory successor had war been averted and had Roosevelt been defeated in the American election of 1940.21


The Absence of Trade Rivalry as a Factor for War

Halifax hoped that the British reply to Germany on August 30, 1939, would end the current negotiations for an Anglo-German agreement and for a diplomatic settlement of the Polish dispute. Halifax was clearly intent upon closing the door, because he believed that the British balance of power policy required the destruction of Germany. The issue was not confused as it had been in 1914 by the further consideration that the expansion of German trade was a threat to the British economy, although the British undoubtedly did fear that the example of the successful social and domestic economic policies of Germany would create discontent among their own underprivileged masses. This was no different from previous concern about the impact of the American standard of living on the British masses. The German successes at home were achieved despite the fact that there was a very serious decline in German foreign trade during 1938 and 1939.

German trade with Italy declined sharply in 1938 because of a deliberate attempt by the Italian Government to reduce imports from Germany. German exports to Italy were 35 million RM (Reichsmarks) short of expectations, although 32,000 Italian agricultural workers and 20,000 Italian industrial workers found employment in Germany during this period. The combined exports of Austria and the rest of Germany to Hungary were 20 million RM less in 1938 than in 1937. Germany was unable to attain the trade level with Spain in 1938 and 1939 which she had enjoyed before the Spanish Civil War in 1936. German trade with Great Britain and India declined rapidly in 1938 and early 1939. Trade with the United States was made difficult by an unfavorable balance and by annual German payments on public and private loans from the Weimar period, although interest payments on the Dawes loan were reduced from 7 to 5% and on the Young loan from 5 1/2 to 4 1/5 %. Total German exports to the United States in 1938 were only 150 million RM, and German trade with Latin America declined by 4% during the same year. German trade with Switzerland, a nation of four million people, was greater than with the entire United States, but German trade with the Swiss declined in 1938. French [556] importation of German coal was sharply reduced in 1938, although Germany continued to import the same amount of French iron ore, despite the burden on German currency reserves. German trade with Belgium was about twice as great as with France, but the volume of the Belgian trade also declined in the latter part of 1938. Holland took about 8.3% of total German exports in 1938, but increasing Dutch protectionism produced a decline in trade toward the end of the year.

Great Britain was the principal trading partner of both Denmark and Norway, and there was a slight decline in the German share of Scandinavian trade in 1938. The Germans gained in trade with Finland, where the British also enjoyed the first place, but they were subjected to increasing pressure from British and American competition in Sweden. The Germans in 1938 managed to maintain their earlier level of trade with Turkey and Iran, but there was a decline of German trade with Japan. The total German trade in 1938 declined 10% from the 1937 level. There was also a major reduction of total world trade, caused primarily by the decline in American trade and production following the American recession of 1937, but British trade gained substantially at the expense of German trade in the world markets. The German economists were not seriously worried by this development because of the continuing expansion of the rich German internal market during the same period. Nevertheless, it was impossible for the British to claim with any honesty that German trade competition was forcing them out of the markets of the world.22

The German trade deficit with Italy and Hungary increased in 1939. German trade with the Balkan area remained roughly stationary, although there was an increase in German-Rumanian trade after the conclusion of the March 1939 trade pact. This resulted partly from the fact that Germany purchased Rumanian wheat above the world market price. German exports to the United States were subjected to a new 25% tariff penalty after April 23, 1939, on the ground that they were subsidized, which they had to be to meet previous tariff penalties. British and American competition against Germany in Latin America was especially effective, and German trade with the area declined an additional 30% during the early months of 1939. German efforts to negotiate improved trading agreements with Great Britain and France were rejected by the latter countries in March 1939. German exports to France had declined 32% below the 1938 level by April 1, 1939, and this trend continued despite the French economic boom which began in November 1938. The Dutch Government on March 1, 1939, increased tariff duties on German imports by more than 50%. The level of trade with Scandinavia remained roughly stationary in 1939, with a light increase of trade with Sweden and a decline in the Finnish trade. German imports from Poland increased throughout this period, but exports to Poland declined. There was also a major decline in German trade with Egypt, and a continuing decline of trade with Japan.

The Poles on April 15, 1939, announced that Polish agricultural laborers would not be permitted to go to Germany for the harvest, although 70,000 Polish migrant workers had helped to bring in the German sugar beets and potatoes in 1938. The continuing decline of German foreign trade convinced the German economists that it was necessary to reduce the importation of foreign raw materials to Germany. They were not particularly worried by this [557] development because the exploitation of previously untapped natural resources within Germany, and the production of German factories for substitute raw materials, made it possible at home to provide for many of the raw material needs which had previously been met from abroad. The principal worry of the Germans was the domestic labor shortage. The Germans had planned to expand the export of German domestic sugar in 1939, but this scheme was frustrated by the increasing consumer demand on the home market.

The German economists noted that the British share of total world trade continued to increase in 1939. They knew that there was no basis for British resentment of German trade competition in 1938 and 1939, and they had made it clear at London before March 1939 that Germany was prepared to discuss compromise agreements on questions pertaining to currency and international financial practices. It was obvious, therefore, in 1939, in sharp contrast to 1914, that economic factors were not an important consideration in explaining British hostility toward Germany.23


The Tentative German Marienwerder Proposals

Hitler placed high hopes in the news that the British Government intended to reply to his note of the previous day, before midnight on August 30th. He had ordered the German military commanders to be prepared for possible operations against Poland by dawn on August 31st, but he declined to issue a new order for actual military operations against Poland. Hitler explained to General Walther von Brauchitsch and General Wilhelm Keitel, at the new Chancellery, on the evening of August 30th, that under no circumstances would he permit operations against the Poles before September 1st, the final deadline for military action under the “Operation White” plan. He expressed the hope that a Polish emissary would be sent to Berlin, and that there would be no need at all to go to war against the Poles.24

Henderson was received by Ribbentrop at midnight on August 30th. The fatal British note which Ribbentrop read at once began as follows: “His Majesty’s Government repeat that they reciprocate the German Government s desire for improved relations, but it will be recognized that they could not sacrifice the interests of other friends in order to obtain that improvement.” The British note displayed no interest whatever in persuading the Poles to negotiate with Germany. The German Foreign Minister studied the British reply with dismay. He informed Henderson after reading the text that the German Government had prepared proposals for a diplomatic settlement with Poland, but that there could be no basis for these proposals without the presence of a Polish emissary at Berlin. Germany had received no indication from either Great Britain or Poland that the leaders at Warsaw intended to negotiate, although Hitler had requested the Poles to send an emissary to Berlin on August 30th. Ribbentrop repeated that this suggestion was not an ultimatum, and that its urgency had been dictated by the prevailing circumstances.

The German Foreign Minister proceeded to read slowly and clearly the sixteen points of the German proposals to Poland, and to explain each one of them in detail. The fallacy of the wartime legend about proposals read [558] indistinctly at top speed was exposed after 1945. The German points were comprehensive and formulated with great care. They called for the return of Danzig to the Reich on the basis of self-determination, and for a plebiscite to be held in the Corridor region north of a line running westward from Marienwerder in East Prussia to Schoenlanke in Pomerania. The Germans suggested a plebiscite in this area after an interim of twelve months following the hoped-for agreement with Poland. Option would be extended to all Germans, Cassubians, and Poles who had been living in the area on January 1, 1918, or who had been born there before that time. The proposals derived their name from Marienwerder, the eastern point on the suggested plebiscite line.

The Cassubians were a West Slavic people who felt proudly independent of the Poles. They were a remnant from the old Slavic tribes who had occupied the territory between the Poles and the Baltic Sea during the centuries following the westward migrations of the early German tribes. They were mainly farmers, and they were divided into seventy-six small dialect groups. Their proverb during the period of Polish rule, that even the rain was better in German days, is eloquent testimony of their individuality. The Cassubians in the proposed plebiscite region were far less numerous in 1918 than the Germans or the Poles, but they could be counted upon to swell the German vote in any plebiscite .25

The plebiscite region in the interim was to be occupied by Russian, British, French, and Italian troops. All taxes raised in the area during this period would be divided between local needs and support for the international occupation. If the Germans lost the plebiscite. which was to be decided by a simple majority, they would be granted an extra-territorial connection with East Prussia along the lines of their October 1938 proposal. This would entail an extra-territorial corridor over the Corridor 5/8 of a mile in width. The holding of this plebiscite would rectify the injustice of the Treaty of Versailles in permitting the transfer of this territory to Poland in the first place without consulting the local inhabitants.

If the Poles lost the plebiscite, they would be granted an identical connection with Gdynia. The hinterland of Gdynia would be decided by an international commission, and it would be excluded from the plebiscite area as inalienable Polish territory. The Germans requested the demilitarization, except for naval craft, of Danzig, Gdynia, and the Hela peninsula. They requested a mutual Polish-German agreement to protect the rights of the respective minorities. An international tribunal would be established to guarantee the efficacy of this scheme. It would have final jurisdiction in the consideration of appeals. The sixteenth point suggested that Poland and Germany should examine additional means of securing friendly cooperation. The total extent of the area involved in the German proposals, including the Free City of Danzig and the plebiscite zone, amounted to only one-tenth of the region that Germany had surrendered in the East to Poland and the League of Nations after World War I.26

Ribbentrop read the proposals to Henderson in German, because the British Ambassador had earlier requested that the German Foreign Minister speak German rather than English in their various discussions. The excellent German interpreter, Dr. Paul Schmidt, was present to clear up possible linguistic misunderstandings. Schmidt was startled when Henderson asked if he might be [559] permitted to have a copy of the proposals, after Ribbentrop had read the points and had completed his commentary. The interpreter had assumed that the text would be presented to Henderson as a matter of course. He was forgetting that the proposals were addressed to the Poles, and that the British were refusing to cooperate in establishing contact between Germany and Poland. Henderson was quite correct in placing a formal request for the text.

Schmidt noted to his further surprise that Ribbentrop was acutely embarrassed. The German Foreign Minister replied with a faint smile, “No, I can’t give you these proposals.” Henderson repeated his request and received the same answer. Ribbentrop had been instructed by Hitler to give the proposals to Henderson if the British offered some indication that the Poles would negotiate, but there had been no such indication. The point was a technical one, but Ribbentrop did not wish to displease Hitler by exceeding his instructions in this important matter. Schmidt hoped that Henderson would ask him to repeat the proposals in English translation. It would have been simple to proceed from this point to draft an English copy of the terms. He tried to catch the attention of the British Ambassador without actively intervening in the discussion. This was a ticklish business, and Schmidt was unsuccessful. He realized that it would be a gross violation of his position as interpreter were he to interrupt the two diplomats by making some remark. Henderson was unable to divine the purpose of the subtle facial gestures made by the interpreter.27

It was virtually impossible for Henderson to comprehend all the points of the detailed German plan from one reading and commentary. This was not because the British diplomat was deficient in the German language. The German plan was a long one, and there had been a heated discussion. Henderson wondered if Ribbentrop would consider the possibility that some of the violence against the Germans in Poland had actually resulted from German acts of espionage or even sabotage. Ribbentrop had deplored this unnecessary quibbling, and he had earnestly exclaimed that the situation was “damnably serious.” Henderson had the temerity to retort excitedly that such language was not fitting for a statesman on such a serious occasion. Ribbentrop in turn was far from pleased by this puritanical remark. The situation was tragic, because both diplomats sincerely desired a diplomatic settlement, and they were equally frustrated by the inexplicably negative British reply to the German note of August 29th.

Schmidt was briefly alarmed that Ribbentrop might reject the puritanical comment of the British Ambassador about language by forcibly ejecting him from the room. Schmidt had never encountered any acts of violence during his long association with Ribbentrop, and his momentary sensation of fear indicates the pitch of excitement which prevailed during this conference. Schmidt realized that Henderson was more nervous and ill at ease than he had ever seen him before. It was not surprising that the conference between the two men ended on an unsatisfactory note.28

Göring was much alarmed by the outcome of this conference, and he obtained immediate permission from Hitler for Henderson to receive the full text of the German proposals. Dahlerus slowly read the text over the telephone to Ogilvie-Forbes at the British Embassy shortly after 1:00 am. on August 31st. Henderson hastened to visit Lipski. He urged the Polish Ambassador to request the German Government to give him the proposals for relay to Warsaw. Lipski [560] pointed out that he was not in favor at Warsaw, and that he had no instructions from Beck to do this. He flatly refused to exercise an independent initiative, which, without doubt, would have brought him into a Polish concentration camp when he returned to Warsaw.29

Henderson wired Halifax at 9:15 a.m. on August 31st that he had received information from the best possible authority that if nothing happened within the next few hours, Germany would declare war against Poland. This desperate warning was followed by a telegram from Kennard, who expressed his satisfaction that Great Britain had refused to exert pressure at Warsaw and had entered into no commitments with Germany. Beck had announced that he would consult the Polish Government to discover if, in their opinion, there was any point at all in merely agreeing in principle to direct negotiations with the Germans. The Poles, were they to make this gesture, would merely reiterate the statement made by President Moscicki in his reply to President Roosevelt on August 25, 1939. Events had amply indicated that this statement was devoid of any real meaning. Beck advised Kennard that he would be prepared to make some sort of statement to the British Government by noon on August 31st. Kennard assured Halifax that Beck would do nothing to reach an understanding with the Germans.30

Dahlerus accompanied Henderson and Ogilvie-Forbes to the Polish Embassy in Berlin at 10:00 a.m. on August 3 1st. Dahlerus carried his copy of the German proposals, and he read them to Lipski in German. The Swedish engineer received the impression that the Polish Ambassador did not grasp their import, and he left the room to dictate a copy of the note to a Polish secretary. Henderson in the meantime telephoned Weizsäcker at the German Foreign Office that he was advising the Polish Ambassador to negotiate with Germany, and he called this his personal démarche at Warsaw. He proceeded to explain to Lipski that the German proposals offered an excellent basis for a settlement between Germany and Poland. He added that it might still be possible to save the situation if Lipski would agree to receive them.31

The Polish diplomat by this time was in despair. He had ceased to have any influence in Warsaw since Ribbentrop had convinced him in March 1939 that his Government should negotiate on the basis of the October 1938 proposals. He had not been able to persuade Beck to withdraw him from Berlin despite months of effort to arrange his own recall. Finally, Lipski exclaimed to Henderson in great agitation that he “had no reason to negotiate with the German Government. If it came to war between Poland and Germany, he knew—since he had lived 5 ½ years in Germany—that a revolution would break out in Germany, and that they would march on Berlin.” Henderson shook his head sadly. He knew that there was no longer any point in discussing the current situation with the Polish Ambassador.32

Attolico called on Weizsäcker at 11:30 a.m. on August 31st to deliver a message to the German leaders from Mussolini. The Italian Government was advising London the same morning that Poland should demonstrate her good will by agreeing to permit Danzig to return to Germany. The Italian leader believed that the remainder of the problem could be solved through bilateral negotiations between Poland and Germany. Mussolini, who was not adequately informed about the existing situation, had received the impression from London [561] that Poland had agreed to negotiations. He was soon informed by Mackensen that conditions were entirely different that he had supposed. The Marienwerder proposals were sent to Mackensen in Rome at 10:53 am. on August 31st, shortly before the visit of Attolico at the German Foreign Office. Mussolini was impressed with the German plan for a settlement, and he instructed Attolico to advise the German leaders to receive Lipski as a last means of establishing contact. Ribbentrop and Attcxlico discussed the message on the afternoon of August 31st. The German Foreign Minister assured Attolico that the German leaders were as eager to receive the Polish Ambassador on August 31st as they had been on the previous day.33

Kennard informed Halifax on the afternoon of August 31st that Beck had formally expressed his gratitude for the British decision not to respond in any way to the German proposals. French Foreign Minister Bonnet found the dilatory tactics of the Poles unjustifiable and inexplicable. He insisted to Halifax that a joint step should be taken by Great Britain and France to demand that the Poles do something to help save the peace of Europe. The British Foreign Secretary had no desire to save European peace, but he was worried about the French attitude. He calculated that he could make a gesture toward cooperating with the French without running any great risk that the Poles would do something favorable. He instructed Kennard to join Noël in requesting that the Poles notify the Germans of their willingness to accept direct negotiations. Kennard and Noël accordingly called on Beck in the early afternoon of August 31st and requested that Lipski be authorized to receive the German proposals officially and to relay them to Warsaw for consideration. Kennard was pleased to note that Beck replied evasively that he was not prepared to respond to this request.34

Beck had actually dispatched instructions to Lipski shortly before noon to accept no proposals and to enter into no negotiations with the German Government. This telegram had been intercepted and immediately decoded by Göring’s special investigation office. Göring realized at once that the situation was hopeless unless something could be done to change the Polish attitude. He wished the British to know about the Beck telegram because he believed that they might respond by exerting pressure at Warsaw. Göring willingly gave away the fact that Germany possessed Poland’s diplomatic code when he showed the text of this Polish telegram to Dahlerus. The Swedish engineer was shocked by the intransigence of Beck, and he noted that the Germans in turn were extremely agitated by Beck’s communication to Lipski.35

The German response to the Polish refusal to negotiate was swift and decisive. Hitler, despite his many worries about the future, could act with a clear conscience. He had offered to negotiate a moderate settlement with the Poles despite months of Polish provocations and savage persecution of the Germans in Poland. It was impossible to deny that he had turned the other cheek to Poland. The Polish refusal to discuss a settlement with Germany on any terms was [562] insulting. The offer to negotiate was actually an offer for an armistice, because there had been no real peace between the two countries for many months. Hitler had waited as long as possible without jeopardizing permanently the German operational plan, but he had told his Generals that he would continue to wait if there was at least some favorable gesture from Poland. There was no point in sacrificing the plan when it became evident that a negotiated settlement was clearly impossible without the employment of military sanctions to chastise the Poles.

Hitler did not desire war with Poland, but it was impossible for one nation to keep the peace by means of her own efforts alone. He issued the final attack order at forty minutes past noon, on August 31st. The operations could not conceivably be cancelled again later than 9:30 p.m. on the same day, because the beginning of operations was set for dawn on September 1st. Hitler introduced his order with the following statement: “Now that all the political possibilities of disposing by peaceful means of a situation on the Eastern Frontier which is intolerable for Germany are exhausted, I have determined on a solution by force.” Hitler was deeply concerned about the attitude of the Western Powers. He hoped that Polish intransigence would prompt them to reconsider their own policies, but it was impossible to assume that this would actually be the case. He advised the military men: “It is important that the responsibility for the opening of hostilities (in the West) should rest unequivocally with England and France. At first purely local action should be taken against insignificant frontier violations. The neutrality assured by us to Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg, and Switzerland should be scrupulously observed.” Hitler added, “if England and France open hostilities against Germany, the task of those sections of the Armed Forces which are operating in the West is to uphold…those conditions necessary for the successful conclusion of operations against Poland.”36


Beck’s Argument with Pope Pius XII

Beck was not disturbed by the Anglo-French démarche on August 31st. He recognized that the British were participating in the French step as a mere matter of form. He was experiencing formidable difficulties with Papal Nuncio Cortesi in Warsaw. Poland and her people were staunchly Catholic, and the Poles had long enjoyed special favor at the Vatican. Pope Pius XII was intent upon saving the Polish people from the fatal policies of their leaders. The Pope had been elected by the College of Cardinals in March 1939 primarily because of his great diplomatic experience, and because it was hoped that he could exert a major influence for peace in European diplomatic relations. The Pope had been stationed as a Vatican diplomatic representative in Munich at the time of the Communist atrocities and Communist dictatorship there in 1919. He feared with good reason that any new European war would lead to the growth of Communism throughout Europe, and he had not the slightest doubt that Poland would be defeated in a war against Germany.37

The Pope had launched a major peace effort in May 1939, and he had [563] rejected with indignation an appeal from the Archbishop of Canterbury to earn the alleged gratitude of the Anglican, Protestant, and Greek Orthodox Christians by condemning the policies of Hitler. Instead, the Pope ostentatiously welcomed the victory of General Franco in Spain in May 1939. The Pope recognized as early as May 1939 that Poland was the primary threat to peace, because the British could not attack Germany unless the Poles were willing to serve as a pawn. Beck at that time flatly rejected the tentative proposal of the Pope for an international conference by declaring that “Poland could not accept as binding for her the opinion of other powers regarding the questions which had arisen between Poland and Germany.”38

The Pope persuaded Admiral Nicholas Horthy, the Protestant Regent of Hungary, to deliver a speech on June 14, 1939, urging that the Powers accept papal good offices in settling the German-Polish dispute. This maneuver was aimed primarily at Poland, because of the intimate relations between Poland and Hungary. Pius XII appealed to the world on August 24, 1939, not to go to war over Danzig. He requested the envoys of Great Britain, France, Italy, Poland, and Germany to appear for an audience at the Vatican Palace on August 31, 1939. Dr. Kazimierz Papee, the Polish envoy at the Vatican, was unable to assure the Pope that Poland would negotiate with Germany. The Pope had feared that this would be the case. He responded by instructing Cortesi in Warsaw to urge Beck to accept negotiations with the Germans on the basis of the Marienwerder proposals, with which the Pope already was familiar. A furious scene followed between Beck and Cortesi, which surpassed the verbal duel between Ribbentrop and Henderson on the previous night. Beck angrily charged that the papal nuncio was working for the Germans. He complained that Pope Pius XII was ordering him to surrender to Germany. Cortesi was unable to calm the excited Polish diplomat. Beck later recalled that no single development during the final phase of the crisis caused him so much irritation as the persistent but unsuccessful effort of Pope Pius XII to persuade him to negotiate with the Germans and to accept the Marienwerder proposals. It was supremely tragic that there was a complete absence of similar activity from the British side. One need only imagine the situation had Henderson been at Warsaw with the support and confidence of Chamberlain.39



Italian Mediation Favored by Bonnet

The promising atmosphere created by the German acceptance of the British note of August 28th was entirely destroyed by the afternoon of August 31st. The spell of promise in Hitler’s attempt to negotiate with the Poles was fading, and the Italians were responding by returning to their earlier project for an international conference. The British Ambassador at Rome had transmitted the British reply of August 30th to Ciano at 2:45 A.M. on August 31st. Attolico reported shortly afterward that Henderson had received the text of the German sixteen points almost immediately after his midnight conference with Ribbentrop. The situation was not entirely clear to Ciano, but he received a warning at Rome from Attolico at 9:04 A.M. on August 31st that war would come [364] within a few hours unless some new step was taken.40

Ciano telephoned Halifax in London at 11:00 A.M. on August 31st that Attolico had reported on the gravity of the situation. Ciano did not realize that there was no longer much hope for direct German-Polish negotiations, and he urged the British to exert pressure on the Poles to negotiate. He promised that Mussolini would use his influence to encourage Hitler to maintain patience with Poland. Halifax neglected to inform Ciano that Great Britain was unwilling to exert pressure at Warsaw.41

French Ambassador François-Poncet reported to Bonnet from Rome at noon on August 31st that Mussolini was still convinced peace might be saved if the Poles would not object to the return of Danzig to Germany. The report from Rome encouraged Bonnet, who was inclined to place his last hope for peace on a successful Italian mediation effort. Raffaele Guariglia, the Italian Ambassador in Paris, reported to Ciano a short time later that France could be relied upon to provide strong support for an Italian mediation effort. He confided that there was a widespread impression in French official circles that British prestige was more at stake in the Danzig crisis than the prestige of France. He added that discontent with British policy was increasing rapidly in France. He believed that it would be possible to exploit this sentiment with great success, if the Italian Government was able to introduce some new positive factor into the situation at this point. Ciano knew that his Ambassador at Paris enjoyed excellent relations with Bonnet.42

Guariglia was a distinguished career diplomat who had entered the Italian diplomatic service in 1909, many years before Mussolini was appointed Premier of Italy in 1922. He received a favorable treatment in much of the French press when he arrived at Paris as Italian Ambassador in November 1938. L’Ordre, on November 28, 1938, and Europe Nouvelle, on December 3,1938, claimed that the appointment of Guariglia was proof that Mussolini regarded France as the focal point of European diplomacy. Guariglia was a shrewd observer, and he was particularly concerned about counteracting the warmongering activities of American Ambassador Bullitt. He regarded this task as his special province. The Italian diplomat was convinced that the campaign of Roosevelt and Bullitt to promote a European war was exclusively in the interest of the Soviet Union. He believed that Halifax was equally blind to the true interests of Great Britain in his far more dangerous role of actually leading a formidable movement to destroy Germany.

Guariglia knew that the sudden popularity of Beck in Poland after March 1939 rested exclusively on the British guarantee, although the British were in no position to offer actual military assistance to Poland. He deplored the fact that Polish illusions about their future greatness were not affected by the Russo-German pact of August 23, 1939. Guariglia believed that France was having difficulty escaping from the British encirclement front because she was in “a sad stupor.” General Gamelin told Guariglia on August 26, 1939, that he was placing his hopes in a successful Italian mediation effort, but the same French military leader had failed to support Bonnet’s initiative to modify French obligations to Poland three days earlier. Guariglia was convinced that the French position was the key to war or peace in Europe. He hoped that Ciano would adopt a strong line in encouraging the French leaders to return to [565] a foreign policy independent of British tutelage.43


The Marienwerder Proposals Defended by Henderson

Henderson continued to advise Halifax throughout the afternoon of August 31st that the German proposals to Poland were moderate, and that they offered an excellent basis for negotiation. The British Foreign Secretary was not impressed by the many appeals for peace which he was receiving from Paris, Rome, and Berlin. As a matter of fact, the British Foreign Office was becoming highly indignant at the tenacity with which the men on the continent, except in Poland, were struggling to preserve the peace. It was the unfortunate experience of Dahlerus to encounter the full impact of this resentment. He departed from the conference with Lipski at the Polish Embassy in a spirit of great indignation. Ii. seemed to him incredible that the Poles should he allowed to sabotage a carefully prepared settlement after much good will had been displayed in other quarters. He now believed that the British would reconsider their decision to support Poland if they were told the truth about the actual situation. After all the British themselves had first suggested that Germany submit proposals to Poland. They would surely desist from granting unconditional support to the Poles when they learned that the Polish Government was unwilling to consider the proposals.44

Henderson encouraged Dahlerus to telephone London from the British Embassy in Berlin. The Swedish engineer contacted Sir Horace Wilson at the British Foreign Office at 12:30 p.m. on August 31 si. He began to describe the situation in detail, and to complain about the Polish attitude. Wilson, like Chamberlain, had capitulated to the war policy of Halifax. He protested that he did not like the tone of Dahlerus’s remarks. He finally claimed that the Swedish engineer had no right to discuss the situation in this way, because the Germans might be listening on the line. This seemed a curious observation to Dahlerus. He saw no reason why the Germans should not hear his remarks, and the British had never before objected to telephone conversations with him over the Embassy line. Wilson began to shout repeatedly to the bewildered Swede:  “Shut up!” Wilson concluded his report to Halifax on this incident with the following statement: “I again told Dahlerus to shut up. But as he did not do so I put down the receiver.”45

The irritation of the British Foreign Office was no temporary mood, and the wrath of Halifax soon descended upon Henderson. The British Ambassador received several reprimands in very strong language for permitting Dahlerus to use the telephone. These reprimands were unjust, because Henderson had received instructions from London to extend the use of Embassy facilities to Dahlerus, and no instructions to the contrary had been received at the time of the unpleasant incident at 12:30 p.m. on August 31st.

Halifax at 1:00 o’clock that same afternoon disavowed the step of Henderson at the Polish Embassy in Berlin. He informed Henderson that he rejected the view that the German proposals offered a basis for German-Polish negotiation, and he disagreed with both Henderson and Dahlerus “as to the obstructive attitude of the Polish Government.” He regretted that he had instructed [566] Kennard to join Noël in requesting that Lipski receive the German proposals. It is difficult to understand how he could feel so strongly about this insignificant gesture, especially since Beck understood perfectly well from Kennard that the British Government did not really wish Poland to negotiate with Germany. Kennard reported at 3:20 p.m. that the Polish Government was taking steps to contact the German Government, but “will not agree to accept a document containing a demand until methods of procedure have been agreed to.” The Polish Government might as well have announced that it intended to contact the moon. The British and Poles had conspired to make a complete farce of the negotiation plan supported by Germany, Italy, France, and Pope Pius XII.46

Kennard had assured Beck privately after the Anglo-French démarche that the British Government did not actually wish Lipski to receive the German proposals, and that the formal step at Warsaw had been a gesture of appeasement to France. Kennard explained to Halifax that the British Government should not “insist” that the Polish Ambassador at Berlin accept any German document because of “the ultimatum danger. t” Kennard believed that inevitable war was a lesser evil than relaying proposals to Warsaw which might tempt the Polish leaders to resume negotiations with Germany. He asked Halifax if he should inform Beck “what we know” of the contents of the proposals, but he was obviously reluctant to do so. Kennard was not aware that Beck had received the text of the German proposals from Lipski many hours earlier. His only fear was that there might be a last minute peaceful solution instead of the war which he and Halifax desired.


The Lipskl-Ribbentrop Meeting

Lipski informed Weizsäcker in the early afternoon of August 31st that he wished to call on Ribbentrop in his capacity as Ambassador. He made it clear that he had an announcement to make to the German Government, but that he did not intend to negotiate or to receive proposals for negotiation. Weizsäcker promised Lipski that he would report to Ribbentrop. The German Foreign Minister had received a copy of Beck’s instructions to Lipski from Göring, and he knew that they contained no contribution toward a peaceful solution. He attempted to delay his meeting with Lipski as long as possible in the hope that the British, the French, and the Pope would prevail on Beck to send new instructions to the Polish Ambassador. Ribbentrop knew that it might still be possible to cancel German military operations if Beck empowered Lipski to relay the German proposals to Warsaw. Ribbentrop received word in the early evening that nothing was happening at Warsaw, and he was compelled to admit that further delay was futile. He had dispatched a telegram to Washington, D.C., while awaiting further word from Warsaw. He conveyed again the thanks of Hitler to President Roosevelt for the American messages of August 24th and August 25th. German Chargé d’Affaires Thomsen called on Secretary of State Hull on the night of August 31st to express Hitler’s appreciation.47

Ribbentrop received Lipski at 6:30 p.m. on August 31st. The Polish Ambassador read the contents of a note from Beck. The note stated that Poland [567] had just now received word about the recent talks between Great Britain and Germany which had started on August 23rd. The attitude of the Polish Government toward eventual talks between Poland and Germany had not been decided, but it was favorable in principle, and the German Government was informed that the Polish Government would soon indicate to the British Government its attitude toward such talks. Beck was nat prepared to give the Germans an assurance that Poland was actually willing to renew negotiations with Germany.

Ribbentrop listened sadly to the senseless double-talk of the Polish note, which Beck undoubtedly considered sufficiently clever and misleading to confuse the Germans. It was obvious beneath the verbiage that Poland had not moved one step beyond her meaningless assurance to President Roosevelt on August 25th, and that Beck had remained unalterably opposed to negotiations. Ribbentrop told Lipski that he had hoped until the last minute that he would be empowered to negotiate. Lipski explained that he had been instructed merely to call on Ribbentrop and to present the Polish note. He was not allowed to give any personal assurances, or to make any statements. It is not surprising under these circumstances that the interview was a short one. Ribbentrop concluded the interview by asking if Lipski personally believed that his Government might reconsider its decision and permit him to negotiate. The Polish diplomat evaded this question by repeating that he had not received plenary powers.48

Kennard informed Halifax at 6:15 p.m. that Lipski had been instructed to seek an interview with Ribbentrop, but forbidden to engage in any conversations. Above all, he had been forbidden to receive any proposals from Germany. The note he was to present failed to contain an assurance that Poland would negotiate with Germany. Kennard observed with cynicism that Beck had met Halifax’s requirements by establishing contact with the Germans. This had been done in such a way that the contact was disrupted again as quickly as it was made. Kennard added that Beck said the situation in Danzig was serious, which was scarcely news. The British Ambassador concluded with satisfaction that Beck had promised that he would never go to Berlin again.49

This dispatch was followed by the formal Polish reply to the earlier British statement that Poland was prepared to negotiate with Germany. The Polish Government announced that it accepted in principle the statements contained in the British note of August 28th, but that it refused to commit itself to negotiate until the proposed international guarantee to Poland was explained. This meant in plain language that the Polish Government still had not agreed at London to negotiate with the Germans despite the pledge of President Moscicki  to President Roosevelt on August 25th. It is not surprising under these circumstances that the visit of Lipski to Ribbentrop on the evening of August 31st is one of the most sterile events in the long annals of diplomacy.

Hitler discussed the situation with Italian Ambassador Attolico at 7:00 o’clock, on the evening of August 31st. He gave Attolico a copy of the German proposals to Poland, which had earlier been forwarded to Rome. The German Chancellor continued in good faith to believe that the British Government had earnestly attempted to mediate between Germany and Poland. He told Attolico that the British mediation effort had failed. The Italian Ambassador suggested the unpromising possibility of Italian mediation between Germany and Poland. Hitler declared that the Poles had refused to listen to Chamberlain and Halifax, [568] and he did not believe that they would listen to Mussolini. Actually, Chamberlain and Halifax had not given the Poles anything to “listen to” about negotiating with Germany. The Italian Ambassador asked if the German effort to negotiate with Poland was at an end. The German Chancellor replied that this was indeed the case.50

Soviet Foreign Commissar Molotov delivered a speech to the Supreme Soviet on the afternoon of August 31st in which he sharply criticized Poland and Western diplomacy. The speech was a fitting prelude to the later statement of Molotov that it was necessary for the Soviet Union to attack Poland in order to “extricate the Polish people from the ill-fated war into which they have been led by their unwise leaders.” Hitler received information about the Molotov speech immediately after his conversation with Attolico. A report by telephone from Moscow was received in Berlin at 7:20 p.m. German Ambassador Schulenburg, who now made no secret of his intensely pro-Soviet attitude, concluded his remarks by exclaiming with enthusiasm that the Molotov speech was “brilliant.”51


The Germans Denounced by Poland as Huns

The German radio broadcast to the world at 9:00 p.m. on August 31st the Marienwerder proposals which Poland had refused to consider. Weizsäcker also presented the Marienwerder terms to the British, French, Japanese, American, and Russian diplomatic representatives at Berlin between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. on August 31st. The terms were accompanied in each instance by a diplomatic note which explained recent German policy. The main emphasis was on the fact that Hitler had waited in vain for two days to receive an indication that Poland would negotiate with Germany, although the British on August 28th had assured him that Poland was prepared to negotiate. Japanese Ambassador Oshima assured Weizsäcker that in his personal opinion a German victory in Poland would be in the interest of Japan.52

The German radio pointed out that the Poles had refused to receive the Marienwerder proposals for consideration at Warsaw, and this was correctly interpreted as definitive proof that the Polish leaders were resolutely opposed to negotiation with Germany. The Polish radio broadcast a distorted version of the German offer two hours later. It offered the world a glimpse of the mentality which was being encountered by the helpless German minority in Poland. The Polish broadcaster argued that the Germans in their proposals had revealed their aggressive intentions, and he concluded with the following statement: “Words can now no longer veil the aggressive plans of the new Huns. Germany is aiming at the domination of Europe and is cancelling the rights of nations with as yet unprecedented cynicism. This impudent proposal shows clearly how necessary were the military orders (general mobilization) given by the Polish Government.”53

Hitler replied shortly before midnight to a recent telegram from the Duke of Windsor at Antibes, France. The Duke, who knew that Hitler had privately sympathized with his struggle in 1936 to marry the American woman of his [369] choice and to hold the British throne, had expressed the hope that the German Chancellor would find some way of avoiding the pitfall of another senseless Anglo-German war. Hitler replied in ringing terms that “you may rest assured that my attitude toward Britain and my desire to avoid another war between our peoples remain unchanged.” The German Chancellor continued to hope for an Anglo-German understanding despite the failure of his latest attempt to reach an agreement with Poland.54

Ribbentrop conceded at the Wilhelmstrasse, after the Polish radio broadcast, that full-scale war between Germany and Poland was now inevitable, and that there would be no new cancellation of German operations. Shortly afterward, Hitler and Ribbentrop discussed the irrevocable decision to settle the score with the Poles. Ribbentrop said to Hitler with great simplicity: “I wish you good luck.” He was referring to the military campaign in Poland and to the further efforts to prevent the military intervention of Great Britain and France against Germany. The breakdown in relations was complete so far as Germany and Poland were concerned. Hitler had failed in his effort to win Poland as a stalwart Slavic ally against Bolshevism, and this in itself was a catastrophe of the greatest magnitude. German military operations commenced five hours later. Polish resistance began to crumble within a few days under the well-aimed German blows.55

The local German-Polish war need not have disturbed the peace of Europe for more than a few weeks. It would have been far easier for foreign Powers to intervene effectively to ameliorate the lot of the Poles, at least within the German area of occupation, had the war remained limited. The restoration of peace in Poland would have been an immediate concern, rather than some distant eventuality. Poland twenty years later is a Communist satellite of the Soviet Union. It would be impossible to imagine a result more distasteful to the Polish leaders who recklessly plunged Poland into a hopeless war against Germany in 1939. Their grandiose hopes and dreams of a new Great Poland remained unrealized, and their people were subjected to the worst possible fate. To repeat the prophetic comment of Marshal Smigly-Rydz to Captain Beauffre on August 20, 1939: “With the Germans, we risk the loss of our liberty, with the Russians we would lose our soul!” The Poles need not have risked their liberty in a conflict with Germany nor have lost the soul of their country to Russia had they not been the victims of the fantastic delusion of their leaders that little Poland could become one of the Great Powers. Halifax did everything possible to encourage the desperate Polish challenge to Germany which resulted in the permanent domination of Poland by the Soviet Union.56

[370] [371]

Chapter 22


BRITISH REJECTION
OF THE ITALIAN CONFERENCE PLAN

AND

THE OUTBREAK OF WORLD WAR II

The German-Polish War

The outbreak of the local war between Germany and Poland on September 1, 1939, brought the European crisis to a climax. The military defeat of Poland by Germany was inevitable unless an armistice was speedily arranged. Hitler hoped that the British would not attack Germany in the light of the fact that Beck had refused to negotiate despite the British pledge of August 28th that he would do so. Hitler did not realize that the British Government had advised Poland not to negotiate with Germany. Halifax had actually done everything possible to create the war between Germany and Poland. He was indifferent about Poland, but he desired the destruction of Germany. He was the most deadly enemy of the German state and people.


Italian Defection Accepted by Hitler

The issue of whether or not Great Britain would attack Germany was undecided on September 1st despite the attitude of Halifax, who had become the master of British policy. The British Foreign Secretary believed that the participation of France was the indispensable condition for the planned British assault. Halifax was convinced that it would be impossible for a British coalition to defeat Germany if France remained neutral. He saw no point in war unless it resulted in the destruction of Germany. The French, Italian, and German Governments, along with the smaller European states, favored the localization of the war in [372] Poland. The French leaders hoped for an armistice in Poland and a diplomatic conference which would avert the outbreak of World War II. French Ambassador François-Poncet informed Italian Foreign Minister Ciano at Rome on September 1st that the French Government believed a general war could be averted, despite the outbreak of war in Poland. France was prepared to join with Italy in arranging a compromise settlement which would prevent World War II.2

The Italians hoped to take the lead in arranging a settlement as they had done at Munich in 1938. Ciano reminded German Ambassador Mackensen on September 1st that the Italian diplomatic initiative had been decisive in averting war the previous year. The major Italian move for a diplomatic settlement in 1939 was not made until September 2nd. The first concern of the Italian leaders on September 1st was the safety of Italy. Great Britain on August 20th had threatened to launch her major effort against Italy, and many Frenchmen advocated swift military action against the Italians in the event of war.

The Italian Government, on the morning of September 1st, secretly promised Great Britain and France that Italy would not fight except in self-defense. Hitler assured Mussolini the same morning that he would not require Italian military support in the event of a general war. He sent another message in the early afternoon which courteously explained that he had not accepted Mussolini’s offer to mediate between Germany and Poland because he knew this would be futile after what he supposed had been the British effort to influence the Poles. Mussolini and Ciano were encouraged by the conciliatory attitude of Hitler to proceed from private pledges to a public announcement of Italian intentions. Mussolini called a session of the Italian Cabinet at 3:00, on the afternoon of September 1st. The Italian Government at 4:30 p.m. issued a public promise that it would undertake no military initiative in support of Germany. Ribbentrop sent a circular to German diplomatic missions abroad which warned them not to criticize Italian policy in conversations with foreigners. The close harmony in Italo-German relations had survived the failure of Italy to offer military support to Germany under the terms of the 1939 alliance.3


Polish Intransigence Deplored by Henderson and Attolico

British Ambassador Henderson at Berlin hoped that an Italian mediation effort would be successful. He had maintained a steady barrage of the British Foreign Office at the time of the outbreak of war between Germany and Poland. He hoped that he might still be able to influence British policy. He responded to the German public broadcast of the Marienwerder proposals by insisting to Halifax that they offered an adequate basis for negotiation. He declared that Beck had committed a great blunder in not negotiating, and that “from the long point of view, the Poles will miss their market, if they do not discuss.” Henderson observed with sarcasm that the Marienwerder proposals were identical with the October 1938 proposals, from the Polish point of view. The Poles would expect to win the proposed plebiscite because they had asserted that “the corridor was 90% Polish since the beginning of the world.”4
[573]
Henderson reminded Sir Alexander Cadogan in a later message that “Hitler intended to go off the deep end on August 25th, then changed his mind and sent for me.” Henderson would have found it quite understandable had the Germans launched their operations on August 26th, and he believed that Hitler deserved recognition for postponing the decision under exceedingly difficult conditions and for trying again to reach a settlement by negotiation. The British Ambassador could not see that Poland had shown any interest in preserving the peace. He declared that “the Poles must put themselves in the right by making a gesture of some kind, or else we must all fight. Possibly, the second would be the best but the responsibility is too great for me to encourage the idea. ” It was tragic that the same responsibility did not seem too great to Halifax.

Henderson on September 1st struck out against the propagandists who sought to justify military measures on ideological grounds. He believed that the issue had been confused by the many people who sought to condone war against Germany with the argument about the allegedly immoral National Socialist regime. Henderson believed that an ideological crusade against Germany in a world threatened by Communism was ridiculous. He knew that war was “completely unjustifiable” when the ideological argument was deservedly placed in the background. He did not refer explicitly to the balance of power as the primary factor for war, but it was obvious from his many dispatches that he rejected the balance of power argument.5

Polish intransigence was the despair of Italian Ambassador Attolico at Berlin. Attolico complained to Ciano a few hours before the outbreak of the German-Polish war that it was unthinkable for Lipski not to have requested or discussed the German proposals for a settlement. The Ambassador shared the illusion of Hitler that the British were showing their good will and urging negotiations, but that Poland was not responding. His knowledge of the British attitude was limited to Henderson and his staff. He exclaimed despairingly: “Germany is not able to tolerate all this (La Germania non puo tollerare tutto questo)!” He concluded that Hitler had no choice other than to believe that the illusory English initiative with Poland had definitely failed.6

Attolico wired Ciano shortly afterward that, in his opinion, the German proposals were moderate and reasonable. He confided that until the last moment Göring had hoped that he might be able to save the situation by persuading Marshal Smigly-Rydz to meet him for a conference at the Polish frontier. Attolico wired Rome after the outbreak of war that it was positively criminal for the Poles not to have responded “to such a reasonable offer as the sixteen points.”7


Hitler’s Reichstag Speech of September 1, 1939

Hitler spoke to the German Reichstag at 10:10, on the morning of September 1st. He reminded his deputies that Danzig “was and is German.” He made the same comment about the Corridor, which he had been willing to renounce to Poland, as he had renounced Alsace-Lorraine to Enince and South Tirol to Italy, in the interest of peace and cooperation. Hitler emphasized that he had [374] attempted to solve all German problems by “peaceful revision (friedlicher Revision).” He confessed the failure of this attempt, and he deplored the fact that many of the practices of modern warfare were in evident contradiction to the provisions of international law. Danzig and the Corridor were problems which had to be solved. Hitler conceded that it might be a matter of indifference to the West when this was to be, but this was not true for Germany. Above all, time was no matter of indifference to the hundreds of thousands of people suffering from the absence of a settlement. Poland had rejected proposals which no German leader other than Hitler had dared to offer. The Polish partial mobilization of March 23, 1939, was the beginning of a series of countermeasures against Danzig and the German minority in Poland. Hitler reminded his listeners that Germany, unlike Poland, had faithfully carried out the provisions of the minority treaty of November 1937.

Hitler had announced his position in this dispute to the German Reichstag on April 28, 1939. He was prepared to resume negotiations for a settlement of differences with both Great Britain and Poland. He had waited four months in vain for some response from the Polish side. He knew that no Great Power in the world could tolerate such conditions indefinitely. The British advised him on August 28th that Poland was prepared to resume negotiations. He informed the British Government on the following day that Germany was prepared to negotiate. He waited in vain another two days for a response from Poland. The Polish Ambassador at last announced on August 31st that the Warsaw Government was considering whether or not it would negotiate with Germany. Lipski indicated that they would inform England, and not Germany, of their eventual decision. This meant that the Polish attitude on August 31st was actually far short of what the British had indicated it to be on August 28th.

Hitler would regret it if the statesmen in the West insisted that the German dispute with Poland affected their vital interests. Hitler promised that he n’ ver had asked and never would ask anything from Great Britain and France. He ardently desired an understanding with England, “but love cannot be provided from one side if it is not received from the other (aber Liebe kann nicht nur von einer Seite geboten werden, sie muss von der anderen ihre Erwiderung finden).” This was an amazing declaration to the leaders of a nation which had attacked Germany in 1914, had starved to death hundreds of thousands of German children and old people, and was threatening to attack Germany twenty-give years later in a dispute which did not affect British interests. Indeed, the dispute in 1939 concerned what Winston Churchill and other prominent Englishmen had insisted for years was the most objectionable part of the 1919 settlement. Sir Austen Chamberlain, the brother of the Prime Minister, had promised in 1925 that no British grenadier would be required to die for Danzig or the Polish Corridor.

Hitler tactfully observed that the Italian leaders were aware that Germany did not care to request foreign help in solving her own problems. Hitler said that his understanding with the Russians was based on the expectation that they would no longer seek to export their doctrine of Communism to Germany. He endorsed the speech of Molotov on August 31, 1939, and he added that on this occasion he could agree with every word of the Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs.
[575]
The German Chancellor announced his war aims in Poland. He intended to solve the Danzig and Corridor questions, and to bring about a change in German-Polish relations. He would fight until the present Polish Government agreed to peaceful co-existence or until another Polish Government was prepared to accept this. He was pursuing limited objectives in Poland, and he was not insisting on the annihilation of the Polish armed forces or the overthrow of the Polish state. He was prepared to insist that Germany should enjoy the same peaceful conditions on her eastern border which existed on her other frontiers as a matter of course. Hitler announced that he had ordered the German Air Force to restrict its operations to military objectives, because he did not wish to wage war against the defenseless women and children of Poland.

Hitler deliberately juggled financial statistics when he claimed that the German Reich had expended 90 billion RM (Reichsmarks) for defense purposes during the past six years. Much of this sum had been used for public works which had no direct connection with armament. He hoped that by doubling the figures for actual military expenditures he would discourage Great Britain and France from waging war against Germany. He claimed that Germany had the best military defenses in the world, and that the German war machine was better than in 1914. He himself intended either to be a soldier until victory, or not to survive the war. He dramatized the dangerous life of the German leaders in a world of secret conspiracies and assassination plots. Göring would succeed if anything happened to him, and Hess would follow in the event of the elimination of Göring. Hitler announced that a special assembly of National Socialist deputies would select a new German Chancellor in case Göring, Hess, and himself were eliminated. Hitler admitted that he had failed to learn the meaning of the word “capitulation.” There was no room for traitors in Germany, and there would never be another November 1918. Hitler concluded his speech with the following statement: “It is unimportant if we live, but it is necessary for Germany to live.” The Reichstag deputies rose from their seats and swore an oath of loyalty to Hitler. Minister of Interior Wilhelm Frick introduced a law for the annexation of Danzig to Germany. It was accepted unanimously.8

The Italian Ambassador reported to Ciano that most of the diplomatic corps was present to hear Hitler. American Chargé d’Affaires Kirk was forbidden by Roosevelt to attend the Reichstag session. Kirk informed the German Foreign Office before Hitler spoke that he would not be present, but he promised to send a special representative. He also offered to represent in Germany the interests of Great Britain and France if the latter entered the war. The British Ambassador was represented by a consul at the Reichstag meeting, and the French Ambassador by an embassy secretary. Attolico found it rather amusing that the name of each prospective successor to the chief executive power in Germany was greeted with a long ovation. This type of gesture seemed to give the Reichstag meeting something of the atmosphere of an American political convention. Apparently Attolico believed that these demonstrations of solidarity were ostentatious and unnecessary, although there was certainly no lack of the theatrical element in Italian conclaves of major importance. He seemed to ignore the fact that Hess, and especially Göring, enjoyed tremendous personal popularity in Germany. Attolico was self-conscious in his own position as a neutral Ambassador, having done more than an yone else to separate Italy from
[576] Germany in the first major crisis after the conclusion of their alliance.9

German Chargé d’Affaires Theo Kordt, who was secretly working with Halifax, reported from London at 11:45 AM, that the British Foreign Secretary requested him to call shortly after the beginning of Hitler’s speech. Kordt left the group of German diplomats, who were listening to the speech on the radio, and visited Halifax. Kordt naturally denied in his official report that he gave Halifax any information. Halifax told him that he intended to send all further communications to Germany directly to Berlin. He added that the British Cabinet was about to meet. Kordt was careful to mention that Halifax shook hands with him when he was leaving. He did not indicate whether he received this handshake in his capacity of underground agent or German diplomat. Hitler naturally assumed that the latter was the case.10


Negotiations Requested by Henderson and Dahlerus

Halifax had telephoned Ciano a few hours before the outbreak of the German-Polish war that Great Britain would never advise Poland to permit self-determination at Danzig. The British Foreign Secretary added complacently that he would not object if the Poles themselves agreed to it. He knew that there was no chance that they would do so without British advice and pressure. Halifax admitted to Kennard shortly afterward that he was worried about the Polish refusal to receive the German proposals, because he recognized that this might be “misunderstood [i.e. understood] by world opinion.” Halifax was pleased that the Poles had obstructed a settlement, but he feared that his propaganda might be unsuccessful in concealing the actual situation.11

German Consul-General Janson telephoned Berlin from Danzig at 9:35 AM. to announce that League High Commissioner Burckhardt had departed for East Prussia. Polish High Commissioner Chodacki was still in the city. Janson announced heavy fighting in Danzig at several points. The Poles were defending the Polish Post Office and the Westerplatte arsenal in the vicinity of the densely populated Neufahrwasser district. The fighting inside Danzig was destined to continue for more than a week, but the complete liberation of the city was inevitable. 12

The indefatigable Birger Dahlerus launched a new mediation effort on the morning of September 1st despite the severe rebuff he had received from London on the previous day. His avowed aim was to persuade Great Britain not to join the war in support of Poland. He telephoned the British Foreign Office at 9:50 AM. saying, “the Poles are sabotaging everything,” and he added flatly that they simply did not wish to negotiate. He announced that he desired to return to England. He promised to bring evidence, and especially Beck’s August 31st instructions to Lipski, which proved that the Poles “have never meant to attempt to negotiate with Germany and that has been a proof to Germany that nothing can be done.”

Dahlerus, like the French leaders, believed that a further attempt should be made to bring the Poles to the negotiation table despite the outbreak of war.

He knew that the German leaders were still in favor of negotiations with Poland. Göring suggested that General Ironside, who was admired in Poland, should join with Ogilvie-Forbes and some French personality in supervising negotiations between the Germans and the Poles. He insisted that it would not be necessary for the Polish diplomatic team to come into direct contact with the Germans. The Poles could operate from their Embassy in Berlin by discussing matters with the British and French, who in turn could transmit proposals to the Germans. Dahlerus added, “it will be a catastrophe if we cannot arrange it that way.” He admitted that Henderson had allowed him to use the British Embassy telephone, despite the reprimands from London, and he advised the British official on the other end of the line to call back to the British Embassy in Berlin.13

Henderson followed this step by wiring Halifax that Göring had spoken with him for nearly two hours the previous evening about Hitler’s desire for peace and friendship with Great Britain. The British Ambassador knew that Hitler and Göring were absolutely sincere about their feelings toward the British. Henderson added that Göring had discussed some of the last minute incidents which had preceded the outbreak of the German-Polish war. [577] Göring did not mention the mysterious Gleiwitz incident, which had received extensive treatment in the German press. An unsuccessful attempt was made at the 1945-1946 Nuremberg Trial, against the principal surviving German leaders, to prove that the Gleiwitz incident was the result of a fantastic German plot to dress prisoners in Polish uniforms and compel them to raid the municipal radio station, while a picked stooge delivered an incendiary broadcast in Polish.14

The Polish Bank Ludowy (People’s Bank) maintained a lavish but seldom-frequented branch bank in Gleiwitz with the permission of the German authorities. The personnel of this bank hoped to organize an insurrection among the Polish minority in West Upper Silesia on the misguided assumption that the Polish armed forces would soon enter the area. Gleiwitz was only one mile from the Polish frontier, and the Bank Ludowy people disappeared into Poland about the time of the incident. The Gleiwitzers naturally assumed that the bank people perpetrated the momentary seizure of the radio station, but the mystery shrouding the actual deed has remained one of the numerous unexplained events of this period.15

Henderson informed Halifax of several of the verified Polish violations prior to hostilities. The Poles blew up the Dirschau (Tczew) bridge across the Vistula River on August 31, 1939, although the eastern approach to the bridge was on German territory. The Poles based at the Westerplatte occupied a number of Danzig installations and engaged in fighting with the Danzigers on the same day. Henderson informed Halifax of these events, because he knew that Kennard would never report them from Warsaw. Henderson received confirmation from Göring that Hitler was not insisting on the total military defeat of Poland. He was prepared to terminate hostilities if the Poles indicated that they were willing to negotiate a satisfactory settlement.16

Dahlerus had a further personal conversation with Hitler while awaiting a reply to his request to visit England. The attitude of Hitler immediately after the Reichstag speech was extremely encouraging. The absence of a reply from [578] London prompted Henderson to advise Dahlerus to telephone the British Foreign Office again. Dahlerus contacted Sir Alexander Cadogan at 12:20 P.M. on September 1st, and a sharp conversation ensued. Cadogan urged Dahlerus to desist from further mediation attempts, but the Swedish engineer stubbornly refused. Dahlerus insisted on discussing the factors which had produced the war in Poland. Cadogan professed to be indignant because the Swede “seemed to imply that it had been started by the Poles.” Cadogan considered it an effrontery to criticize the conduct of an ally of Great Britain. Dahlerus shouted that Hitler had promised fifteen minutes earlier to renew negotiations with the Poles at any time. Hitler had announced that his principal objective was to avert a new World War. Above all, he desired new discussions with the British.

Cadogan coldly inquired what Hitler wished to discuss. The Swedish engineer replied that he wished to obtain the mediation of Great Britain for an armistice and compromise settlement with Poland. Cadogan could see no basis for a discussion, nor imagine anything to discuss. Dahlerus requested permission to fly to England, and he added that Ogilvie-Forbes wished to accompany him to present the German case. Cadogan said he could see no purpose in this flight, but Dahlerus continued with great insistence to plead for permission. At last Cadogan said that he would submit the question to the British Government. The Swedish engineer agreed to telephone the Foreign Office again at 1:15 P.M.

It was 1:25 P.M. when Dahlerus succeeded in contacting Cadogan again. This time he received a crushingly negative reply. The Permanent Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs insisted that nothing could be done while Germany was invading Poland. The British Government would not agree to support negotiations unless German troops withdrew from Poland and Danzig. This conversation dealt a crippling blow to the mediation mission of Dahlerus. It remained to be seen what the Italians could do.t7


Hitler Denounced by Chamberlain and Halifax

The British afternoon press on September 1st was ablaze with news about the war in Poland. The Daily Telegraph praised the Poles for not accepting the German offer to negotiate at Berlin. The return of Danzig to Germany was denounced as intolerable, and the Marienwerder proposals were described as excessive. The British readers were asked to pay their respects to the “wisdom of Poland” in refusing to negotiate for a settlement. The News Chronicle asserted that the British Government had guaranteed Poland in the first place because the Poles were not prepared to tolerate the return of Danzig to Germany. Self-determination was denounced as a convenient cover for the worst of crimes. It was obvious that most of the British Empire would be lost if the inhabitants were allowed to determine their own allegiance. The Daily Mail clainied that the moderate Marienwerder proposals were merely a trick to entice the Poles to come to Berlin.18

Prime Minister Chamberlain broadcast to Germany on the British short-wave radio at 6:05 P.M. on September 1st. He claimed that “the responsibility for this terrible catastrophe (war in Poland) lies on the shoulders of one man, the [579] German Chancellor.” This Foreign Office speech delivered by the British leader was crass propaganda. He claimed that Hitler had ordered the Poles to come to Berlin with the unconditional obligation of accepting without discussion the exact German terms. He flatly denied that Germany had invited the Poles to engage in normal negotiations. Both of these statements were unvarnished lies, but the Polish case was so weak that it was impossible to defend it with the truth.

Chamberlain was on more solid ground when he claimed that the British military situation was superior to that of 1914. The British hoped to keep their own casualties to a minimum in 1939 by reducing their commitment of forces to the continent, and by seeking to pulverize Germany from the air. They were indifferent to the fact that this strategy left France in a much weaker position than in 1914. Chamberlain praised Mussolini’s efforts for peace, but he dismissed them as a thing of the past by claiming that the Italian leader “had done his best.” He revived the old British propaganda slogan of World War I by claiming that he had no quarrel with the German people, but only with the National Socialists. There had been similar talk about Kaiser Wilhelm II in World War I, but the overthrow of the Imperial Government had not softened the Allied treatment of the German people. Most of the German people recognized in 1939 that British hostility was directed against themselves as much as against Hitler. 19

Halifax was in his best oratorical form when he delivered his cleverly hypocritical speech to the British House of Lords on the evening of September 1st. His remarks were pitched perfectly for the mentality of his audience. He knew that his listeners hoped to feel like knights of the holy grail in a great crusade against evil. He exploited to the uttermost the insincere British appeasement policy of 1938 when seeking to justify British policy in 1939. He did not admit that Great Britain refrained from attacking Germany in 1938 for purely tactical reasons while she completed her military preparations. He claimed that the best proof of the British will to peace was to have Chamberlain, the great appeasement leader, carry the nation into war. The paradoxical nature of this remark would have been recognized instantly under normal circumstances, but it was accepted as impressively profound wisdom on September 1, 1939. Halifax concealed the fact that he had taken over the direction of British policy from Chamberlain in October 1938, and that the British nation would probably not be moving into war had this not happened. Halifax assured the Peers that Hitler, before the bar of history, would have to assume responsibility for everything. He added with pride that, in looking back, he did not wish to change a thing as far as British policy was concerned. He insisted that the English conscience was pure.20


Anglo-French Ultimata Rejected by Bonnet

Bonnet at Paris was extremely indignant to learn of the meaningless instructions Lipski received from Beck on the afternoon of August 31st. Bonnet had persuaded Lukasiewicz to wire Beck that France insisted upon direct negotiations between Poland and Germany, but this step, without British support, did not [580] produce the slightest effect. The French Foreign Minister concluded that a general conference would be more promising than German-Polish talks, but he was worried about British intransigence. French Ambassador Corbin warned Bonnet from London that the British were prepared to emasculate any proposal for a conference by presenting an impossible demand for prior German demobilization. Corbin’s warning came a few hours before the outbreak of the German-Polish war. The British afterward aimed to produce the same effect by demanding the abandonment of Danzig by Germany. It is important to note that they were opposed to a conference with or without the outbreak of hostilities in Poland.21

Bonnet refused to be intimidated by the warning from Corbin. He recommended to Daladier that France should support any conference which would include Poland and at which general European problems would also be discussed. He argued that it would be easy to adjourn the conference if Hitler demanded too much. Daladier was prepared to accept this proposal. The approval of the majority of French Cabinet ministers was obtained without difficulty. Bonnet agreed with a suggestion from Daladier that the conference plan would not preclude direct negotiations between Poland and Germany. The personal attempt of Chamberlain, shortly before the French Cabinet meeting, to persuade the French Premier to reject further negotiations with the Germans was unsuccessful.

Bonnet now enjoyed the solid support of the French Government for his negotiation plans. He telephoned Corbin in London, and he instructed him to inform the British Foreign Office of the latest decision by France. Bonnet wished to know the British position at once. Corbin replied a short time later that the British diplomats were unwilling to state their position at the present time. This was the last news Bonnet received from London before learning of the outbreak of the German-Polish war.

The British responded to the outbreak of war in Poland by demanding an immediate Anglo-French ultimatum to Germany. Bonnet hoped that there would never be such an ultimatum, and he borrowed the customary British dilatory tactics in evading the question. He replied that it would be impossible to consider such action until after the convening of the French Parliament on September 2nd. The British would have gone to war with Germany on September 1, 1939, had they received French support for this plan. The French Cabinet met again at 10:30 A.M. on September 1st, and Bonnet received a new vote of support for his negotiation plans. François-Poncet at Rome had been unable to report if Italy still intended to undertake the initiative for a conference, but Bonnet was empowered to inform the Italians that France would support such a plan.22


Notes of Protest Drafted by Bonnet

The Poles knew that their challenge to Germany was a gamble which they would lose if the French, and consequently the British, refused to support Poland. They were anxious to end the suspense and to receive a decision one [581] way or another. The Germans succeeded in destroying almost the entire Polish Air Force within the first thirty-six hours of military operations; hence it was not surprising that Beck demanded aerial protection from Great Britain on the first day of the war. Kennard wired Halifax at 2:00 P.M. on September 1st that Beck hoped for a British aerial offensive the same afternoon. Halifax had learned by this time that Bonnet refused to consider an Anglo-French ultimatum to Germany on the first day of the war in Poland. The French declared general mobilization on September 1st, but this did not necessarily mean that France intended to enter the war. There had also been a French general mobilization in September 1938. It had been arranged in advance that the remainder of the French reserves would be called up automatically in the event of the outbreak of war in Poland.23

President Roosevelt presented his hypocritical appeal against aerial bombardment of civilians to Germany and Poland on September 1, 1939. Lord Lothian had explained from Washington, D.C., several days earlier that the American President intended to take this step on behalf of the Poles. President Roosevelt declared that the bombardment of civilians in recent wars has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman.” Hitler replied to President Roosevelt on the same day. He declared that the Roosevelt message coincided with his own views and that he favored a public declaration by belligerent Governments in any war condemning aerial attacks on civilians. The High Command of the German Armed Forces also issued a special communiqué on this subject on the evening of September 1st. Statements appearing in foreign newspapers about alleged German attacks on open cities were indignantly denied. The German military men insisted that their aerial attacks were directed exclusively against military targets. This statement was given scant publicity in the Western press where pictures of murdered minority Germans were presented as pictures of innocent Polish victims of German aerial warfare.24

Halifax had failed to persuade Bonnet to go to war with Germany on September 1st, but he decided to do what he could on that day to discourage an eventual Italian mediation effort. The British Foreign Secretary realized that an Italian diplomatic effort supported by France was the principal threat to his plans for war. Halifax instructed Sir Percy Loraine that Great Britain was grateful for previous Italian diplomatic efforts, but he insisted that the outbreak of war in Poland rendered inevitable the military intervention of Great Britain against Germany. The British Ambassador was ordered to convey this British viewpoint to Mussolini with great vigor.25

The British Foreign Secretary was pleased to learn on September 1st that Birger Dahlerus had apparently withdrawn from the diplomatic scene. The persistent Swede telephoned the British Foreign Office that afternoon to bid farewell, and to announce that he would return to Stockholm. He declared that he would gladly come to London again, if the British changed their minds and agreed to support diplomatic efforts for peace. He presented Göring’s promise that the Germans would never bomb open cities if the British agreed to abstain from this practice. Halifax knew that the bombardment of open cities in Germany was the key British formula for victory, and that it would be employed after the outbreak of any Anglo-German war. Halifax was much irritated to [582] learn somewhat later that Göring had persuaded Dahlerus to continue with his mediation efforts.26

Halifax decided to make another effort to persuade France to enter war against Germany on September 1st. He telephoned Bonnet at 5:00 p.m. to recommend that the British and French Ambassadors in Berlin ask for their passports the same day. He suggested that it would be most effective if Great Britain and France went to war against Germany on the very day that the German-Polish war had begun. Above all, this would create the illusion that the German-Polish war and the Anglo-French war against Germany were a single war. The French Foreign Minister flatly refused to be plunged into war against Germany in this hasty fashion. Halifax insisted that Great Britain and France should respond at once to the war in Poland. Bonnet, after much argument, persuaded Halifax to accept a step at Berlin which would resemble an Anglo-French ultimatum to Germany, but which would have no definitive character, because it would lack a time limit. This entire sequence of events is distorted by Gilbert and Gott in The Appeasers, because they ignore entirely the conflict between Halifax and Bonnet over the nature of the Anglo-French notes to Germany of September 1st in their effort to create an imaginary Halifax still devoted to appeasement.

This strange step, which Halifax accepted in desperation, illustrates the diplomatic agility of Bonnet. Halifax dispatched instructions to Henderson at 5:45 p.m. for the proposed Anglo-French démarche. The British and French Ambassadors were to warn Germany that the pledges of their countries to Poland would be implemented unless they received satisfactory assurances about the suspension of “all aggressive action against Poland.” This was carefully phrased by Bonnet to omit the requirement that the Germans need actually withdraw from Poland. The absence of any time limit left France a completely free hand in her dealings with the Germans. French Ambassador Coulondre later noted with restrained understatement that this note was widely criticized by those who desired an immediate war with Germany, but it was the only joint Anglo-French step which Halifax could produce at this time, and he decided that it was probably better than nothing. It should occasion no surprise that Hitler was exceedingly puzzled by the Anglo-French step. He did not know whether or not he had received ultimata from the Western Powers.27

Henderson called on Ribbentrop to present the British note at 9:00 p.m. on September 1st. Ribbentrop denied that German military operations against Poland constituted “aggressive action.” He insisted that Germany had attempted to arrive at a peaceful understanding with Poland, and that war had resulted from Polish intransigence. The British Ambassador, who privately agreed with Ribbentrop, did not attempt to argue this point. He merely requested the German Foreign Minister to convey the British note to Hitler, and to inform him that London would like to receive a reply to it as soon as possible. Ribbentrop agreed to this. Henderson then confided to Ribbentrop that Halifax was seeking to make an important point out of the failure of the German Foreign Minister to give Henderson a copy of the Marienwerder proposals on August 30th. Both men knew that this had resulted from Ribbentrop’s uncertainty about Hitler’s instructions, and that it had been remedied shortly afterward when Göring conveyed the German proposals to Henderson. Nevertheless, Ribbentrop was [583] quite willing to give Henderson an elaborate explanation.

The British Ambassador reported to Halifax after this lengthy conversation that the explanation of Ribbentrop had been comprehensive and satisfactory, and that the German diplomat had been “courteous and polite.” Henderson was determined to explode the legend that His Majesty’s Ambassador had been treated with discourtesy at Berlin. Henderson feared: “Hitlef’s answer (to the British note) will be an attempt to avoid war with Great Britain and France, but not likely to be one which we can accept.” The British Ambassador had no idea that Hitler would agree on the following day to cancel further German military operations in Poland if the British would attend a diplomatic conference. Henderson added that Göring had persuaded Dablerus to remain in Germany in the hope that he would soon be able to resume his mediation efforts. Halifax was not impressed with the report from Henderson. He had informed Raczynski at 10:00 AM. on the same day that there was no longer the slightest doubt that Great Britain would go to war in support of Poland.28

Kennard at Warsaw had made short work of Halifax’s suggestion late on August 31st that it might be wise for propaganda purposes to advise Beck to instruct Lipski to receive the German proposals. The British Ambassador to Poland confessed that he had neglected to mention this idea to Beck during the last hours of peace between Poland and Germany. He offered an exceedingly unusual explanation of his independent conduct. He argued that Lipski had called on Ribbentrop before the suggestion of Halifax reached Warsaw, and that it was pointless for this reason to discuss the matter with Beck. This was fantastic, because Halifax knew of Lipski’s senseless visit to Ribbentrop when he sent his instructions to Kennard. Nevertheless, the British Foreign Secretary was content to accept this explanation from Kennard.29

Ribbentrop received French Ambassador Coulondre at 10:00 P.M. on September 1st. The French and British notes of protest about the war in Poland were identical, and Ribbentrop again “rejected the version alleging German aggression against Poland.” He wired Budapest immediately after his conversation with Coulondre that he did not expect Hungary to offer armed assistance to Germany against Poland, but he hoped that they would refrain from issuing an express declaration of neutrality. He knew that there was no chance that Poland would attack Hungary, and he wished to create the impression that the Hungarians were on the German side in the dispute with the Poles.

The viewpoint of Ribbentrop was acceptable to Hungarian Foreign Minister Csaky. The Hungarians had hoped until the last moment that there would be no war between Germany and Poland. This did not prevent them from recognizing that Germany had a better case in the dispute than Poland, especially since the Hungarians had vainly advised the Poles on numerous occasions to permit the return of Danzig to Germany. Csaky informed Ribbentrop that the Hungarian press was stressing Polish responsibility for the outbreak of the German-Polish war. The Hungarian Government also sent a special note to Germany promising loyal Hungarian friendship. Ribbentrop was pleased to receive an assurance from Dictator Antonio de Oliveira Salazar that Portugal would remain neutral in the event of an Anglo-German war despite the ancient alliance between Great Britain and Portugal, which had prompted the Lisbon Government to attack Germany in World War I. Ribbentrop knew that Spain [584] had exerted heavy pressure on Portugal for the observation of neutrality by both Iberian countries.30


The Italian Mediation Effort

Italian Ambassador Arone wired Ciano in great distress from Warsaw on September 1st that his Embassy was besieged by Polish police. He had appealed to the Polish Foreign Office for relief from this outrage, but he received the response that their “protective measures” were prompted by doubts about the Italian attitude toward the conflict between Germany and Poland. Ciano instructed Arone to assure the Poles that Italy did not intend to intervene in the conflict, but the Poles remained sceptical. Considerable effort was required to secure the release of the Italian Ambassador from his involuntary confinement.31

Ciano continued to fear a surprise British military offensive against Italy and he went to extreme lengths to discourage this dreaded prospect. He told Loraine on September 1st that the earlier ties between Germany and Italy had been greatly loosened. He claimed to be personally indignant that Germany had concluded a pact with the Communists, although Mussolini since May 1939 had repeatedly urged Hitler to take this step. Ciano added without the slightest justification that he had now become “Reich public enemy number one, because of the allegedly firm stand he had taken against Hitler at Berchtesgaden in August 1939. This claim was utterly ridiculous in the light of the fact that Ciano had expressed his complete agreement with Hitler at that time. Ciano’s statements revealed that Italy’s fear of Great Britain was very great. Ciano was aware that the British in the past had frequently launched surprise attacks against neutral nations.32

Ciano was gradually reassured that the Western Powers accepted Italian neutrality, and this prompted him in turn to revive Mussolini’s mediation plans. The Italian Foreign Minister had vital information still unknown to Hitler. This information indicated that there was much hope for a successful mediation venture. Guariglia had reported from Paris at 1:00 P.M. on September 1st that Bonnet wished to support a diplomatic solution of the German-Polish conflict. The Italian Ambassador at 3:00 o’clock that same afternoon was able to forward a request from Daladier to Mussolini for diplomatic action to arrange a conference. It was obvious that the French leaders were sincere in their own efforts to avoid war in support of Poland, and there was a vast difference between French and British attitudes toward the crisis. It was evident that skillful Italian diplomatic action could exploit this difference in order to bring pressure to bear on England for a compromise settlement.33

The French Foreign Minister was extremely worried by the morning of September 2, 1939. He was under heavy pressure from the British and the Poles to go to war, and he had received no further indication from Ciano that Italy actually intended to organize a diplomatic conference. Lukasiewicz called on French Foreign Minister Bonnet at 9:00 A.M. on September 2nd to demand that France enter the war. Bonnet successfully evaded a commitment, but he complained afterward that the Polish Ambassador had been excessively “impatient” during this conversation.

[585]
Hitler’s Acceptance of an Armistice and a Conference

Ciano and Mussolini had decided that it would be wise to secure full German support for a conference before approaching the British and French again. Ciano at last sent a highly important secret message to Germany at 10:00 AM. on September 2nd. This message contained the important revelation that the French leaders were soliciting Italian action on behalf of a diplomatic conference. Ciano and Mussolini believed that the last minute consent of Great Britain and Poland for adequate terms of peace might still be obtained. Italy would propose an armistice which provided for the halting of the German and Polish Armies at the positions momentarily occupied. Arrangements would be made for a peace conference to convene within two or three days. The primary purpose of the conference would be to resolve the German-Polish dispute on a compromise basis in which both German and Polish interests received recognition.34

Attolico wired Rome at 10:40 A.M. that Ribbentrop feared the British and Poles would not cooperate with Italy, Germany, and France. The Italian Ambassador suggested to Weizsäcker that the substance of the mediation plan should be telephoned directly to Hitler at once. This advice was approved by Ribbentrop and Weizsaecker, and Hitler was informed of the contents of the Ciano message. Hitler was enthusiastic, and he ordered the German Foreign Office to sound out Henderson. This was done, but the British Ambassador admitted with reluctance that the British leaders would probably not accept a solution without the previous retirement of the German troops to the frontier. Attolico reported to Ciano that Henderson’s response had discouraged the Germans.

Ribbentrop explained to Attolico at 12:30 P.M. that Germany was about to return negative replies to the British and French notes of the previous day when the message from Ciano arrived. Ribbentrop admitted that he was unable to decide whether or not the British and French notes were ultimata. Attolico believed that they were ultimata, but he claimed that the notes were superseded by the message from Rome, which contained an important assurance from France. Ribbentrop retorted that in this case it would be wise to inquire of the French and British Governments if their notes of the previous day were of an ultimate character. The matter was referred to Hitler. Attolico reported to Ciano at 3:15 P.M. that Hitler had decided it would be impossible to continue with plans for a conference until the British and French had defined their ambiguous notes of the previous day.35

Bonnet had still heard nothing from Ciano by this time, and he was beginning to lose hope that peace would be retrieved. Then Ciano contacted Bonnet by telephone, and the French Foreign Minister was overjoyed to learn that an effective mediation effort had been launched by the Italians. The Italian Foreign Minister noted from the sound of Bonnet’s voice that his mediation effort was warmly supported by his colleague at Paris. Ciano told Bonnet that it was essential to receive an assurance that the French and British notes of the previous day were not ultimata. François-Poncet had been unable to give this important assurance at Rome. Bonnet was the actual author of both notes, and [586] he said at once that he could give Ciano his complete assurance that the notes definitely were not ultimata. Knowing that the British would be compelled to accept his judgment on this point, Bonnet added that he would take the precaution of consulting Daladier and Halifax to obtain a uniform response.36

The British were highly displeased that the notes of September 1st were not considered ultimata. However, Sir Percy Loraine at Rome was therefore in a position to inform Ciano that the British Government had not yet addressed an ultimatum to Germany. The entire action at Rome had required by a few minutes, and Ciano was soon able to assure Attolico that an Anglo-French disavowal that ultimata had been delivered to Germany had been received. Hitler responded by promising to give favorable consideration to the Italian mediation plan, including the suspension of German military operations in Poland. The Italian diplomats at Berlin were pleased by Hitler’s conciliatory attitude. Massimo Magistrati, a persistently hostile critic of the Pact of Steel, and Attolico’s principal diplomatic assistant at Berlin, noted that Hitler was positively eager to terminate German operations in Poland, and he concluded that “Germany has already achieved her military and moral satisfaction and would be extremely happy to avoid a general conflict (la Germania aveva gia avuto la sua saddisfazione militare e morale ed ora arebbe stata bon lieta di evitare una conflagrazione generale).” Attolico was able to wire Chiano at 4:00 p.m. on September 2nd that Germany favored the Italian proposal for a conference. Ribbentrop had urged Attolico to prepare the Italian leaders for an important German announcement not later than noon on Sunday, September 3rd, concerning the plan to end the war in Poland. Ciano had managed within six hours to score a victory in Germany for Mussolini’s mediation plan.37


The Peace Conference Favored by Bonnet

The Italian mediation effort reached a crucial stage when Germany accepted the conference plan. The time had come to exercise the utmost skill in exploiting the disagreement between Great Britain and France about going to war for Poland. Hitler was optimistic about the chances for a last-minute settlement, but he would have been less hopeful had he heard the telephone conversation between Bonnet and Halifax shortly after 4:00 pm. on September 2nd. Bonnet received the frightening impression that the British Foreign Secretary was determined to destroy the conference plan before it was presented to the Poles. Halifax insisted that the Germans should complete the withdrawal of their forces from Poland and Danzig before Great Britain and France agreed to consider the conference plan. Bonnet knew that no Great Power would accept such treatment. He protested that the attitude of Halifax was unreasonable and unrealistic. He considered that the Germans would be making an adequate concession if they agreed to discontinue their advance, but Halifax refused to accept this view. Bonnet recalled the heroic efforts in July 1914 of Jean-Jaurès, the Socialist leader, who had attempted to prevent France from going to war for Serbia. Jaurès was murdered by fanatics because of these efforts, and Bonnet sought to derive inspiration from his heroism. He was resolved to continue [587] the fight for peace despite the obstructive tactics of Halifax.38

Bonnet required all the resolution he could command, because he was under tremendous pressure from the British to lead France into war. Sir Alexander Cadogan telephoned Bonnet at the Qual d’Orsay at 5:00 p.m. on September 2, 1939, Cadogan observed with irritating self-assurance that the British demand for a German troop withdrawal confined the plan for a diplomatic conference to the realm of remote possibilities. He insisted that it was time to get on with the war. He announced that Halifax was demanding an immediate joint Anglo-French ultimatum to the Germans which would expire at midnight on September 2, 1939. Bonnet replied that he intended to await further word from Italy about the conference plan.

Bonnet launched a unilateral effort to persuade the Poles to accept a conference. Kennard reported with great indignation to Halifax from Warsaw that French Ambassador Noël had been instructed not to reveal the contents of his latest instructions from Bonnet. It was a simple matter for Kennard to obtain confirmation of these French instructions from Beck. The Polish Foreign Minister told Kennard that France was requesting Polish agreement for a five-Power conference to include Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Poland. Hitler was no longer bothered by the thought that Germany and Italy would have but two votes, because he realized at last that he could count on strong support from France for a settlement. Kennard advised Beck to reject the French proposal. Kennard admitted to Halifax that Beck refused to define his attitude toward the conference plan, but the British Ambassador believed that the Polish reply to France would probably be negative.39

The Polish Sejm met in special session on September 2, 1939. The Sejm President announced in a keynote speech that Pilsudski had taught Poland not only how to fight to attain independence, but also how to defend it. The Ukrainian spokesmen in the Sejm had been terrified by the prospect of a Soviet invasion of Eastern Poland since the conclusion of the Russo-German Pact of August 23, 1939, and they offered their full support to the Polish Government. A special law was announced to permit the members of the Sejm and the Senate to fight in the Polish Army. Premier Slawoj-Skladkowski delivered a speech in praise of the memory of Pilsudski. A Polish Army Band was present to play the World War I march of Pilsudski’s First Brigade, and the Polish National Anthem, Jescze Polska nie Zginela!.

The Polish Army report of September 2nd attempted to conceal the gravity of the Polish military situation on the second day of the war. It was claimed that 37 German airplanes had been shot down as against 12 Polish airplanes, and no mention was made of the fact that virtually the entire Polish Air Force had been destroyed on the first day of the war. The destruction of 100 German tanks was claimed, and special emphasis was placed on the fact that the Polish Westerplatte garrison in Danzig was holding out successfully.40

The French Chamber of Deputies and the French Senate met at Paris on September 2nd at 3:00p.m. Chamber President Herriot and Senate President Jeannenay read brief speeches. The keynote speech in the Chamber was delivered by Premier Daladier, and in the Senate by Vice-Premier Chautemps. Both men delivered moderate speeches favoring a peaceful solution of the European crisis.

The purpose of the parliamentary sessions was to give the French Government [588] a completely free hand in the conduct of a policy which might lead either to peace or to war. A motion for a secret session and a thorough debate on policy in the Chamber was defeated. Full military credits to sustain the mobilization and possible French participation in war were voted without debate. Pierre Laval spoke in the Senate, and he insisted that it would be unconstitutional for the French Government to participate in hostilities without requesting a declaration of war from the French Parliament. This was an extremely controversial issue among the French politicians. Laval did not hesitate to explain his own attitude toward the crisis. He agreed with Bonnet that the Poles were in default on their obligations to France, and he insisted to Daladier that an unwarranted French declaration of war against Germany would be suicidal for France 41


Halifax’s Determination to Drive France into War

Halifax was alarmed by the inclination of the French Government to search for new avenues of peace. He wired to British Ambassador Phipps at Paris that the French attitude was causing grave misgivings in London. He added contemptuously, “we shall be grateful for anything you can do to infuse courage and determination into M. Bonnet.” Halifax had reached a point where he was prepared to brand any man a coward who did not accept his own tragic plan for war. Halifax explained to Phipps in a subsequent dispatch that he would interpret a vote of credits by the French Parliament as a popular mandate for war against Germany. Bonnet attempted to impress Phipps and Halifax with the fact that the German Air Force in Poland was confining its operations to strictly military objectives. He added that Hitler had offered a demonstration of good will by honoring his earlier pledge in this regard. Phipps was merely able to report to Halifax that the French were prepared to consider a joint note to the Germans in the event that the Italian mediation effort failed, but they were continuing to place their faith in this plan.

The French were “strongly” insisting that at least forty-eight hours be allowed for the expiration of any ultimatum in case the conference plan collapsed. Daladier had told Bonnet that in any case he would not permit hostilities to begin before the night of September 4/5. American Ambassador Bullitt informed President Roosevelt that the French were counting on further German efforts to prevent the outbreak of a general war. Kennard, on the other hand, was bombarding Halifax with demands that both Great Britain and France attack Germany immediately. He was sounding out the Soviet diplomats to discover if the Russians would agree to offer military supplies to the Poles. This chimera appealed to Kennard more than the tangible Italian and French proposals for a conference.42

Sir Percy Loraine reported to Halifax on the late afternoon of September 2nd that Hitler had agreed to an armistice and an international conference, and that he was at work on plans to suspend German military operations in Poland. The German leader had declared that he would be able to stop operations on all sectors in Poland by noon on Sunday, September 3rd. Ciano told Loraine [589] that Bonnet was prepared to accept Hitler’s request for less than a day on September 2nd and 3rd to arrange the armistice. Ciano told Loraine that he was delighted with this news.

Ciano telephoned Halifax shortly before Cadogan spoke with Bonnet at 5:00 P.M. The Italian Foreign Minister could scarcely believe his ears when Halifax repeated his previous statement to Bonnet that the British Government would not consider the Italian conference plan until Germany had completed the total evacuation of Polish territory. Ciano was amazed that Halifax ignored Hitler’s willingness to cooperate in suspending hostilities. Ciano assured Halifax that it had been a great achievement to obtain Hitler’s agreement to suspend hostilities on September 3rd, and to enter a conference on the following day. He insisted that a British demand for the withdrawal of German troops was completely unreasonable, and that it would destroy every chance for a peaceful settlement.

The final remark of Ciano revealed the fatal failure of the Italian Foreign Minister to analyze the existing situation in a systematic and thorough fashion. He failed to perceive that British entry into the war was dependent on the consent of France, and that the British would not be able to destroy his peace plan if it was supported by France. Indeed, there is no evidence that Ciano ever stopped to consider this aspect of the situation. He was merely confirming what Halifax hoped would be true when he said that the British were in a position to destroy a peaceful settlement. His remark actually encouraged Halifax. The moment of decision for the Italian mediation effort had arrived, but Ciano was so overwhelmed with indignation at British intransigence that he failed to make the proper comments. He should have taunted Halifax with the fact that the French attitude toward the crisis was entirely different, and that he doubted if Great Britain would challenge Germany without French support. This might have goaded Halifax into making some of the insulting remarks about the French leaders which he had privately conveyed to his diplomats. The situation was complicated by the fact that Ciano continued to fear Halifax at the very moment he was indignant with him. He feared British military power, and he was reluctant to defy Halifax, because of possible British reprisals against Italy. Ciano’s climactic conversation with Halifax was actually brief and inconclusive, and the Italian Foreign Minister put down the receiver in a mood of black depression.

The deplorable military and diplomatic weakness of Italy was decisive in frustrating Bonnet’s attempt to change French policy in the French Defense Council meeting of August 23, 1939, and it was equally decisive in emasculating the Italian mediation effort on September 2, 1939. Halifax was merely bluffing, but he knew that his bluff might be successful in Italy because of Italian fear of British military power. Ciano received word from Attolico immediately after the conversation with Halifax that Hitler was refraining from replying to the British and French notes of September 1st because he was anxiously awaiting the outcome of the Italian mediation effort. Ciano could not help feeling that he had again let Hitler down in his recent conversation with the British Foreign Secretary. This situation assumes an especially tragic aspect when one anticipates that France, Italy, and Germany, despite their efforts to avert the outbreak of World War II, were destined to suffer crushing military defeats in that approaching war.43

Sir Percy Loraine hastened to inform Halifax that Ciano had secured the full support of Germany for a conference before launching his latest diplomatic initiatives at Paris and London. Halifax did not doubt this, but, unlike Ciano, he was fully aware of the crucial importance of the French position. He knew that Bonnet would seek to take the initiative by forcing a change of policy in Great Britain and Poland. Halifax falsely claimed in instructions to Phipps that Hitler was delaying his answer to the French and British notes of the previous day until he had occupied sufficient territory to negotiate on the basis of the Marienwerder sixteen points. It was not likely that this argument would influence Bonnet, because the French Foreign Minister had no objection to a settlement in Poland on the basis of the Marienwerder plan. Bonnet also derived some satisfaction from the fact that Hitler at last had replied to Polish provocations by launching military operations in Poland. He told Anatole de Monzie, the French Minister of Public Works, that he hoped the hoary thesis had been laid to rest that a little firmness would expose the allegedly empty German bluff. Bonnet had realized for a long time that Hitler would fight rather than capitulate in a difficult situation.44

The British were disturbed by some of Bonnet’s remarks to Cadogan in their 5:00 p.m. telephone conversation. The French Foreign Minister had refused to agree that the withdrawal of German troops from Poland was an indispensable condition for a conference. Bonnet warned that he would present this question to the French Cabinet. Halifax naturally feared that Bonnet would persuade the French Cabinet to accept the conference plan on the identical terms agreed to by Hitler. Halifax knew that his plans for war would be frustrated if this happened, and that he would have no choice other than to follow the French lead in accepting the plan for a conference. He was determined to do everything possible to destroy the Italian mediation plan before a decision was reached by the French Cabinet.

Halifax was alarmed by Bonnet’s statement that Lukasiewicz had thus far failed to present a formal request for French aid to Poland. Halifax concluded from this statement that Bonnet personally continued to oppose a French commitment for war on behalf of Poland. The British Foreign Secretary made several tactical moves to cope with this situation. He decided to maintain pressure on the French Government to complete their deliberations as quickly as possible. He believed that this might deprive Bonnet of sufficient time to win the support of his colleagues for a change in French policy. He professed to be aghast when Bonnet informed him that the French Cabinet would probably not reach a decision before 9:00 p.m. He exerted all possible pressure at Paris, and Bonnet finally conceded that the French Cabinet would endeavor to complete its deliberations by 8:00 p.m.45

Phipps warned Halifax that French sentiment was strongly in favor of a negotiated settlement and opposed to war. He cited the moderate statement of Daladier in his Chamber speech that same afternoon: “If reason even now prevailed, France would be willing to work for peace.” This statement had produced a round of loud applause from all sections of the French Chamber. Polish Ambassador Lukasiewicz had been observing the proceedings in glum silence, but he became greatly excited when he heard the statement of Daladier and the response which it received.
[591]
Loraine warned Halifax that Ciano was loudly proclaiming the vast difference between the response of the British and the French to his mediation effort. The danger existed, from Halifax’s standpoint, that the Italian Foreign Minister would suddenly awaken to the fact that France, and not Great Britain, held the key to the situation. Ciano was complimenting Bonnet and declaring that his response was “more forthcoming and willing” than that of Halifax. The British Foreign Secretary was furious when he read this report at 6:00 p.m., and he immediately instructed Phipps to present a strong protest to France. He Chargéd that “the position of the French government was very embarrassing to His Majesty’s Government. ‘ He complained bitterly that he still did not know where France stood in relation to the British demand for the withdrawal of German troops from Poland. He admitted that he had no reason to believe that the French leaders recognized this as a valid demand. He was resolutely opposed to a forty-eight hour ultimatum in the event that the conference plan failed. The British naval authorities were complaining that this would permit many German merchant ships to escape seizure, and that it would cramp the style of British naval operations.

Phipps replied that it would be impossible to deliver this protest at once. The French Cabinet was now in session. The British Ambassador, who privately favored peace, added philosophically that, in any case, Halifax probably would receive an answer to all the questions which were troubling him sometime between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m Halifax realized at once that he had no further opportunity to exert pressure on the French leaders prior to the outcome of the fateful French Cabinet meeting. He knew that Bonnet would make a supreme attempt at that meeting to commit the French Government to a peaceful settlement. He feared that Bonnet would succeed in this purpose, and that the French Government would come out of the Cabinet session with the avowed purpose of insisting on a conference. The prospect of this final ruin of all his hopes for war against Germany was unbearable to Halifax.46


Ciano Deceived by Halifax

Halifax decided to take a desperate gamble. He telephoned Ciano at 6:38 p.m., with the intention of deliberately falsifying the momentary position of the British Government. The French had not yet indicated their definitive response to the Italian mediation plan. The British Government had no intention of opposing Germany without French support. Halifax nevertheless decided to tell Ciano that he was revealing the ultimate British response, and that it was negative. This would be an imprudent lie, but British policy since the Tilea hoax in March 1939 had been based in large part on a tissue of deliberate lies.

Halifax told Ciano that the withdrawal of the German troops from Poland was the essential condition for any conference, and he implied that Great Britain and France were in complete agreement on this important question. Ciano received the false impression that Bonnet had accepted this fatal British maneuver to obstruct a conference prior to attending the French Cabinet, which was still in session. Halifax had received word that Professor Burckhardt was [592] still in Kaunas (Kovno), the Lithuanian capital, some two hundred and fifty miles from Danzig. He insisted to Ciano that Great Britain would demand the restoration of the League High Commissioner and his regime in Danzig before considering the possibility of a conference. Ciano interrupted despairingly again and again to say that Hitler could not possibly fulfill these conditions prior to attending a conference within the next few days. It seemed that the imagination of Halifax was inexhaustible in providing insuperable obstacles to a successful conference. Ciano finally interrupted to assure Halifax that merely “the withdrawal of troops condition would make the whole scheme impossible for Hitler.” The Italian Foreign Minister could not bear this further senseless and sadistic whipping of the dying peace angel. He suspected that Halifax would waste no time in announcing the annihilation of the conference plan to the entire world. It never occurred to him that Halifax would have the audacity to falsify the official French position toward the conference plan. He begged Halifax in vain not to discuss the British attitude toward a conference in Parliament.

There was nothing that Ciano could do to prevent Chamberlain in Parliament at 7:30 p.m. from giving what appeared to be the coup de grâce to Italy’s peace efforts. The British Prime Minister presented a mendaciously distorted version of the entire delicate scheme which had been arranged to preserve the peace. He asserted that Great Britain could not consent to negotiate at a conference while Polish towns were being bombarded and the Polish countryside was being invaded. Chamberlain knew perfectly well that Hitler had agreed to suspend all hostilities as the necessary condition for any conference, but he was willing at the behest of Halifax to tell any lie to destroy the peace. It was merely a coincidence that this unprincipled mendacity occurred shortly after Winston Churchill had agreed to enter the Government as Parliamentary First Lord of the Admiralty. Churchill had received no advance information of the momentous decisions which the British Government was making. Gilbert and Gott offer a complete inversion of these events in presenting Halifax’s telephone conversation with Ciano as an act of appeasement through which the British “Cabinet had been betrayed.”47

Halifax made a similarly misleading statement in the House of Lords, where he also claimed that the British would not be able to participate in a conference while in Poland “towns are under bombardment.” He claimed that “the action taken by the Danzig authorities and the Reichstag yesterday is the final step in the unilateral repudiation of this international instrument (Versailles Treaty) which could only be modified by negotiation.” He failed to explain that juridicially the Danzig-German Pact of September 1, 1939, was no more illegal than the Anglo-German Naval Pact of 1935, which had been concluded by the British without consulting France, Italy, and the other Versailles signatory Powers. His remark about the “final step” was a Freudian slip which revealed his fear that there would be no new opportunity to attack Germany after the completion of Hitler’s program of Versailles Treaty revision.48

[593]
The Mediation Effort Abandoned by Italy

Unfortunately, the deceitful bluff of Halifax succeeded, and Mussolini concluded that the cause of peace was lost. This was a colossal Italian blunder. There was still no reason to assume that the British would act without France, although Ciano and Mussolini had failed to analyze this aspect of the situation, possibly because of their own great fear of British military power, and their concern about the safety of Italy. There was no excuse for them, despite their muddled thinking on this subject, to believe any statement from Halifax without first checking its accuracy from other sources. Both Ciano and Mussolini knew that the history of British diplomacy was studded with deceit and trickery. The Italian leaders suffered from an uncritical faith that no European leader, including Halifax, could be so ruthless in provoking a new World War after the recent and bitter horrors of World War I. Their judgment was also clouded by vanity. Halifax for several years had cleverly combined flattery and threats in his dealings with the Italian leaders. It was especially tragic that Mussolini, who was a shrewd and capable leader, was not more critical at this time in his evaluation of Ciano. He later realized that Ciano was not sufficiently competent to hold his important post, but by then it was too late.49

The situation might have been different had Mussolini been aware of events within the diplomatic corps at Rome. There was ample indication that the French and British were not in accord. Loraine had a furious argument with François-Poncet on the evening of September 2nd, and he reported to Halifax in despair, at 7:00 p.m., that all negotiations for a conference should be transferred from Rome to Paris.50

Kennard wired Halifax from Warsaw at 8:00 p.m. that Beck was demanding major British air operations on behalf of Poland immediately. The optimistic Polish military announcements could not conceal the fact that the Polish Air Force was no more, and the Polish leaders were sufficiently naive to expect that the British would help them. Kennard was slightly less naive, but he wired the following statement to Halifax: “I trust I may be informed at the earliest possible moment of our declaration of war and that our Air Force will make every effort to show activity on the western front with a view to relieving pressure here.” Kennard knew that the British would not send their airplanes to Poland, but he was unaware that they also were not even willing to make a serious military effort in the West to relieve the Poles.

Ciano wired fatal instructions to Attolico in Berlin at 8:20 p.m. on September 2nd. He announced that Mussolini had formally withdrawn his offer to mediate among Great Britain, Germany, Poland, and France. Hitler was advised to abandon his plans for an armistice, and Ciano added that it was useless to proceed with the peace effort when both Great Britain and France were insisting on the withdrawal of German troops as the necessary condition for a conference. The conference proposal was eliminated. Hitler still clung to the hope that one last avenue of escape remained. The British and French had not presented an ultimatum, and they had not declared war. Perhaps the rapidity of the German advance in the local war with Poland, and the senselessness of another World War, would still deter them. The German commanders in Poland were competing [594] with one another to advance more rapidly than required by the schedule of “Operation White,” a truly lightning operational plan.


Bonnet Dismayed by Italy’s Decision

The French Cabinet failed to reach a final decision on the conditions for a conference in their first session which was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Bonnet was hopeful that he would persuade his colleagues to accept the conference plan on the terms agreed to by Hitler. He was stunned to learn that the Italians in the meantime had formally abandoned their mediation effort, and that this had automatically terminated the German plans for an armistice. His effort to persuade his colleagues to accept the Italian terms had been rendered pointless at a single stroke, and without his knowledge. He telephoned Ciano at 8:30 p.m. It was his last conversation with the Italian Foreign Minister. Bonnet explained at once that France had not actually accepted the impossible British condition of a German troop withdrawal from Poland. Ciano expressed his amazement at this news, but he did not see how Italy could retrieve her blunder of cancelling her mediation plan. The British were insisting on the withdrawal of the German troops, and Bonnet no longer had the German assurance for an armistice with which to oppose the British lead. Ciano insisted to Bonnet that a new mediation effort would be unpropitious under these circumstances, and the French Foreign Minister reluctantly agreed. This conversation is a striking example of the manner in which resignation and fatalism can paralyze the will under the enormous pressure of a crisis situation.

Unfortunately, despite their good intentions, Bonnet, and especially Ciano displayed less determination in fighting for peace than did Halifax in promoting war. This distinction made all the difference. Anatole de Monzie, the French Minister of Public Works, would have taken a far more forceful line than Bonnet in insisting that the Italians launch a new mediation effort. He tearfully implored Bonnet, immediately after the latter spoke with Ciano, to renew his attempts for a conference on condition that the German troops agree to stop their advance. He argued that Hitler would very likely agree again to these terms. Bonnet sadly replied that, in his opinion, there was no longer the slightest doubt that such an effort would fail to win the laurels of peace. Halifax was victor, and Germany, Italy, France, and Poland were doomed to desolation and defeat.52

Strangely enough, Bonnet, like Hitler, could not suppress the hope that, somehow, peace would still be preserved. At midnight, September 2/3, Bonnet had a long conversation with Guariglia, the Italian Ambassador. The two diplomats agreed that war could easily have been avoided had there been more cooperation from London. Bonnet assured Guariglia that England’s refusal to compromise had made the conference impossible. The French Foreign Minister confided that he was still hoping for some “symbolic gesture” from Hitler, which would save the situation. The Italian Ambassador questioned Bonnet closely, but he was unable to receive any concrete suggestion of what Hitler could possibly do. He concluded that Bonnet had merely expressed a feeling of [595] intuition. There was a meeting of minds at that moment between Hitler and Bonnet, but neither of them had much basis for hope.53

Halifax waited impatiently for word from Rome following his speech to the House of Lords shortly after 8:00 p.m. At last, Loraine wired Halifax at 9:30 p.m. that the British maneuver had been completely successful. Loraine explained that the Italians “do not feel it possible to press the German Government to proceed with Signor Mussolini’s suggestion.” The British Foreign Secretary was delighted with this news. His position had been vastly simplified by a single stroke. The French were now on the defensive, and he was determined to drive them into war with single-minded energy.


British Pressure on Daladier and Bonnet

Chamberlain telephoned Daladier at 9:50 P.m.. and claimed with unpardonable distortion that he had faced an “angry scene” in Parliament when he announced that he was still consulting with France on the time limit for an eventual ultimatum. High Dalton, one of the Labour Party leaders, claimed that the two men who were chiefly aroused by Chamberlain’s statement were the notorious Tory warmongers, Alfred Duff Cooper and Leopold Amery. Duff Cooper later claimed that the statement of Chamberlain gave him the impression that there would be a “new Munich.” Dalton and most of the other Members failed to receive this impression. The actual “angry scene was staged single-handedly by Leopold Amery. His main grievance was that Chamberlain had not been sufficiently belligerent in his speech. When Arthur Greenwood arose to speak for the Labour Opposition, Amery shouted angrily: “Speak for England!” This was no doubt insulting treatment for the Prime Minister from an irascible Conservative subordinate, but it was a minor incident, and it did not amount to an “angry scene” in the British Parliament. Gilbert and Gott have recently engaged in a new effort to support this myth of the “angry scene” despite all the evidence to the contrary.54

Chamberlain told Daladier on the telephone that he wished to inform the British public before midnight that an ultimatum would be delivered in Berlin by Great Britain and France at 8:00 am. on September 3rd, and that war would follow at noon if the Germans did not capitulate. Daladier was appalled by the war hysteria revealed by Chamberlain, and by the effrontery of this virtual two hour ultimatum to France. The response of the French Premier was negative. He resented the British assumption that they had won their game. He asserted in desperation that he still had good reason to believe that Ciano was about to renew his mediation effort. He advised against any kind of diplomatic step at Berlin before noon on the following day, and he evaded the British proposition that an ultimatum with a time limit should be delivered.55

    [596]
The Collapse of French Opposition to War

The British diplomats were furious with Daladier for defying their Prime Minister, and for delaying the full enjoyment of their triumph. Halifax decided that the withdrawal of the Italian mediation effort permitted him to take a step which otherwise would have been an enormous gamble. He telephoned Bonnet at 10:30 p.m. that the British ultimatum for 8:00 a.m. the next day would be communicated to the British public before midnight, regardless of the attitude of France. He was unable at this moment, with all the odds in his favor, to disguise his basic dependence upon France. He confided that everything would proceed unilaterally up to the expiration of the British ultimatum at noon the following day. Great Britain at that point would take no action whatever unless the French had previously agreed to follow with their own declaration of war within twenty-four hours.

One can easily imagine the fantastic situation which would have unfolded had the British leaders presented a four-hour ultimatum which the Germans could not possibly accept, and then had done nothing when it expired. The Polish leaders, who in any event did not trust the British, would have concluded that they were the victims of a very subtle conspiracy. The Polish reaction would undoubtedly have been mild compared to that of President Roosevelt. The disappointment of the American President would have known no bounds had the war policy of Halifax disintegrated at the last minute.

Halifax was confident that this situation would not come to pass. Nevertheless, he indicated that he would prefer this to embarking on a war against Germany without French support. It is easy to see from this revelation that it would not have been exceedingly difficult for Ciano and Bonnet to outmaneuver Halifax on the diplomatic stage had they been more skillful in concerting their policies. Bonnet protested that Halifax’s proposal for unilateral British action in presenting an ultimatum was very unpalatable. Halifax countered with a typically fantastic claim that, unless war followed immediately, “it seemed very doubtful whether the Government could hold the position here.” Churchill later declared that he feared during the final hours of the crisis that the British Government would not intervene in the German-Polish war. He never hinted that the British Ministers in this event would have been driven from office.

Furthermore, this possibility never entered Churchill’s mind at the time. Churchill merely observed in a letter to Chamberlain on the night of September 2nd that prospects for the formation of a strong coalition War Cabinet would suffer some injury if Great Britain delayed indefinitely the announcement of her decision.56

Halifax was calmly confident by this time, although he was somewhat uncertain about Bonnet’s reaction to this long telephone conversation, in which he had not permitted his French colleague to do much of the talking. He drew up a memorandum on the conversation in which he concluded, after some hesitation, that Bonnet had “finally agreed.”57

Dr. Fritz Hesse of the German Embassy in London discussed the situation with Sir Horace Wilson at the time of the Halifax conversation with Bonnet. Hesse argued for a new effort to arrange a diplomatic conference, but he [597] received no encouragement from Wilson. Hesse was told that Great Britain would have declared war on Germany on September 2nd had it not been for the diplomatic intervention by Mussolini. He sse guessed from further remarks made by Wilson that Daladier had temporarily applied a brake on British “impetuosity.” Hesse hoped that Daladier and Bonnet might succeed at the last moment in preventing an Anglo-French war against Germany.58

The British destroyed these hopes by proceeding to announce publicly their forthcoming ultimatum to Germany. Halifax followed up this momentous development with a wire to Henderson at 11:50 p.m., in which he instructed the British Ambassador to “warn” Ribbentrop that he might ask to see him at any hour. This crass discourtesy was a further indication of Halifax’s confidence that he had won the game. He knew that the British ultimatum would not be delivered until the following morning, and it was his first impulse to give both Henderson and Ribbentrop a sleepless night. He soon relented as far as Henderson was concerned. He confided to the British Ambassador thirty-five minutes later that there would be no ultimatum until the following morning. The British Ambassador, however, never ceased to be a gentleman, and he promptly passed this reassurance along to Ribbentrop. Shortly afterward, following a new complaint from Kennard about the delay in starting the war, Halifax informed Henderson that the ultimatum would expire at 11:00 a.m. instead of noon (British summer time, German standard time). At this point, Halifax was confident that he had won the game. Gilbert and Gott, in citing Kirkpatrick, contradict their own picture of an imaginary Halifax reluctant to face the prospect of war: “Halifax ‘seemed relieved’ that the decision had been made. ‘He called for beer, which was brought down by a sleepy resident clerk in pajamas. We laughed and joked ...‘ “59

French resistance to British impetuosity crumbled rapidly in the face of Halifax’s self-assurance and successes. Bonnet concluded fatalistically that, with the Italians now out of the picture, it would be futile to continue to frustrate British designs. The British at 2:00 a.m. on September 3rd announced their final timetable, which was to be a two-hour ultimatum from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Bonnet decided not to test Halifax’s twenty-four hour policy in which the British would fail to react to the expiration of their own ultimatum unless the French agreed to follow suit on British terms. Bonnet in the final test did not have sufficient personal courage to assume the primary responsibility in defying the British leaders. He told Phipps that the French ultimatum would expire at  4:00 a.m. on September 4th.


The British and French Declarations of War Against Germany

The British ultimatum note was delivered on schedule by Henderson to Dr. Paul Schmidt, the chief German interpreter at the Foreign Office, at 9:00 a.m. Ribbentrop had explained that he was not in the mood to receive ultimata that day. It was a painful moment for Schmidt, who, like other Germans in official circles, was very fond of Henderson.60

Schmidt carried the fatal ultimatum to Hitler’s office in the Chancellery [598]
He discovered that the room was silent when he entered. Hitler was sitting at his desk, and Ribbentrop was standing some distance away at one of the windows. Hitler read the ultimatum carefully. He was quite calm, and he displayed no anger when he received the blow. It was the most cruel blow he had ever received. There was a pause after he had finished reading, and he asked pensively of no one in particular: “What now?” This was a momentous question, but no mortal man could answer it. Ribbentrop understood this perfectly. There was another pause, and the German Foreign Minister said quietly: “I assume France will deliver a similar ultimatum within the next few hours.”

What more was there to say? Europe was now in the grip of the worst crisis of her entire history. Schmidt was not needed, and he left the office. He announced quietly to a group outside which included most of the principal German dignitaries: “In two hours there will be war between Germany and England.” Joseph Goebbels scowled, deep in thought. More formidable tasks faced him now than ever before, because the German people hated the thought of war with England. Göring solemnly spoke for everyone present when he said: “May Heaven have mercy on us if we lose this war!”61

Birger Dahlerus had remained in Berlin at the request of Marshal Göring. He made two further telephone calls to the British Foreign Office before the expiration of the British ultimatum. He announced in his first telephone conversation at 10:15 am. that he was calling to convey an official German appeal for peace. Dahlerus added that he was personally convinced that discussions would be more successful than war. He emphasized that the Versailles Treaty required further peaceful revision, but Europe did not require a war. He exclaimed that all of his efforts had been inspired by one motive, namely, love of peace.

Dahlerus called again at 10:50 a.m., in great agitation, to announce that the German Government had prepared a reply to the British ultimatum. He hoped that this reply would still reach London before 11:00 am. although he could not guarantee it. He added that Marshal Göring had received formal permission from Hitler to fly to Great Britain on a special peace mission. Dahlerus was about to explain the powers which had been granted to Göring, and the concessions he was prepared to make, but Cadogan cut him short. He announced curtly that the British Government could not delay its decision, and he laid down the receiver.62

Dablerus was unable to inform Cadogan that the German Government had prepared a second note for the eventuality that the British Government would refuse to delay their decision. There was one certain factor in this terrible situation. The German leaders would not cringe before the British once they had been challenged by a British declaration of war.

Ribbentrop received Henderson after the outbreak of the Anglo-German war and gave him a reply addressed to Chamberlain and Halifax. This note was received by Henderson at 11:20 a.m. on September 3rd. It opened with the following spirited declaration: “The German Government and the German people refuse to receive, accept, let alone fulfill demands in the nature of ultimata made by the British Government.” The German note expounded the thesis that warlike conditions had existed along the German eastern frontier for many months. The note concluded: “The German people and its Government [399] do not, like Great Britain, intend to dominate the world, but they are determined to defend their own liberty, their own independence, and above all their life.” The second great struggle between Germany and the British Empire had begun. Halifax in 1939 had repeated the achievement of his kinsman, Sir Edward Grey, in 1914, by involving his people in a tragic and unnecessary conflict deplored in both instances by the leaders of Germany. The first of these struggles weakened the British Empire, and the second produced its irrevocable decline.63

French Ambassador Coulondre was received by Weizsäcker at noon. The German State Secretary announced that Ribbentrop was briefly attending a reception for the new Soviet Ambassador to Germany, but that he would return shortly. Coulondre wished to present the French war ultimatum to Weizsaecker, but he was persuaded to wait for Ribbentrop. The German Foreign Minister soon arrived and engaged the French Ambassador in a brief and serious discussion about the tragic impasse in Franco-German relations. Less than one year had passed since the promising Franco-German declaration of friendship of December 6, 1938. The French Government had been under further heavy British pressure, and Bonnet had at last agreed to deliver an ultimatum which would expire at 5:00 p.m. the same day. Coulondre complained that he always had feared his mission to Berlin would end in this way.

Attolico reported to Ciano on the latest events in the German capital at 1:15 p.m. Germany was at war with both Great Britain and Poland, and would soon be at war with France. The Italian Ambassador had the satisfaction of noting that Germany was standing alone in this struggle despite the Italo-German alliance of May 1939, but he realized that a European conflict of these dimensions might easily embroil Italy at some later date. This situation might not have resulted had he not persuaded the Italian Government to repudiate the pledge which Ciano had given to Hitler on August 13, 1939.64


The Unnecessary War

The Germans, by 5:00 P.M. on September 3rd, were at war with three European Powers, whose total European population was 125,000,000 and whose dominion and colonial populations, from which, of course, Poland was excluded, totaled more than 600,000,000. Germany with her 80,000,000 inhabitants, was capable of defending herself, or of defeating any of her immediate neighbors on land who dared to attack her. The immediate neighbors of Germany did not constitute the major German security problem. Entanglement in war with England led eventually to war with the Soviet Union and the United States. These two colossal Powers had a combined population of nearly 400,000,000, and each of them was capable of producing much more war material than Germany. Hitler had only the doubtful support of much weaker countries, such as Italy and Japan, and of a few of the tiny European nations.

It was an unequal struggle, although the Germans, on numerous occasions, achieved successes which seemed to indicate that they might after all prevent the total destruction of their country. Ultimately German resistance collapsed after nearly six years of savage warfare. There were no longer any Great Powers [600] in Western and Central Europe after the passing of Germany as a Great Power in 1945. As General Albert Wedemeyer admirably put the matter, the Western nations conducted their war against Germany like an Indian scalping party without thought or heed for the future. It was not surprising under these circumstances that the only real victor of World War II was the Soviet Union. The proud British Empire was dwarfed by the Soviet colossus. This would not have been possible without the war policy of Lord Halifax which played directly into the hands of the Communist leaders.

The British leaders failed to learn the lessons of World War I, and there has been no indication that they learned them from World War II. The Conservative Prime Ministers since 1951, Churchill, Eden, and Macmillan, were warmongers in 1938 and 1939. The memoirs of Lord Halifax revealed in 1957 that the former British Foreign Secretary was sanctimoniously complacent and smugly unrepentant. The principal British news weekly, Time & Tide, professed to see a far happier world in 1959 than in 1939: “The West does not face today, as did Great Britain and her allies in 1939, an oligarch who lives war for its own sake, backed by a people who largely share his tastes.”65

This was another way of saying that the British leaders did not dare to “redress the balance of power” by attacking the Soviet Union in 1959 as they attacked Germany in 1939.

The Soviet leaders do not share the earlier admiration of Hitler for the British Empire. The British leaders know that their national security, as they enjoyed it in 1939, is a thing of the past. They see no choice other than to bide their time and to place their trust in the allegedly peaceful intentions of the Soviet Union. These miserable circumstances have failed to increase their wisdom. They still refuse to admit that their aggressions against Germany in 1914 and 1939 were the unnecessary blunders which created their present unenviable situation. Time & Tide claimed in 1959 that “to fail in the battle for peace (i.e. appeasement of the Soviet Union) would be to betray the men who fell in the two great wars of this century.” The betrayal of the brave British fighting men who died in two unnecessary wars against Germany cannot be redeemed by the present feeble efforts of the British leaders to placate the most formidable enemy which Great Britain has faced throughout her entire history. As Italian diplomatic historian, Mario Toscano, has pointed out, the balance of power has been replaced by the balance of impotence.66

[601]
CONCLUSION

A marked trend toward a new arrangement of European relations based on the peaceable revision of the old Versailles settlement was rudely interrupted by the unexpected and unnecessary outbreak of World War II in September 1939. Germany had regained her rightful position as the dominant Power in Central Europe during 1938. At that time it seemed only a question of months before she would succeed in establishing relations with all of her immediate neighbors on a solid and dependable basis.

It is necessary to consider briefly in retrospect the European scene immediately after the Munich Conference. Germany was prosperous, and there were numerous indications that France, Great Britain, and Italy were recovering from the effects of the world depression of 1929. There were also hopeful indications that the leaders of France were by this time fully aware of the new realities, and that they were prepared to abandon their old policies of active intervention in Central Europe. This means that the last obstacles to successful Franco-German amity could be removed, because there were no longer any territorial problems or disputes between France and Germany.

Italy had gracefully accepted the reunion of Austria with Germany, and there were no clouds on the horizon of Italo-German relations.

German-Polish relations had shown general improvement for several years prior to 1938, and Hitler’s moderate and reasonable attitude toward Poland was highly auspicious for successful cooperation between the two countries in the future.

There were friendly relations between Germany and Hungary, and there was also increasing confidence and friendliness in German relations with such Balkan nations as Rumania and Yugoslavia.

The Soviet Union had been excluded from the deliberations of the Munich Conference, and there was every indication that the Communist Colossus would remain isolated behind the cordon sanitaire established shortly after World War I.

Hitler’s friendly attitude toward the British Empire was well known. It was evident that Germany had no intention of resuming her earlier rivalry with [602] Great Britain either in naval or in colonial questions. British world trade was increasing along with German prosperity, and hence there was no reason to expect new economic tensions of a serious nature between the former principal rivals of world trade.

All of this should have meant the beginning of a new era of peaceful development for Europe. Instead, Europe the following year, in 1939, was precipitated into the horrors, decline, and eclipse implicit in World War II.

It has been necessary to take a long and penetrating look behind the curtains of the European scene to discover how the tragedy of 1939 intruded its ugly visage on the world. The major aspects of the situation have been examined, but in the end it has been the marth of events in London and Warsaw which has demanded the principal share of the observer’s attention.

Halifax in London succeeded in imposing a deliberate war policy on the British Government in 1938-1939 despite the fact that most of the leading official British experts on Germany favored a policy of Anglo-German friendship. Beck in Warsaw adopted a position of full cooperation with the war plans of Halifax despite the numerous warnings he received from Poles aghast at the prospect of witnessing their country hurtle down the road to destruction.

Many efforts were made by German, French, Italian, and other European leaders to avert the catastrophe, but these efforts eventually failed, and the Halifax war policy, with the secret blessings of President Roosevelt and Marshal Stalin, emerged triumphant. These events have been depicted in the course of the previous narrative. The story culminated in the hideous tragedy of an unnecessary war.

World War II had its origins in the British attempt to destroy National Socialist Germany. Lord Halifax later recalled the “wholly irrational pacifist sentiment” in Great Britain when Hitler came to power. Halifax’s principal achievement on the British home front, prior to the declaration of war on September 3, 1939, was to persuade the people to “face up to Hitler.”’ He was completely successful in this effort, and the Anglo-American scalping party, as described by General Albert C. Wedemeyer, against Hitler and the German people, and incidentally also against the Italians and Japanese, ended in Europe in the ephemeral triumph of Germany’s unconditional surrender. The British Empire since the end of World War II in 1945 has, however, been “facing down” to many nations large and small throughout the world, and the end is not yet.

There was little reason to believe, prior to March 1939, that Great Britain would lead another “crusade” against Germany. The British Government had pursued a strangely inconsistent policy toward Germany throughout the entire 1933-1939 period. It was difficult to say before March 1939 whether more prominent Englishmen approved or disapproved of Hitler.2

The British leaders condoned the first important steps in the remilitarization of Germany in 1935 by concluding an Anglo-German naval pact which violated the Treaty of Versailles. France and Italy both indicated that they would have refused to approve of such a measure had the British consulted them. The British, however, evaded their treaty obligation to do so.

British Foreign Secretary Eden later denied, in March 1936, that the military reoccupation of the Rhineland by Hitler was a “flagrant violation” of the principal Locarno treaty. This was regarded in Paris as tantamount to condoning  [603] Hitler’s action, but Eden confused the issue by denying that France had previously violated her Locarno engagements in concluding the Franco-Soviet alliance. The German case was built on the contention of such a prior French violation.

This British policy of seemingly supporting both France and Germany in a crucially important Franco-German dispute was mysterious and confusing at that time. The same can readily be said of the ambivalent British role during the Austrian and Czech crises in 1938. It should excite no surprise that the eager acceptance of the Munich agreement in France was based on the assumption that the British intended to abide by this highly realistic new type of approach to the problems of Central Europe.

The secret British shift to a war policy in October 1938, when Halifax took over control of British foreign policy from Chamberlain, was followed by the public proclamation of this new policy by Chamberlain himself at Birmingham on March 17, 1939. This culminated, in turn, in the launching of the new “crusade” against Germany on September 3, 1939.

It is a great temptation to judge the outcome of the events of 1939 by the condition of the British Empire today, but such an approach might easily confuse the major issue. Even an increase in the power and prestige of the British Empire following the War would scarcely have excused the slaughter which produced the ruin and military defeat of such continental European states as France, Italy, Germany, and Poland, not to mention the many neutrals of Europe ultimately devastated in the same maelstrom. Denunciation of the British foreign policy of 1938-1939, by pointing to the vicissitudes now afflicting Great Britain, is like ridiculing a reckless man because he has lost a leg. It does not meet Toynbee’s claim that Great Britain had no other choice.

Therefore, a further analytical examination of the record is highly advisable. The Germany of Adolf Hitler had made no move whatever during the 1933-1939 period that threatened the areas of traditional British interest in Western Europe. There was no indication during those years that Germany intended to present selfish or provocative demands on such countries as France, Italy, Holland, Belgium, or Denmark. The problem of the Czechs in Central Europe after the Munich Conference presented a special case. Their homeland was outside the sphere of traditional British interest. The Munich agreement itself had actually been a dead letter since October 1938, when Halifax persuaded the Czechs and Hungarians to ignore Great Britain and France in seeking arbitration of their frontier dispute.

The British Government, after October 1938, repeatedly evaded acceptance of any of the commitments in the Bohemian area which had been suggested at Munich. The British Government, according to both Chamberlain and Halifax, had no right to be consulted about the Hitler-Hacha treaty of March 15, 1939, which represented, as Professor A.J.P. Taylor put it, a conservative solution of the Bohemia-Moravian problem.3

The Polish problem and the Danzig dispute followed the latest Czech crisis. The British Government had certain nominal obligations at Danzig as a member of the League of Nations, but similar British commitments to the League regime at Memel had been ignored without difficulty when that traditionally German city was seized by Lithuania. The Germans had presented only friendly [604] suggestions and no belligerent demands involving Danzig by March 31, 1939, when the British Government extended a definite guarantee to Poland which also gave full support to the Polish attitude toward Danzig. German proposals concerning Danzig had previously been rejected by Poland in a manner deliberately calculated to create tension, but official German policy toward Poland before March 31st was exemplary, and was based exclusively on the desire to reach an amicable understanding with the Poles. There was no German action of any kind to justify British intervention in Poland at that time. Indeed, the guarantee of March 31, 1939, revealed that Great Britain was encouraging Poland to adopt a hostile policy toward Germany despite the generous terms which Hitler had offered for a lasting German-Polish settlement. The German offer, it must be repeated, was in no sense accompanied by demands for a settlement within any specific period of time.

Hitler was friendly toward the Poles, whom he liked, and he had also offered innumerable indications that he strongly favored Anglo-German friendship. There had been no German actions against Great Britain or her interests. There was no valid excuse for the British Government to encourage a German-Polish conflict in the hope of involving Germany in a new World War. The warmongering tactics of pro-Soviet intellectuals in Great Britain and the United States, prior to the Soviet-German pact of August 23, 1939, provided no excuse; rather, they should have been a warning. The personal desire of Maxim Litvinov for a war between Germany and the Western Powers was clearly a hint that such a war might be advantageous for Communism and equally injurious to all other parties. There was no justification for a British Conservative Government to engage in war because it was desired by the Communists and their friends. The British Government had ample popular support for a conservative foreign policy.

The actual British foreign policy moves after March 31, 1939, were directed unrelentingly toward war. Everything possible was done to undermine several excellent opportunities for a negotiated settlement of the German-Polish dispute, and for the negotiation of a new Czech settlement based on international guarantees. Instead of working for a satisfactory agreement with Germany—Hitler was willing to be moderate and reasonable in dealing with both the Polish and the Czech questions—Halifax concentrated on intimidating Italy and bullying France because they both favored peace instead of war. The Polish Government was advised by Halifax to reject negotiations with Germany, and Warsaw was constantly assured that British support would be available for any war. The numerous requests of the German Government for mediation between Germany and Poland, or for a direct Anglo-German agreement, were either answered with deceptions or ignored. A maximum effort was made to present the American leaders with a distorted picture of the actual situation in Europe. All of these British moves had their roots in the obsolete, traditional policy of the balance of power.

The unreasonable attitude adopted by the Polish Government in 1939 is no mystery when one considers the grandiose British assurances to Poland after August 1938. The general policy of Jozef Beck against Germany was eminently satisfactory to Lord Halifax, although there was no mutual admiration between the two men and much disagreement arose between them about policy toward the Soviet Union, Rumania, and other countries. The prospect of unlimited [605] British support for dreams of aggrandizement at the expense of Germany was an irresistable lure to Polish chauvinism. The refusal of the British to guarantee Poland against Soviet aggression was carelessly ignored. The Polish leaders made a German-Polish war inevitable by creating a permanent crisis and refusing to negotiate for its solution. The situation probably would have been entirely different had Poland’s former great leades, JozefPilsudski, been at the helm.

The policy of Hitler was governed by the fact that the British were goading Poland into war against Germany, and that Germany was again threatened by the prospect of a protracted two-front struggle. The German leader showed restraint in the face of Polish provocations, such as partial mobilization, before the British guarantee of March 31, 1939. He concluded after the guarantee that the key to his problems was in London, and he made many efforts to persuade the British Government to change its course, and to encourage a negotiated settlement. It would have been more profitable for him to concentrate his major diplomatic effort at Paris. The French leaders were genuinely inclined toward peace, and the British would not have waged war against Germany without the support of France.

Hitler eventually launched operations in Poland, following the failure of his numerous negotiation efforts, but this was only after he had decided that war with the Poles had become inevitable in any event. Germany would surely have been ruined very quickly had she become involved in a stalemate in Poland during the October rainy season, and had the French and British on the western front elected such a lime to attack with their superior forces. Nevertheless, there was no time before the British declaration of war on September 3, 1939, when Hitler would have opposed a negotiated solution with Poland. An indication of this was shown by his favorable response to the Italian conference plan on September 2, 1939, and his willingness at that time to consider an immediate armistice in Poland. His peace policy foiled because the British Empire decided to challenge Germany before Hitler had completed his program of arriving at amicable understandings with his immediate neighbors.

It is quite likely that a more extensive German armament program after 1936 would have persuaded the British to hold their hand, at least in 1939. Hitler’s many appeals to British good-will were quite futile. It is also clearly evident that the situation would have been saved for Hitler had Italy maintained her previous diplomatic solidarity with Germany. The Italian defection from Germany and her neutrality pledge to Great Britain on August 18, 1939, was the decisive factor in frustrating Bonnet’s attempt to separate France from Poland at the French Defense Council meeting on August 23, 1939. It gave General Gamelin the excuse to argue that the French military position had improved since the previous Defense Council meeting on March 13, 1939. At that previous meeting, when the attitude of Italy was uncertain, Gamelin had confessed that France was unprepared for a conflict with Germany. The changed position of Italy (neutrality in the event of war) was the only conceivable excuse Gamelin could have used to modify his earlier statement on French military prospects.

Halifax’s “success” in promoting World War II resulted primarily from his masterful technique in dealing with prominent Englishmen, and with the Italians and French. His dominant role after the Munich Conference was never challenged in England. and the effectiveness of his diplomacy at Paris and Rome [606] during the last few weeks of peace is beyond dispute. He was far less capable of dealing with the Russians, but the Soviet Union was an alien world which he regarded with indifference, distaste, and contempt. The failure of his negotiations with the Soviet Union made it more difficult to hold France in line, but Halifax ultimately succeeded in even that objective. His main asset in that connection, apart from his successful intimidation of the Italians, was the timidity of French Foreign Minister Georges Bonnet. Bonnet wanted Gamelin, or anyone else, to bear the brunt of British wrath when France refused to go to war. He refused at the last moment to assume that burden himself and to preserve peace.

The indifference of Halifax toward the fate of the Poles made it possible to employ them as an instrument of British policy without compunctions about the inevitably tragic consequences for Poland.

The motives of Halifax in 1939 were clearly derived from the ancient tradition of maintaining British superiority over the nations of Western and Central Europe. He had never questioned the role of his kinsman, Sir Edward Grey, in promoting World War I. Halifax did not propose to tolerate the existence in 1939 of a German Reich more prosperous and more influential than the Hohenzollern Empire which had been destroyed in 1918. It was for the prestige of Great Britain rather than for such mundane considerations as national security or immediate British interests that Halifax became a proponent of war in 1938. The traditional British aim to dominate policy in Continental Europe was the underlying reason why the world experienced the horrors of World War II. It was in pious service to this hoary ideal rather than for personal prestige or profit—he was amply endowed with both prior to 1938—that Halifax conducted his policy. He recognized no restraint of any kind in the pursuit of his objective. He was satisfied that his goal was legitimate and in the closest possible harmony with the ideal expressed in his maiden speech to Parliament so many years earlier: the eternal glory and superiority of the British Empire. That the triumph shared by the British in the subsequent struggle was illusory and temporary, Halifax attributed to the will of Providence.

Others have not so easily achieved even this momentary solace, the solace of the principal perpetrator of World War II. The German people, especially, have been laden with an entirely unjustifiable burden of guilt. It may safely be said that this is the inevitable consequence of English wars, which for centuries have been waged for allegedly moral purposes. It is equally evident that the reconciliation which might follow from the removal of this burden would be in the interest of all nations which continue to reject Communism.

A sober view of the blunders of recent years and their consequences would be the best possible aid in now facing the difficult task of the future. The worst of these blunders was undoubtedly the British decision to encompass the destruction of Germany. Further research within the context of traditional British foreign policy will surely add a great deal to our understanding of this blunder, but it will not justify it.4 There can be no real justification for the ruin of Europe in this greatest of all wars, waged as a consequence of the antique policy, illusions, and ruthless actions of Lord Halifax, an impressively old-fashioned and pious British aristocrat.
[607]
1.    Earl of Halifax, Fullness of Days, New York, 1957, p. 182.

2.    Frederick L. Schuman, Europe on the Eve: the Crises of Diplomacy 1933-1939, New York, 1939, pp. 332-346.

3.    A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, London, 1961, p. 202.

4.    Lord William Strang, Britain in World Affairs: the Fluctuation in Power and Influence from Henry VIII to Elizabeth II, New York, 1961, pp. 326ff.; Halifax, in 1939, was in the unique position of being free to choose between two entirely different policies for his country: peace and conciliation, or aggessive war; the greater enthusiasm for peace, despite the presence of vociferous Tory war minority, headed by Churchill, made it far more difficult for Halifax to achieve than to continue with a peaceable policy.

[609]

Appendix


Identifications of Persons Mentioned in the Text


Abetz, Otto: friend of Ribbentrop and advocate of Franco-German understanding.

Adams, John: brilliant publicist, politician, and second American president.

Alexander I: Yugoslav sovereign assassinated in 1934.

Alexander I: Russian ruler at the time of the Vienna Congress.

Amery, Leopold: British Conservative politician, born ten India, active in colonial affairs, opposed appeasement.

Arciszewski, Miroslaw: Polish career diplomat, friend of Jo~ef Beck, Minister to Rumania, 1932-1939.

Astakhov, Georgi: Russian Chargé deAffaires at Berlin.

Astor, Lord Waldorf: British politician and foreign affairs expert.

Attlee, Clement: British Labour Party chief, 1935-1955.

Attolico, Bernardo: Italian Ambassador to Germany.

Baginski, Henryk: popular Polish geopolitician.

Baily, Léon: leading French newspaperman (le Jour).

Baldwin, Stanley: British Conservative Prime Minister, 1924-1929, 1935-1937. Balfour, Arthur James: British Conservative leader and World War I foreign secretary. Barnes, Joseph: American journalist in Berlin Barthou, Louis: French Foreign Minister, 1933-1934, and friend of Raymond Pain-care.

Baudouin, Paul: French financier and diplomatic trouble-shooter in Italyme

Beaverbrook, Lord Max: British newspaperman and Conservative politician.

Beck, Jozef: Polish Foreign Minister, 1932-1939.

Beck, General Ludwig: German Army staff chief until 1938, underground opponent of Hitler.

Beethoven, Ludwig van: classic German composer.

Benes, Edvard: Czech nationalist and 2nd President of Czechoslovakia.

Benoist-Méchin, Jacques: French historian and expert on military affairs.

Beran, Rudolf: Czech Premier, 1938-1939.

Béraud, Henri: French journalist (Gringoire).

 [610]

Bergery, Gaston: French Radical Socialist politician.

Ben, Emmanuel: leading French newspaperman (Marianne).

Beseler, General Hans von: German Governor of Occupied Poland in World War I.

Best, W.K.: Gestapo official in charge of Polish-Jewish deportation action in 1935.

Bethmann-Hollweg, Theobald von: Chancelor of Germany, 1909-1917.

Bevin, Ernest: British Labour Party leader.

Biddle, Anthony: American Ambassador to Poland.

Bismarck, Otto von: Prussian statesman who created the German Second Reich.

Blanqui, Auguste: 191h century French secialist politician and political philosopher.

Blomberg, Werner von: German Defense Minister, 1932-1938.

Blücher, General Gebhard: Prussian Army commander at Waterloo.

Blücher, Wuepert von: German Minister to Finland.

Blum, Léon: French Socialist since 1902, leader of French Socialist Party, 1914-1945. Bobrzynski, Michal: pro -Habsburg Polish statesman and historian.

Bochenskki, Adolf: Krakow historian and expert on Polish foreign policy.

Böning, Robert: Secretary for the Society of German-Polish Friendship.

Bonnet, Georges: French Army officer and politician, repeatedly Cabinet Minister after 1925, Ambassador to United States, 1936-1937, Foreign Minister, 1938-1939.

Böticher, Viktor: Danzig diplomat and foreign affairs expert.

Botta, André: French Socialist Party leader.

Brauchitsch, Waliher von: German Army Commander.

Briand, Arislide: popular French politician and Foreign Minister until 1932.

Brooks, Collin: British publicist and extreme nationalist.

Brüning, Heinrich: German Chancellor, 1930-1932.

Bucard, Marcel: French authoritarian politician, leader of Francisine.

Buchanan, George: 1914 British Ambassador to Russia.

Budenny, General Semyon: Bolshevik commander who defeated the Poles in the Ukraine in 1920.

Bullitt, William C.: American Ambassador to USSR, 1933-1936, and to France, 1936-1940

Burckhardt, Carl Jacob: Swiss historian and last League High Commissioner at Danzig.

Burgin, Leslie: British Minister of Transport in the Chamberlain Government.

Bute, Lord John Stewart: British Prime Minister, 1761-1763.

Butler, RAB,: British Parliamentary UnderSecretary for Foreign Affairs.

Buxton, Charles Roden: British Quaker leader and champion of an Anglo-German understanding.

Cadogan, Alexander: British Permanent Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs after 1937.

Caillaux, Joseph: French reform statesman, ex-Premier, Senator, Radical Socialist leader.

Carol II; Rumanian sovereign, 1930-1940.

Castlereagh, Robert: British Foreign Secretary, 1812-1822.

Catchpool, T.C.P.: British social worker, active in the Sudetenland.

Catherine II: 18th Century Russian sovereign.

Cavour, Camilo: Italian statesman who collaborated with Napoleon III.

Celovsky, Boris: Czech historian, expert on diplomatic history.

Charles II: 17th Century Stuart sovereign of England.

Charles IV (Luxemburg-Premyslid): 14th Century Holy Roman Emperor.

Charles VIII: 15th Century French sovereign.

Chamberlain, Austen: Conservative British Foreign Secretary at the time of the Locarno treaties.

Chamberlain, Joseph: pre-Worid War I British Conservative Colonial Secretary and champion of protectionism (high tariff).

Chamberlain, Neville: Conservative British Prime Minister, 1937-1940; son of Joseph and brother of Austen,

Chambre, Guy la: French Air Minister.

Champetier de Ribes: French Radical Socialist politician.

Chatfield, Admiral Alfred: First Sea Lord of the British Admiralty, 1933-1938, chairman Indian Defence Comm., 1938-1939.

Chautemps, Camille: French Radical Socialist politician, several times Premier, vice-Premier under Daladier, 1938-1940.

Chiran, Henri: French Minister of Justice in the Doumergue Government.

Chiappe, Jean: Parisian police prefect.

Chodacki, Marjan: Polish career diplomat, Polish High Commissioner at Danzig, 1936-1939.

Chlapowski, Alfred: Polish Ambassador to France, 1924-1936.

Churchill, Winston: anti-German British Conservative politician.

Chvalkovsky, Frantisek: Czech career diplomat, Foreign Minister after the Munich conference.

Ciano, Galeazzo: Italian Foreign Minister, 1936 -1942, son-in-law of Mussolini.

Cincar-Markovic, Aleksander: Yugoslav Foreign Minister.

Clemenceau, Georges: French Premier who favored a harsh peace with Germany in 1919.

Corbin, Charles: French Ambassador to Great Britain.

Cotton, William: British Conservative opponent of Halifax’s 1939 policy.

Coulondre, Robert: French Ambassador to Germany, 1938-1939.

Cranborne, Lord Robert: British House of Lords leader; against appeasement in 1938.

Cretzianu, Alexandru: Rumanian diplomatic trouble-shooter in England, 1939.

Cromwell, Oliver: 17th century English revolutionary leader and statesman.

Cromwell, Thomas: English adventurer and politician, adviser to Cardinal Wolsey, later Government Minister, 1534-1540.

Csiky, Istvan: Hungarian Foreign Minister, 1938 -1 941.

Cvetkovic, Dragisa: Yugoslav Premier, 1939 -1941.

Czartoryski, Adam: Polish statesman in close collaboration with Alexander I of Russia since 1795.

Dabski, Jan: Polish National Democratic diplomat; head of Polish delegation at Riga peace negotiations in 1921.

Dahlerus, Birger: Swedish engineer and private diplomatic trouble-shooter.

Daladier, Edouard: French Army officer, history teacher, and Radical Socialist politician; several times Premier, his last and most important term, 1938-1940.
 [611]
Dalton, Hugh: British Labour Party leader.

Dalimier, Albert: French Radical Socialist politician implicated in the Stavisky affair.

Daszynski, Ignaz: Polish socialist leader and friend of Pilsudski.

Daudet, Alphonse: 19th Century French revanche writer and novelist.

Daudet, Léon: novelist, journalist, and conservative politician; son of Alphonse.

Davies, Joseph: American Ambassador to USSR, 1936-1938, Belgium, 1938-9.

Davignon, Jacques: former Belgian foreign minister, envoy to Germany (Minister, 1936-1938;Ambassador, 1938-1940).

Dawson, Geoffrey: friend of Halifax, editor of the London Times

Déat, Marcel: French neo-socialist leader and opponent of Léon Blum.

Delbos, Yvon: French Foreign Minister, 1937-1938.

Denikin, General Anton: Russian nationalist leader who opposed Communism.

Dietrich, Otto: German press chief at Berlin.

Dimitrov, Georgi: Bulgarian Communist; Comintern chief at Moscow.

Dirksen, Herbert von: German Ambassador to Great Britain, 1938-1939.

Dorgerès, Jacques: French farm pressure group leader.

Dmowski, Roman: Polish political philosopher and statesman; advocated collaboralion with Russia.

Doriot, Jacques: ex-Communist authoritarian French politician.

Doumenc, Général: chief of the 1939 French military mission to USSR.

Doumergue, Gaston: French President and Premier.

Draganov, Parvan: Bulgarian Minister to Germany in close collaboration with USSR diplomats.

Drax, Admiral Reginald Aylmer Ranfurly Plunkett-Ernie-Erle: chief of 1939 British military mission to USSR.

Dreyfus, Alfred: 19th century French officer condemned for treason and later pardoned.

Druffel, Ernst von: German Consul-General in Bratislava, Slovakia.

Duff Cooper, Alfred: British historian and anti-German Conservative politician.

Duranty, Walter: N.Y. Times correspondent in Moscow.

Durcansky, Ferdinand: Slovak nationalisl leader.

Eden, Anthony: friend of Churchill and British Foreign Secretary, 1935 -1938.

Edward VIII: British sovereign forced to abdicate in 1936.

Eisenlohr, Ernst: German Minister to Czechoslovakia.

Elias, Alois: Czech Premier after March 1939.

Eugene of Savoy, Prince: 18th century Habsburg military hero.

Fabricius, Wilhelm: German Minister to Rumania.

Farley, James: United States Postmaster-General and Democratic Party campaign manager.

Faure, Paul: French Socialist leader.

Fernandez, Ramon: French Communisi writer and intellectual leader.

Flandin, Pierre-Etienne: French Foreign Minister during the 1936 Rhineland crisis; opposed the 1939 British war policy.

Fritsch, Werner von: German Army commander demoted in 1938.

Forster, Albert: Danzig National Socialisi Party leader.

Franassovici, Richard: Rumanian Ministen to Poland.

François-Poncet, André: French Ambassador to Germany, 1931-1938; to Italy 1938 -1940.

Frank, Hans: German Minister of Justice.

Frederick II: 18th Century Hohenzollern ruler of Prussia.

Freysing, Bishop Otto: Hohenstaufen churchman and historian.

Frick, Wilhelm: German Minister of Interior.

Fritzche, Hans: leading official, after Goebbels and Naumann, in the German Propaganda Ministry.

Fudakowski, Senator Kazimierz: Polish politician and banker; advocated a strong policy against Lithuania.

Gärtner, Margarete: German publicist and expert on Danzig.

Gafencur Grigorie: Rumanian Foreign Minister, friend of Jozef Beck.

Gallacher, William: Communist MP from West Fife (Scotland).

Gamelin, General Maurice: French Army Commander.

Gandhi, Mohandas: Indian nationalist and freedom leader.

Garibaldi, Giuseppe: Italian revolutionary leader; captured Sicily and Naples from the Bourbons.

Gauché, Général: chief of French counterintelligence, 1933-1940.

Gaxotte, Pierre: French conservative journalist (Je suis partout).

Geist, Raymond: American diplomat at Berlin, 1929-1939; Chargé d’Affaires, Feb-May 1939.

George III: British sovereign, 1760-1820.

Gerard, James: American Ambassador to Germany, 1913-1917.

Geddes, Sir Auckland: British Conservative politician and onetime president of the Board of Trade.

Géraud, André: French pro-Communist journalist (Pertinax).

Gide, André: pro-Communist French novelist.

Giuchowski, General Janusz Julian: Polish Vice-Minister of War, 1935-1939.

Goebbels, Joseph: German Minister for Propaganda and Public Enlightenment.

Gördeler, Carl: Saxon bureaucrat and underground opposition leader against Hitler.

Göring, Hermann: Chief of German Air Force, Reichstag President, Prussian Minister-President, Minister of Economics.

Goga, Octavian: anit-Jewish Rumanian poet and politician; Premier in 1937.

Goluchowski, Agenor: Polish Conservative and Duma representative.

Gorecki, General Roman: chief of Polish World War I veterans.

Gorer, Geoffrey: British sociologist and expert on national character.

Gorka, Olgierd: Polish revisionist historian.

Grabski, Wladislaw: Polish National Democratic politician.

Grazynski, Michal: Silesian-Polish insurrectionary: governor of East Upper Silesia since 1926.

Greiser, Artur: Danzig Senate President, 1934 -1939.

Greenwood, Arthur: British Labour Party leader.

Grenfell, Russell: British naval officer and military historian, favored reconciliation with Germany.

Grey, Edward: British Foreign Secretary at the outbreak of World War I.

 [612]

Grübnau, Walter: Danzig citizen murdered at Kalthof in May 1939.

Grühn, Erna: German prostitute; married Defense Minister Blomberg.

Grynszpan, Herschel: degenerate murderer of Ernst yam Rath.

Grzybowski, Waclaw: Polish Ambassador to USSR, 1935-1939.

Guariglia, Raffaele: Italian Ambassador to France, 1938-1940.

Gunther, Franklin Mott: American Minister to Rumania, 1937-1940.

Gustav V: Swedish monarch freindly to Germany and Poland.

Hacha, Emil: Czech president, 1938-1939. Haking, General Richard: early British League High Commissioner at Danzig. Halecki, Oskar: dean of Polish-American historians.

Halivy, the Daniel: French historian; expert on England and on French political tradition.

Halifax, Lord Edward: British Foreign Secretary, 1938-1941.

Hanfstaengl, Ernst: German art expert and press adviser to Hitler until 1937.

Hankey, Maurice: member of British Defence Council and Cabinet Minister until 1938; critical of 1939 Halifax war policy.

Hasbach, Senator Hans: Conservative German politician of Poland.

Hassell, Ulrich von: German Ambassador to Italy, recalled in 1938; German underground leader.

Hearnshaw, F.J.C.: British publicist and supporter of Halifax.

Helfand, Leon: Soviet Chargé dAffaires at Rome.

Hencke, Andor: German Legation Counsellor at Prague, 1935-1939.

Henderson, Nevile: British Ambassador to Germany, 1937-1939; friend of Chamberlain.

Henlein, Konrad: Sudeten German Party leader in Czechoslovakia.

Henriot, Philipe: French conservative politician.

Henry VIII: 16th Century British sovereign.

Herbert, Sidney: British Conservative politician and opponent of appeasement in1938.

Herder, Johann Gottfried: German romanticist and Slavophile.

[613]

Herriot, Edouard: French Radical Socialist politician, Premier, President Chamber of Deputies, Mayor of Lyons.

Hertling, Georg von: World War I German Chancellor.

Hesse, Dr. Fritz: German press chief at the London Embassy.

Hindenburg, Paul von: German President, 1925-1934.

Hitler, Adolf: German Chancellor after 1933.

Hlinka, Andréas: Slovakian national hero and independence leader.

Hoare, Reginald: British Minister to Rumania.

Hoare, Samuel (Lord Templewood): British Foreign Secretary in 1935; adviser to Halifax.

Hodza, Milan: Hiasist pro-Czech Slovak politician; Czechoslovak Premier, 1937-1938.

Hoisti, Rudolf: Finnish Foreign Minister.

Hoover, Herbert: American President, 1929-1933; critic of Rooseveltian foreign policy.

Horthy, Nicholas: Hungarian admiral; regent of the Hungarian kingdom after 1920.

Hossbach, Friedrich: German Army liaison officer.

Hudson, Robert: British trade expert and Government official.

Hull, Cordell: American Senator; Secretary of State, 1933-1945.

Hus, John: Prague University professor after 1398 and religious leader.

Ickes, Harold: American Secretary of the Interior.

Imoni Bela: Hungarian reform politician; Premier, 1937-1938.

Inönü, Ismet: Turkish President and military officer; successor of Kemal.

Inikip, Thomas: British Defence Minister.

Ironside, General Edmund: British Army Inspector-General; after Sept. 1939, British Army Commander.

Janson, Martin von: German Consul-General at Danzig.

Jarman, T.L.: American historian and expert on Germany.

Jaurès, Jean: French Socialist leader assassinated in 1914.

Jaworski, W.L.: pro-Habsburg Polish statesman.

Jebb, Gladwyn: Secretary to Alexander Cadogan.

 [614]
Jedrzejewicz, Waclaw: Polish Cabinet Minister and historian.

Jefferson, Thomas: brilliant political philosopher and third American President.

Jodl, General Alfred: Bavarian officer and loyal supporter of Hitler.

Johnson, General Hugh: New Peal administrator; critic of Roosevelt’s foreign policy.

Jones, Thomas: British Liberal politician and trust executor; friend of Lloyd George and Stanley Baldwin.

Joseph II: 18th Century Holy Roman Emperor and progressive statesman.

Jouvenel, Bertrand de: French writer; advocate of Franco-German understanding.

Jouvenel, Henry de: French senator and Ambassador to Italy.

Jules, Henri: French Ambassador to the United States until 1936.

Kaczmarek, Czeslaw: Polish scholar and spokesman of Poles in Germany.

Kaganovich, Lazar: Soviet Politburo member and brother-in-law of Stalin

Kanya, Kalman: Hungarian Foreign Minister, 1933-1938.

Kasprzycki, Tadeusz: Polish Army staff chief; educated in France.

Kauffmann, Rudolf: National Socialist Party leader in South Tirol.

Kava, Colonel: Polish military attaché at Berlin,

Keble, John: Oxford religious leader and poet.

Keitel, General Wilhelm: German Army staff chief executed at Nuremberg, 1946.

Kemal, Mustafa: Turkish general, revolutionary leader; first President of Turkey.

Kennard, William Howard: British career diplomat since 1907; Ambassador to Poland, 1935-1939, and to Polish Government-in-exile, 1939-1941.

Kennedy, Joseph: American Ambassador to Great Britain,

Kerillis, Henri de: leader of the French journalistic crusade against Germany.

Keyes, Roger: British Admiral aod Conservative MP from Portsmouth; anti-appeasement in 1938.

Kiderien-Waechter, Alfred: German Foreign Minister, 1910-1912.

Kirk, Alexander: American Chargé drAffaires at Berlin in 1939.

Kirov, Sergei: Leningrad administrator murdered in 1934.

Kisielewski, Jozef: Polish publicist; expert on Polish minorities abroad.

Knatchbuli-Hugessen, Hughe: British diplomat; Ambassador to China, Turkey, and Foreign Office bureau chief.

Koc, Adam: Polish banker and statesman; organizer of the OZON state Party group.

Kordt, Erich: German Foreign Officeand personal assisant to Ribbentrop.

Kordt, Theo: German Chargé d’Affaires in London,

Korfanty, Adalbert: polish National Democrat; organized three insurrections in Upper Silesia.

Kozdon, S.I.: Slonzak mayor of Teschen; deposed by Poles in 1938.

Krofta, Kamil: Czech ioreign Minister and friend of President Benes.

Kucharzewski, Jan: Polish historian friendly to Germany; author of From White to Red Czarism.

Kundt, Theodor: German minority leader in central Bohemia.

Kunicki, Ryszard Pawel: Polish Foreign Office official critical of Beck’s policy.

Kwiatkowski, Eugeniusz: Krakow  engineer; Polish Secretary of Commerce from 1926, Vice-Premier from 1935.

Lansbury, George: British Labour Party chief, 1931-1935.

Lauzanne, Stephane: leading French journalist (le Matin).

Laval, Pierre: former French Premier and Foreign Minister opposed to the 1939 British war poltcy.

Lazareff, Pierre: French journalist (l’Ordre).

Lebrun, Albert: French President, 1932-1940.

Léger, Alexis: Secretary-General at the French Foreign Office, 1933-1940.

Legrenier, Paul: French journalist and spokesman for a German-Polish understanding (special mission to Berlin, 1939).

Lepecki, Michal: adjutant of Pilsudski; expert on Jewish resettlement.

Lester, Sean: unpopular British League High Commissioner at Danzig, 1933-1936; removed at Danzig’s request.

Levy, Louis, French Socialist jounalist.

Lebohova, Ekrem Bey: Albanian Foreign Minister.

Lieberman, Herman: Jewish Socialist imprisoned in a Polish concentration camp in 1930.

Lincoln, Abraham: American Civil War President; advocate of negro resettlement.

Lindbergh, Charles: American aviation hero and military expert.

Lindsay, Ronald: British Ambassador to the United States.

Lipski, Jcizef: Polish Minister and Ambassador to Germany, 1933-1939.

Litvinov, Maxim: Soviet Foreign Affairs Commissar, 1928-1939.

Lloyd George, David: British Prime Minister, 1916-1922.

Lochner, Louis P.: American journalist in Berlin.

Lokolnicki, Jan: Polish Minister to Turkey.

Londonderry, Lord Charles: British Air Minister and advocate of reconciliation with Germany.

Loraine, Sir Percy: British Ambassador to Italy, 1939-1940.

Lord, Robert Howard: Harvard historian and American specialist on Poland and Russia at the Versailles Peace Conference.

Lothian, Philip Kerr, Lord: British foreign Policy expert, Ambassador to the United Stales, 1939-1941.

Louis XIV: greatest of the Bourbon sovereigns of France; died in 1715.

Lubienski, Michal Tomasz: Polish foreign office official, 1920-1939; Beck’s chef de cabinet,

Lueck, Kurt: German cultural historian and expert on Poland.

Lukasiewicz, Juliusz: Polish Ambassador to France, 1936-1939; personal friend of Beck,

Lyautey, G~n&al Hubert: French Marshal; member of French Academy.

Mac Donald, Ramsay: British Prime Minister, 1923-1924; 1929-1935.

Mac Donnell, M.S.: early British League High Commissioner at Danzig.

Macmillan, Harold: British publisher and 1938 anti-Appeasement Tory politician.

Mandel, Georges (Jereboam Rothchild): Minister for Colonies in the Daladier Government, 1938-1940.

Mackensen, Field Marshal August von: German World War I hero of Polish and Balkan operations.

Mackensen, Hans Georg: German State Secretary and Ambassador to Italy.

Mackiewicz, Stanislaw: Polish publicist and critic of Beck’s policy.

Magistrati, Count Massimo: Italian Chargé d’Affaires at Berlin.

Maisky, Ivan: Soviet Ambassador to Great Britain.

Makins, Roger: British Foreign Office legal expert.

Maria Theresa: 18th Century Queen of Hungary, wife of Holy Roman Emperor Francis I, mother of Joseph II and Leopold II, daughter of Charles VI.

Marx, Karl: political philosopher and father of modern Communism.

Masaryk, Jan: Czech Ambassador to Great Britain; son of President Masaryk.

Masaryk, Thomas: Czech revolutionary leader; first president of Czechoslovakia.

Mastny, Vojtech: Czech Minister to Germany, 1937-1939.

Matteotti, Giacomo: Italian Socialist leader and opponent of Mussolini.

Matuszewski, Ignacy: Polish financier and journalist; friend of Pilsudski,

Maurras, Charles: French royalist journalist and politician.

Mazzarini, Giulio: Italian statesman; first minister of France, 1642-1661.

Meissner, Otto: German State Secretary; assistant to Ebert, Hindenburg, and Hitler.

Merekalov, Alexander: soviet Ambassador to Germany.

Mickiewicz, Adam: Polish romanticist poet and revolutionary.

Mikoyan, Anastas: Soviet official and economic expert.

Moltke, Hans Adolf von: German Minister and Ambassador to Poland, 1931-9.

Moltke, Helmuth von: Prussian General Staff chief and expert on Poland.

Molotov, Vyacheslav: Soviet Foreign Cammissar, 1939-1949.

Monnet, Georges: French Socialist leader. Monzie, Anatole de: Radical Socialist Politician; Minister of Transportation in the Daladier Government.

Moraczewski, Jedrzej: Polish revolutionary and Socialist Premier of Poland.

Morawski, Zygmunt: Polish soldier and chauffeur; perpetrator of the Kalthof murder, May 1939.

Morgenthau Henry Jr.: Secretary of Treasury in Roosevelt Cabinet.

Morrison, Herbert: British Labour Party leader.

Moscicki, Ignaz: Polish Scientist and President of Poland.

Muensterbers, Wili: Communist agent who organized anti-National Socialist propaganda in Paris,

Mussolini, Benito: Italian Premier, 1922-1945.

Nadolny, Rudolf: former German Ambassador to the USSR.

Naggiar, Paul-Emile: French Ambassador to the USSR, 1938-1940.

Namier, L. Bemstein: British diplomatic historian; notoriously anti-German.

Napoleon I: Emperor of the French; died in British captivity.

Napoleon III: Emperor of the French; captured by Prussia at Sedan in 1870.

Narutowicz, Gabriel: friend of Pilsudski and President of Poland; assassinated in 1922.

Neurath, Konstantin von: German Foreign Minister, 1932-1938; later Protector of Bohemia-Moravia.

Newton, Sir Basil: British Minister to Czechoslovakia until March 1939. Nicolson, Harold: British diplomatic historian and Conservative politician; anti-appeasement in 1938.

Nietzsche, Friedrich: 19th Century German philosopher admired by Hitler and Mussolini.

Nikita (Nicholas I): sovereign of Montenegro, 1860-1918.

Noël, Léon: French Ambassador to Poland, 1936-1939.

Norman, Montagu: Governor of the Bank of England, 1920-1944; friend of Hjalmar Schacht.

Nye, Gerald: American Senator leading the defense of American neutrality legislation against New Deal attacks, 1939-1941.

Ogilvie-Forbes, George: British Chargé d’Affaires at Berlin and principal assistant of Sir Nevile Henderson; opposed to war in 1939.

Orsenigo, Cesare: Papal Nuncio at Berlin,

Oster, Colonel Hans: German counterintelligence officer and underground opponent of Hitler.

Osusky, Stephan: Czechoslovak Ambassador to France.

Ott, Eugen: German Ambassador to Japan.

Ottokar II (Premyslid): 13th Century Bohemian sovereign.

Paderewski, Ignaz: Polish musician and National Democratic Premier of Poland.

Palacky, Francis: 19th Century Czech nationalist and historian.

Palmerston, Lord Henry: 19th Century British Foreign Secretary.

Papée, Kazimierz: Polish High Commissioner at Danzig; after 1936, Polish Ambassador to the Vatican.

Papen, Franz von: German Chancellor in 1932; later Ambassador to Austria and Turkey.

Paul-Boncour, Joseph:    French Radical Socialist politician, several times Foreign Minister.

Paul Karageorgevic: Yugoslav Recent, 1934-1941.

Perkowski, Tadeusz: reallroad executive and assistant to Chodacki at Danzig.

Perth, James Eric Drummond, Lord: Secretary.General of the League of Nations, 1919-1933; British Ambassador to Italy, 1933-1939.

Pétain, Marshal Henri: French World War I hero and defense strategist; Chief of State, 1940-1944.

Petlura, Semyon: Ukrainian Socialist leader.; collaborated with Pisudski after World War I.

Petrescu-Comnen, Nicolae: Rumanian Foreign Minister, 1937-1939; opponent of Jozef Beck.

Pfeffer, Karl Heinz: German publicist; expert on Great Britain and the United States.

Phipps, Eric: British Ambassador to France, 1934-1940; former Ambassador to Germany; brother-in-law of Vansittart.

Piasecki, Julian: Polish engineer; UnderSecretary for Transportation, 1933 - 1939.

Piatkowski, Edmund: Polish soldier killed on the German border in August 1939.

Pichon, Stephen: World War I French Foreign Minister.

Pierce, Franklin: New Hampshire politician; American President after Fillmore.

Pilsudika, Alexandra: widow of Pilsudski; born Suwalki, 1882, studied at Lwow University.

Pilsudski, Jozef: Polish revolutionary leader and World War I hero; Dictator of Poland, 1926-1935.

Pitt, William (Lord Chatham): 18th Century British Prime Minister; directed British policy during the decisive phase of the Seven Years’ War.

Pitt, William: British Prime Minister, 1783-1801, 1806; led Great Britain in war against France after 1792.

Pius XII: Roman Catholic Pontiff; leader of the European peace campaign, March-September 1939; failed to persuade Beck to negotiate with Germany in August 1939.

Poincaré, Raymond: French lawyer and statesman; served as Premier and President; died in 1934.

Poniatowski, Jan: aristocratic Polish Minister of Agriculture; opposed to major agrarian reforms.

Potemkin, Vladimir: Soviet Assistant Coinmissar for Freign Affairs.

Potocki, Artur: Polish Conservative leader from Eastern Poland.

Potocki, Jerzy: Polish Ambassador to the United States, 1936-1939.

Potworowski, Gustaw: Polish Minister to Sweden.

Pressard, Georges: French Attorney-General; brother-in-law of Chautemps.

Price, Ward: British journalist and expert on authoritarian systems.

Raczynski, Esward: Polish Ambassador to Great Britain, 1934-1939; top aristocracy; studied at Oxford.

Radziwill, Aibrecht: Polish Conservative leader from Western Poland.

Radziwil, Stanislaw: received highest decoration for heroism in the 1920-1921 war with Russia; son of Aibrecht.

Raeder, Erich: German Navy Commanderin-Chief.

Rath, Ernst vom: German career diplomat; assassinated at Paris, 1938.

Renaud, Jean: French authoritarian politician; leader of Sodidarit~ FraucaLee.

Rauschning, Hermann: Danzig National Socialist Senate President, 1933-1934; later anti-German publicist.

Reshetar, John: foremost American historical expert on the Ukraine.

Reynaud, Paul: French conservative politician and financial expert.

Rhodes, Cecil: British imperialist and advocate of Anglo-American-German collaboration.

Ribbentrop, Joachim von: German Foreign Minister, 1938-1945.

Richert, Arvid: Swedish Minister to Germany.

Ritter, Gerhard: German historian; expert on military affairs.

Rocque, François de la: leader of French World War I veterans.

Roosevelt, Franklin: New York politician; American President, 1933-1945.

Ropp, William S. von: British intelligence agent; expert on Germany.

Rosenberg, Alfred: German publicist and National Socialist Party Foreign Affairs Bureau chief.

Rosenfeld, Oriste: French Socialist journalist.

Roiling, Helmer: Danish League High Commissioner at Danzig.

Rothermere, Harold Harmsworth, Viscount: World War I Cabinet Minister; leading Bitish newspaperman.

Rothschild, Maurice de: French financier.

Runciman, Lord Walter: British trade expert and diplomatic trouble-shooter.

Saint-Quentin, Rend: French Foreign Office offical; Ambassador to United States, 1938 -1949.

Salazar, Antonio de Oliviera: Portuguese dictator; ally of Great Britain.

Salisbury, Lord Robert; British Prime Minister, 1885, 1886-1895-1902; advocate of ‘esplendid isolation’.

Sandys, Duncan: Conservative politician; son-in-law of Churchill; opposed appeasement in 1938.

Sapieha, Eustachy: Polish Conservative leader from Eastern Poland.

Sargent, Porter: American scientist, publicist, and philosopher of education; opponent of Rooseveltian foreign policy.

Sarraut, Albert: French Premier during the 1936 Rhineland crisis.

Sawicki, General Kazimierz; Polish Socialist, 1905-1920; Legion veteran; Polish Army Staff Chief, 1938-1939.

Sayre, F.B.: American Assistant Secretary of State in Chargé of Anglo-American trade negotiations, 1938.

Schacht, Hjalmar: German financial genius; underground opponent of Hitler after September 1939.

Schiller, Friedrich: classic German poet.

Schleicher, Kurt von: German Chancellor, 1932-1933.

Schmidt, Dr. Guido: Austrian Foreign Minister, 1936-1938.

Schmidt, Dr. Paul: famous German interpreter; in German diplomatic service, 1923-1945.

Schmundt, Rudolf: Hitler’s military adjutant; murdered by Stauffenbers in 1944.

Schneider, Wilhelm: German politician of Poland; leader of Young German Party dissident faction.

Schulenburg, Friedrich von: German Ambassador to the USSR, 1934-1941.

Schuschnigg, Kurt von: Austrian Dictator, 1934-1938.

Schwerin-Krosigk, Ludwig: Oxford-trained German finance minister, 1932-1945.

Scotland, A.P.: British counter-intelligence chief.

Seeds, William: British Ambassador to the USSR during the futile 1939 Anglo-Soviet negotiations.

Seyss-Inquart, Arthur: Austrian National Socialist leader; opponent of Schuschnigg.

Shepherd, Edward Henry: British Consul-General at Danzig, 1938-1939.

Sidor, Karol: Slovak politician and nationalist leader.

Sienkiewicz, Henryk: Polish romanticisi author; advocate of a Polish mission in the East; died in 1916.

Simon, Arlette: mistress of Stavisky; compromised several French political leaders.

Simon, John; Viscount: British Foreign Secretary, 1931-1935; adviser to Halifax, 1935-1941.

Sinclair, Archibald: British Liberal Party leader.

Skoropadski, Pavel: Ukrainian Conservative leader who coilaborated with Germany during the last phase of World War I.

Skrzynski, Alexander: Polish Foreign Minister in the 1920’s and friend of Pllsudski.

Skuiski, Leopold: Polish Premier at the outbreak of the 1920 war with Russia.

Skwarczynski, General Stanislaw: leading Polish staff officer and strategist.

Slawek, Walery: Polish statesman and close personal friend of Pilsudski; chief author of the 1935 Polish constitution.

Slawoj-Skladkowski, General Felician:

Polish Premier at the outbreak of war in 1939; also Minister of Interior.

Smigly-Rydz, Edward: Polish Army Commander; Pilsudski’s successor as Marshal of Poland.

Smith, Truman: American military attaché at Berlin; friend of Charles Lindbergh.

Smogorzewski, Kazimierz: Polish journalist and expert on Germany.

Sobieski, Jan: 17th Century Polish sovereign and military hero.

Sombart, Werner: German economist and expert on the evolution and structure of capitalism.

Sosnkowski, General Kazimierz; Polish Army Inspector-General; onetime Polish Army Commander and friend of Pisudski,

Spears, General Edward: British soldier and Conservative politician; opposed appeasement in 1938.

Stalin, Joseph: Soviet Vozhd (Supreme leader), 1928-1953.

Stanhope, James: 18th Century Conservalive British statesman who promoted a European league of preponderant states. Stavisky, Alexander: immigrant criminal whose embezzlements produced the 1934 Government crisis in France.

Steinhardt, Lawrence: American Ambassador to the USSR at the outbreak of World War II.

Stephen Bathory: 16th Century sovereign of Poland.

Stojadinovic, Milan: Yugoslav strong man, 1934-1939.

Stolypin, Piotr: Russian Minister-President assassinated in 1911.

Strang, William: Chief of the Central Office of the British Foreign Office after 1936.

Stresemann, Gustav: German Chancellor and Foreign Minister of the Weimar period; advocated German-Soviet collaboration at the expense of Poland.

Stronski, Slanislaw: Polish National Democratic scholar and publicist.

Strzetelski, Slanislaw: Polish Conservative Party leader.

Sludnicki, Wladislaw: Polish nationalist scholar and publicist; advocated collaboralion with Germany.

Swantopolk; medieval East Pomeranian Slavic chieftain.

Syrovy, General Jan: World War I hero and Czech Premier, 1938-1939.

Szenibek, Countess isa belle: wife of the Polish Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs.

Szembek, Count Jan: Polish Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, 1932-1939; formerly in the Austro-Hungarian diplomatic service.

Sztojay, Doeme: Hungarian Minister to Germany.

Tabouis, Gen~vieve: pro-Communist French journalist.

Tardieu, André: French conservative politician and publicist; Tardieu and Cailaux were the leading French elder statesmen after the death of Poincar~ in 1934.

Teleki, Paul: Hungarian Prime Minister,  1938-1941.

Tenestur General: Chief of the Rumanian Army General-Staff.

Thompson, Dorothy: most active of the anti-German American journalists.

Thomsen, Hans: German Chargé d’Affaires in Washington, D.C.

Thorez, Maurice: French Communist Party leader.

Tilea, Virgil: Rumanian Minister and Ambassador to Great Britain, 1939-1940.

Tippelskirch, Werner von: German Chargé d’Affaires at Moscow.

Tiso, Josef: Slovak nationalist leader; Premier after March 1939; hanged by the Czechs, 1947.

Todi, Fritz: German engineer and public works expert.

Tomaszewski, Kazimierz: Polish Army officer and spokesman of a strong policy against Germany.

Toscano, Mario: Italian diplomatic historian.

Tower, Reginald: early British League High Commissioner at Danzig.

Toynbee, Arnold: British historian and foreign affairs expert.

Trott zu Solz, Adam von: German Rhodes scholar and unofficial diplomatic agent.

Trotzky, Leon: exiled Bolshevik leader; assassinated by a Bolshevik agent in 1940.

Truman, Harry: Missouri politician; succeeded Roosevelt as American President in 1945.

Tuka, Adalbert: Slovak national hero and independence leader.

Tukachevsky, Marshal Mikhail:    Russian Army Staff Chief executed in 1937.

Umaniky, Konstantin: Soviet Ambassador to the United States.

Umiaslowski, Roman: Polish historian and expert on Russia.

Urbsys, Juozas: Lithuanian Foreign Minister.

Van Buren, Martin: New York politican; succeeded Andrew Jackson as American President,

Vansittart, Robert Gilbert, Lord: British Permanent Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs until January 1, 193 8; afterward Diplomatic Adviser to His Majesty’s Government.

Veesenmeyer, Edmund: diplomatic troubleshooter from Ribbentrop’s special foreign policy office.

Victor Emmanuel III: Italian sovereign, 1900-1946.

Viviani, Rend: French Premier at the outbreak of World War I.

Voroshilov, Kliment: Soviet Politburo member and Defense Minister.

Vuillemin, Général: French Air Force Commander.

Walpole, Robert: 18th Century British politician and statesman; organized the modern English political party system.

Warr, Earl de la: Lord Privy Seal in the Chamberlain Government.

Washington, George: American revolutionary hero; first President of the United States.

Weisskopf, Georges:    French journalist (l’Ordre).

Weizäcker, Ernst von: State Secretary at the German Foreign Office, 1938-1945.

Welczeck, Johannes von: Silesian aristocrat; German Ambassador to France.

Wellington, General: British commander at Walerloo; later Prime Minister.

Weygand, Général Maxime: chief foreign adviser of Pilsudski during the defense of Warsaw against the Bolsheviks in 1920.

Welles, Sumner: American Under-Secretary of State.

White, W. L.: American Journalist in Berlin.

Wiegand, Karl von: veteran American journalist in Europe.

Wiesner, Rudolf: German politician of Poland; leader of Young German Party.

Wilhelm II: Hohenzollern sovereign of Germany, 1888-1918.

William III: sovereign of England following the ‘glorious revolution’ of 1688.

Wilson, Horace: British economic expert and personal adviser of Chamberlain.

Wilson, Hugh: last American Ambassador to united Germany;recalied in 1938.

Wilson, Woodrow: President of the United States and father of the League of Nations.

Witos, Wincenty: Polish agrarian leader and opponent of Pilsudski.

Woermann, Ernst: German Chargé d’Affaires at Warsaw.

Wohlthat, Dr. Helmuth: Commissioner of the German Four Year Plan; friend of Hjalmar Schacht.

Wolmer, Lord William: British House of Lords leader; against appeasement in 1938.

Wood, Kingsely: British Air Minister. Wszelaki, Jan: Polish econimic expert and publicist; adviser of Colonel Koc in England, 1939.

Wysocki, Alfred: Polish Minister to Berlin until 1933 and Foreign Office official.

Wuehlisch, Johann: German Chargé d’Affaires at Warsaw.

Zaleski, August: Polish Foreign Minister, 1926-1932.

Zaleski, Mieczlaw: Polish official; advocate of a strong policy against Germany.

Zay, Jean: Minister of Education in the Daladier Government.

Zeligowiki, General Lucjan: Polish soldier who defied the League of Nations and seized Wilna for Poland.

Zag: Albanian sovereign, 1928-1939.

Zola, Emile: 19th Century French novelist and liberal agitator.

Zyborski, Waclaw: Polish Ministry of Interior official responsible for German minority problems.
 

Source

THE FORCED WAR - When Peaceful Revision Failed, By David L. Hoggan, Copyright © 1989 by Institute for Historical Review, First English language edition Published February, 1989. Published by Institute for Historical Review, 18221/2 Newport BI., Suite 191, Costa Mesa, CA 92627.Manufactured in the United States of America, ISBN 0-939484-28-5

Reproduced by Gnostic Liberation Front from: http://www.ziopedia.org

David L. Hoggan, 1923-1988

www.revisionists.com/revisionists/hoggan.html

David Leslie Hoggan, author of The Forced War and other works, was born in Portland, Oregon, on March 23, 1923. After study at Reed College in Portland, he went to Harvard University, where in 1948 he earned a Ph.D. in history for his dissertation on German-Polish relations in 1938-1939.

After Harvard Hoggan taught and studied at the Amerika Institut of the University of Munich (1949-1952), the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of California at Berkeley, San Francisco State College, and Carthage Lutheran College in Illinois.

In 1955 he came into contact with Harry Elmer Barnes, who encouraged Hoggan to expand his Harvard dissertation into The Forced War, and obtained the financial assistance necessary for this undertaking. However, disagreement between Barnes and Hoggan about some citations in the work resulted in a decision by the scheduled publisher, Devin-Adair, to withdraw from the project. It was finally published in 1989 by the IHR under the title The Forced War: Why Peaceful Revision Failed.

Despite his objections on minor points, Barnes characterized The Forced War in these words: "In its present form, it not only constitutes the first thorough study of the responsibility for the causes of the Second World War in any language, but is likely to remain the definitive revisionist work on this subject for many years."

The Forced War compliments The Origins of The Second World War, the best-selling non-conformist examination of the conflict by the brilliant British historian A. J. P. Taylor. But in contrast to virtually every other work on this subject, Hoggan's study made extensive use of Polish sources. Also in contrast to Taylor and others, Hoggan closely examined the oppression of Poland's ethnic German minority, which was an important factor in Hitler's decision to go to war against the Polish state.

Hoggan's detailed study was published in Germany in 1961 by Grabert Verlag (Tübingen) under the title Der Erzwungene Krieg. It generated prompt and wide attention. The well-known conservative writer Armin Mohler declared that the work had brought World War II revisionism "out of the ghetto" in Germany. The work was predictably attacked by West Germany's historical establishment, for example in a lengthy 1964 front-cover article in the influential weekly Der Spiegel. Over the years Der Erzwungene Krieg has gone through at least 13 printings, and sold more than 50,000 copies.

Several of Dr. Hoggan's historical writings have appeared only in German, including Frankreichs Widerstand gegen den Zweiten Weltkrieg ("France's Resistance Against the Second World War"), published by Grabert in 1963, Der unnötige Krieg ("The Unnecessary War"), published in 1976, and the two-part book, Das blinde Jahrhundert ("The Blind Century"), consisting of Amerika -- das messianische Unheil ("America: The Messianic Disaster"), which appeared in 1979, and Europa -- Die verlorene Weltmitte ("Europe: The Lost World Center"), published in 1984. Meine Anmerkungen zu Deutschland: Der Anglo-amerikanische Kreuzzugsgedanke im 20. Jahrhundert ("My Thoughts on Germany: The Anglo-American Crusade Mentality in the 20th Century") appeared posthumously in 1990.

Hoggan's English-language study, The Myth of the ‘New History, (1965 and 1985), earned praise from Revilo Oliver as "an important and very valuable book ... ably written ... admirably short and to the point ..."

Hoggan's lecture at the IHR's Sixth Conference in 1985, "Plato's Dialectic v. Hegel and Marx," appeared in the spring 1986 issue of The Journal of Historical Review. The Ninth IHR Conference, 1989, was dedicated to his memory.

During his final years David Hoggan lived with his wife in Menlo Park, northern California. He died there of a heart attack on August 7, 1988.

Return to Page I and Complete Index of this Work

Return to Page II