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 beate