The Forced War

When Peaceful Revision Failed
 

By David L. Hoggan

Page II

Chapter 8: British Hostility Toward Germany After Munich        177

Hitler’s Bid for British Friendship 177 — Chamberlain’s Failure to Criticize Duff Cooper 180 —
The British Tories in Fundamental Agreement 181 — Tory and Labour War Sentiment 186 —
Control of British Policy by Halifax 192 — Tory Alarmist Tactics 193 —Tory Confidence in War
Preparations 195 — Mussolini Frightened by Halifax and Chamberlain 196 —
Hitler’s Continued Optimism 201

Chapter 9: Franco-German Relations After Munich     203

France an Obstacle to British War Plans 203 — The Popularity of the Munich Agreement in France 205 —
The Popular Front Crisis a Lesson for France 205 — The 1935 Laval Policy Undermined by Vansittart 210
— The Prepondermt Position of France Wrecked by Leon Blum 215 — The Daladier Government and
the Czech Crisis 217 — The Franco-German Friendship Pact of December 1938 220 —
 The Flexible French Attitude After Munich 224

Chapter 10: The German Decision To Occupy Prague    227

The Czech Imperiump mortally Wunded at Munich 227— The Deceptive Czech Policy of Halifax 228
— The Vienna Award a Disappointment to Halifax 230 — New Polish Demands on the Czechs 231 —
Czech-German Friction After the German Award 233 —The Czech Guarantee Sabotaged by Halifax 235
— Czech Appeals Ignored by Halifax 237— Hiter’s Support of the Slovak Independence Movement 238
— President Roosevelt Propagandized by Halifax 240 — Halifax Warned of the  Approaching Slovak
Crisis 242 —Halifax’s Decision to Ignore the Crisis 243 — The Climax of the Slovak Crisis 245 —
The Hitler-Hacha Pact 247 — Halifax’s Challenge to Hitler 249 — Hitler’s Generous Treatment of the
Czechs after March 1939 250 — The Propaganda Against Hitler’s Czech. Policy 252

Chapter 11: Germany And Poland In Early 1939    255

The Need for a German-Polish Understanding 255 — The Generous German Offer to Poland 256 —
The Reasons for Polish Procrastination 257 — Hitler’s Refusal to Exert Pressure on Poland 259 —
Beck’s Deception Toward Germany 260 — The Confiscation of German Property in Poland 260 —
German-Polish Conversations at the End of 1938 262 — The Beck-Hitler Conference of January 5, 1939 265
— The Beck-Ribbentrop Conference of January 6, 1939 270 — German Optimism and Polish Pessimism 272
—The Ribbentrop Visit to Warsaw 274 — Hitler’s Reichstag Speech of January 30, 1939 277 — Polish
Concern About French Policy 281 — The German-Polish Pact Scare at London 283 — Anti-German
Demonstrations During Ciano’s Warsaw Visit 284 — Beck’s Announcement of His Visit to London 287

Chapter 12: The Reversal Of British Policy    291

Dropping the Veil of an Insincere Appeasement Policy 291 — British Concern about France 295 —
 Hitler Threatened by Halifax 297 — Halifax’s Dream of a Gigantic Alliance 297 — The Tilea Hoax 299 —
Poland Calm about Events in Prague 302 — Beck Amazed by the Tilea Hoax 303 — Chamberlain’s
Birmingham Speech 305 — The Anglo-French Protest at Berlin 306 — The Withdrawal of the British and
French Ambassadors 307 —The Halifax Offer to Poland and the Soviet Union 309

Chapter 13: The Polish Decision To Challenge Germany    311

The Impetuosity of Beck 311 — Beck’s Rejection of the Halifax Pro-Soviet Alliance Offer 312 —
Lipski Converted to a Pro-German Policy by Ribbentrop 313 — Lipski’s Failure to Convert Beck 316 —
Beck’s Decision for Polish Partial Mobilization 317 — Hitler’s Refusal to Take Military Measures 319 —
Beck’s War Threat to Hitler 321 — Poland Excited by Mobilization 324 — Hitler’s Hopes for a Change in
Polish Policy 326 — The Roots of Hitler’s Moderation Toward Poland 328

Chapter 14: The British Blank Check To Poland    333

Anglo-French Differences 333 — Bonnet’s Visit to London 334 — Franco-Polish Differences 335 —
Beck’s Offer to England 336 — Halifax’s Decision 337 — Beck’s Acceptance of the British Guarantee 339
— The Approval of the Guarantee by the British Parties 340 — The Statement by Chamberlain 341
— The Challenge Accepted by Hitler 342 — Beck’s Visit to London 343 — Beck’s Satisfaction 351 —

[174] Chapter 8


BRITISH HOSTILITY
TOWARD GERMANY AFTER MUNICH


Hitler’s Bid for British Friendship

The Anglo-German relationship was the most important European issue after the Munich conference. An Anglo-German understanding could mean peace, prosperity, and security for Europe. A new Anglo-German war would bring destruction, ruin, and despair. The former condition would offer nothing to the doctrine of Bolshevism, which thrived on human misery. The latter situation would present a unique opportunity for expansion to the Bolshevist leaders. It is not to be wondered that the Bolshevist leaders hated the Munich conference which had prevented an Anglo-German war. They feared that from its aftermath a permanent Anglo-German understanding would emerge.’

The British attitude toward Germany was the crux of the problem. The attitude of Hitler toward Great Britain was favorable from the standpoint of establishing the permanent peace between the two nations which had been envisaged in the Anglo-German friendship declaration of September 30, 1938. Hitler hoped to avoid what he considered to have been the failures of Hohenzollern Germany. He condemned the idea of a large German navy, which had been brilliantly advocated before 1914 by Admiral von Tirpitz. He was unenthusiastic about the acquisition of German colonies overseas, and he regarded Germany’s legal right to her former colonies as a mere bargaining counter. Hitler opposed trade rivalry between Germany and Great Britain. He wished the British to preserve their world commercial supremacy.2

The attitude of Hitler was familiar to the British leaders. The prominent Labour Party spokesman, George Lansbury, who had been the chief of the British Labour Party until 1935, had done what he could to inform the British Conservative leaders of Hitler’s ideas. Lansbury met Hitler in Berlin on April 19, 1937. He was greatly impressed with the German leader, and he was convinced that he did not desire war. Lansbury discussed Hitler with Lord Halifax, and he rendered strong support to Chamberlain at the time of the [179] Munich conference. He emphasized that no important section of the British population opposed Chamberlain’s trip to Munich.3

Arnold Toynbee, a leading English historian and an expert on international affairs, had visited Hitler in March 1936. He returned to England with a clear impression of Hitler’s ideas. He informed Conservative Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin that Adolf Hitler was a sincere advocate of peace and close friendship between Great Britain and Germany.4

Thomas Jones, the closest friend of Lloyd George and Stanley Baldwin, had excellent connections with British statesmen. He was with Hitler in Munich on May 17, 1936. Jones was on close terms with Ribbentrop, and he was fully informed about Hitler’s attitudes. Hitler had said that, if an Anglo-German understanding was achieved, “my biggest life’s desire will be accomplished.” Jones promised Hitler in Munich that Great Britain hoped “to get alongside Germany,” and he praised Hitler’s decision to give the English language priority after German, in the German schools, as a significant contribution to future contacts between the two nations.5

Leopold Amery, one of the principal Conservative statesmen, was in Germany on a vacation in August 1935. He was hostile toward Hitler’s aspirations, and he had not intended visiting the German leader. Hitler was informed that Amery was in Germany and he immediately extended an invitation to him. He and Amery discussed recent developments in Germany and future German aims for several hours. Hitler assured Amery that Germany accepted the Polish Corridor settlement, and he hoped one day to be in a position to offer Poland a German guarantee of her western frontier. Amery reluctantly concluded that Hitler was “not unpleasantly boastful,” and he was charmed by Hitler’s statement that he “could not claim originality for any of his reforms.”6

Viscount Rothermere was a prominent British newspaper publisher and a leader of the British armament campaign. He was with Hitler in Berchtesgaden in 1937 shortly before the Hitler-Halifax conversations. Rothermere believed that the Hitler with whom he spoke was “convinced that he had been called from his social obscurity to power not to make war, but to preserve peace and rebuild both spiritual and physical Germany.” Rothermere and Hitler were also in correspondence. Hitler wrote to Rothermere that his ultimate objective was a comprehensive understanding among Germany, Great Britain, and the United States. Rothermere also remained in correspondence with Ribbentrop until a few weeks before the outbreak of World War II in 1939. Rothermere explained in a wartime book, which contained an introduction by Winston Churchill, that Ribbentrop had never been unfriendly toward Great Britain.7

David Lloyd George, the Prime Minister of the victorious British coalition Government of 1918, visited Hitler in September 1936. Hitler made no secret of the fact that he was tremendously impressed with the achievements of the British wartime leader, and it was evident that he was extensively informed about his career. Lloyd George replied that he “was deeply touched by the personal tribute of the Fuehrer and was proud to hear it paid to him by the greatest German of the age.” Lloyd George returned to Great Britain convinced that Hitler had performed a Herculean task in restoring prosperity and happiness to truncated Germany.8

The prominent British Conservative leader, Lord Londonderry, and the [179] popular British journalist, Ward Price, both visited Hitler on numerous occasions. Each of these men published books in 1938 which favored an Anglo-German understanding, and which explained the aims and ideas of Hitler to their countrymen.9

Hitler tried repeatedly to arrange a meeting with British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin in 1936, but neither he nor Ribbentrop were able to overcome Baldwin’s anti-German prejudices. Baldwin remarked at the time of his retirement on April 20, 1937, that he “envied Lansbury the faith which enabled him to go and tackle Hitler.” He might also have envied Hitler the faith which enabled him to seek out Baldwin and other British leaders in a vain effort to appease their distrust of Germany.10

Hitler knew that a personal visit to Great Britain, before an Anglo-German understanding had been achieved, would not be possible because of this anti-German prejudice. He had offered to meet Baldwin at sea in the vicinity of the British coast. Later he received three visits from Prime Minister Chamberlain, but these occurred during a crisis when conditions were not normal. Chamberlain noted that Hitler “seemed very shy” at their first meeting on September 15, 1938. Hitler confessed his fear that he would “be received with demonstrations of disapproval” if he visited England, and Chamberlain agreed that it would be wise to choose the right moment.11

Winston Churchill never met Hitler. He was in Munich for a few days in April 1932 and he expressed a desire to see Hitler. He claimed later, on the strength of an unlikely supposition, that Hitler refused to see him because Churchill had allegedly criticized Hitler’s attitude toward the Jews. Ernst Hanfstaengl, who was commissioned by Hitler to entertain Churchill in Munich, explained that Hitler was in Nuremberg and that he was distracted by several important crises during a crucial phase of his struggle for power. Churchill made no effort to see Hitler after the latter was appointed Chancellor. There is no evidence that he had criticized Hitler’s attitude toward the Jews prior to 1932. Churchill wrote in 1937: “If our country were defeated I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.” The champion to whom he referred with such enthusiasm was Adolf Hitler.12

Anthony Eden met Hitler on several occasions. The first meeting took place in 1934; Eden noted that Hitler was “restrained and friendly” and “showed himself completely master of his subject (European armaments).” The second meeting occurred in March 1935 after the British Government had severely criticized Hitler for introducing peacetime military conscription a few days earlier. The personal relations between Eden and Hitler remained friendly at the second meeting.13  But there was not much real communication, because Eden had little awareness of German problems. This fact was apparent at a discussion between Foreign Minister Eden and Nevile Henderson at Cliveden on October 24, 1937. Thomas Jones noted that the British Ambassador to Germany “has lived in the countries we talked about and Eden has not and this was apparent.”14

Sir John Simon, one of the closest advisers to Chamberlain in 1938, accompanied Eden to Berlin in March 1935, and he afterward recorded his impressions of Hitler at that meeting. He noted that Hitler displayed no desire [180] during their conversation to play the role of dictator. He had no doubt that Hitler was sincere in his desire for a permanent understanding with the British. He was equally convinced that Hitler considered the moral rehabilitation of defeated Germany an urgent task. But Simon also remained convinced that it was a vital British interest to challenge Hitler at the favorable moment. It was this attitude, based on anti-German prejudice, which constituted the great obstacle to an understanding between Great Britain and Germany.15


Chamberlain’s Failure to Criticize Duff Cooper

The first few days after the Munich conference provided a startling revelation of the depth of resentment toward Germany among British officials. It should be emphasized that it was the hostility within the British leadership which constituted the danger. The mass of the British people were obviously desirous of peace with Germany. The ovation which Chamberlain received in London on the rainy Friday afternoon of September 30, 1938, when he returned from Munich, was unprecedented. He was the hero of the hour among the common people because he had prevented war. The enthusiasm remained unbroken until the debates on the Munich conference opened in the British Parliament on Monday, October 3, 1938. King George VI departed for Balmoral castle in Scotland on October 2nd. He issued an announcement prior to his departure in which he expressed his confidence in Chamberlain and his hope that the peace of Europe would be preserved.16

The British war enthusiasts lost no time in launching their effort to spoil the celebration of peace. The first blow was a message to Chamberlain from Parliamentary First Lord of the Admiralty, Alfred Duff Cooper, on October 1, 1938. Duff Cooper announced that he distrusted the policy which had avoided war. He was resigning from the British Cabinet, and he intended to deliver a major speech in Parliament to explain this decision. Chamberlain replied in mild tones that he was aware of the fundamental disagreement which existed.17

Duff Cooper was an ideal ally of Churchill in the struggle against peace. He hated the Germans, and he had disliked the German language and German literature since his student days.18 He was appointed Secretary of State for War in 1935, and by that time his principal concern was the “ever-growing German menace.”19 He agreed with Sir Robert Vansittart, the Permanent Under Secretary at the Foreign Office, that everything possible should be done to prevent Italy from aligning with Germany. He was convinced that it was more important to oppose Hitler than to oppose Communism. He condemned the entire German nation as a “cruel people,” and he criticized Englishmen who were inclined to forget the German “crimes” of World War I. He had been convinced since 1936, as had Lord Halifax, that an Anglo-German war was inevitable. Duff Cooper delivered numerous bellicose speeches in 1936 and 1937, and he doubted if Chamberlain, when he succeeded Baldwin in April 1937, would care to retain him in the Cabinet. He was retained, and he was promoted to the Admiralty. He was young and handsome, and he delighted in the flamboyant cruises to foreign places afforded by his new post. He joined Vansittart in supporting Chamberlain against Eden in the February 1938 British [181] Cabinet crisis, and his breach with Chamberlain did not occur until the Prime Minister returned from his first visit to Hitler in September 1938.20

The derogatory comments which Chamberlain made about Hitler after their first meeting failed to appease Duff Cooper. He wanted war with Germany, and he feared that the chance might be lost. He believed that he could do more to promote war if he joined the Churchill faction of Conservatives outside the Cabinet. Duff Cooper had informed Chamberlain on September 25, 1938, that he intended to resign, but had agreed to reserve his announcement until the termination of the Czech crisis.21

Duff Cooper was allowed to deliver the first speech of the debate in the House of Commons on October 3, 1938. He criticized the Government for not assuming a definite commitment during the Czech crisis. He asserted that Great Britain would not have been fighting for the Czechs, because this would have been an insufficient basis for war. He insisted that she would have been fighting for the balance of power, which was precious to some British hearts. He believed that it was his mission and that of his country to prevent Germany from achieving a dominant position on the continent.22

Chamberlain astonished his critics by refusing to reply to this condemnation of his policy by a former subordinate. He said instead, in the tones of mawkish sentimentality which he frequently employed, that he always was moved by the resignation speeches of Cabinet ministers. It was obvious that he cherished a deep affection for Duff Cooper, and the differences between them were those of tactics rather than basic principles. He praised Duff Cooper for doing a good job at the Admiralty, and he apologized for him by observing that many of the Cabinet ministers would carry the scars of the recent crisis for a long time to come.23


The British Tories in Fundamental Agreement

There was no disagreement between Chamberlain and Duff Cooper about the antiquated British policy of the balance of power. The theory had first been espoused in England in the 16th century by Thomas Cromwell, a disciple of Machiavelli, and a wealthy adventurer who had witnessed at first hand the late phase of balance of power diplomacy in Renaissance Italy. It was Thomas Cromwell who persuaded Cardinal Wolsey to conduct English policy along these lines. The policy had been employed to prevent a strong state, such as Milan, from gaining supremacy over the weaker Italian states. It was useless when outside Powers such as France and Spain appeared on the scene with overwhelming forces and crushed a divided Italy. The balance of power policy was effectively employed in Europe by England for several centuries to prevent any single Power from attaining the sort of supremacy over the divided continent which was enjoyed in North America by the United States after 1865. It meant the relentless curtailment of any seemingly preponderant continental state, regardless of the domestic institutions or foreign policy of such a state. The purpose of the policy was to give Great Britain a permanent position of control over the destinies of her neighbors. The policy was futile by the 1930’s, when outside Powers such as the Soviet Union and the United States were in a position [182] to appear upon the scene with overwhelming forces and to share dominion over a crushed and divided Europe.24

There were several occasions, after Thomas Cromwell and Henry VIII, when English policy rejected the balance of power. Oliver Cromwell, the Lord Protector of England during the 1650’s, was scornful of the balance of power theory, which he regarded as a decadent basis for policy. He sometimes promoted alliances, such as the one he proposed to Holland and Sweden to promote the Protestant cause. His fundamental attitude was that England could provide her own defense, and that she need not fear an attack from a preponderant European Power. This attitude of Cromwell’s was useful to Giulio Mazarini in building up French supremacy in Europe. He persuaded Cromwell to join France in despoiling weaker Spain. Cromwell did not throw English resources and manpower into a futile struggle to support declining Spanish power merely because France was stronger than Spain.25

Louis XIV discovered in the War of Devolution in the 1660’s that Holland was an irritating obstacle to the continuation of French supremacy. Dutch diplomacy had reduced French gains in that war. The English had waged two wars of aggression against the Dutch in recent years. It was comparatively easy for Louis XIV to cement Anglo-French relations in the treaty of Dover in 1670 with Charles II of England, and to prepare a combined Anglo-French war of aggression against the Dutch. The English were persuaded to attack the Dutch without warning in April 1672, and Louis XIV soon intervened to support the English. French plans to crush Holland were foiled, because the Dutch were able to defeat the combined Anglo-French fleets in one of the great military upsets of history (battle of Solebay). This was a second important instance in the 17th century when the English conducted their policy without consideration for the balance of power.26

The balance of power policy was revived by King William III of England in the 1690’s in a remarkable series of speeches from the throne to Parliament. King William, the great-grandson of the German prince of Nassau-Orange, William the Silent, was flexible in his national loyalties. He built up English power at the expense of his native Holland because in England there was greater respect for the monarchical institutions which he cherished. William used French support of the Catholic Scotch-English Stuarts as the pretext for plunging England into the war of the League of Augsburg, but he explained after the war was well under way that the balance of power was his primary consideration.27

The balance of power was used to justify English participation in the next major European and Overseas struggle, the War of the Spanish Succession. England made great gains when she concluded a separate peace with France at Utrecht in 1713, and the balance of power received a new lease on life, once the horrors of the war had been forgotten. The English statesman, James Stanhope, led a brief attempt to organize a preponderant League of European States, but it collapsed in 1720 during a  severe economic depression and a change in English leadership. England returned to the balance of power under Robert Walpole, and no subsequent English Statesman was able to equal his skill in conducting English policy under this system. He kept England out of the European War of the Polish Succession in the 1730’s because he realized that the balance of power [183] was not threatened by the war. He was unable to prevent England’s entry into an unnecessary war against Spain in 1739, and he was soon forced from power.28

England subordinated the balance of power, in the following period, to her effort to acquire the overseas colonies of France. There were four principal continental Powers of approximately equal military strength at that time. They were France, Prussia, Austria, and Russia, although France was by far the most wealthy. England had taken over most of the French colonies by 1763, but there had been a change of English leadership in 1761. Pitt’s advocacy of a preventive war against Spain was used by Bute as a pretext to overthrow him, and this led to the ruin of English relations with the principal continental states. This unfavorable development resulted from the incredible arrogance and crudeness of English diplomacy under Bute.

England was the principal European Power when her American mainland colonies revolted in 1775. She was unable to crush the insurgent American colonies because of her inability to hire sufficient mercenary troops in Europe, but she defended her European position with the ease against an enemy coalition which included France, Spain, and Holland. The English leaders sought to frustrate the attempts of Russia, France, and Spain to expand during the decade between the end of the American war in 1783 and the outbreak of war between England and Republican France. No single Power offered an impressive challenge to the balance of power at that time.29

The balance of power received dramatic emphasis during the four wars of coalition waged against France under the first Republic, and after 1804 under the first Napoleonic Empire. The fourth coalition waged a second war against Napoleon when he returned from Elba in 1815. The balance of power was used on several occasions during this period to justify the continuation of English warfare against France, when the other enemies of France had left the field. Robert Castlereagh was conducting British foreign policy when France was crushed in 1815, and he hoped to abandon the balance of power policy. He repeated the performance of Stanhope in the preceding century by seeking to associate England permanently with a preponderant League of European States. His opponents at home demanded a return to the balance of power, and in 1822 Castlereagh abandoned his task and committed suicide.30

England followed the balance of power policy without interruption after 1822. This was true either when she was in “splendid isolations” or when she was a member of some alliance system. England supported Napoleon III against Russia in the Crimean War of the 1850’s because she believed that Russia was stronger than France. She refused to protect Belgium from a possible German invasion in 1887, because she believed that a Franco-Russian combination was more powerful than Germany and her allies. Decisions were difficult during these years, because opposing forces were almost in perfect balance without England. This meant, on the positive side, that England could pursue her balance of power policy in “splendid isolation” without promoting a complicated system of alliances, although at one time she was closely associated with Bismarck’s Triple Alliance.

There was a period of great confusion in English foreign policy during the l890’s. The five principal continental Powers were organized into two alliance [184] systems. It was feared in London that the two systems might combine against England in one of the frequent colonial crises of these years. Joseph Chamberlain, the father of Neville, led a group who favored an English alliance policy. Prime Minister Salisbury opposed an alliance policy. He insisted that alliances were superfluous for England and would impair the flexibility of English policy. The military reverses suffered by England in the early phase of the Boer War helped to carry the day for Chamberlain and alliances. Salisbury was right when he insisted that the opposite conclusion should have been drawn, because the continental Powers did not intervene against England in this crisis when she was most vulnerable.31

The growth of German wealth and productive power during these years was phenomenal, and it seemed to more than compensate for the reverses currently suffered by Germany in diplomatic affairs. Many of the British leaders began to suspect that German growth was a challenge to the balance of power. The balance of power had its own morality. Any nation which seemed to challenge it should be treated as an enemy. it did not matter whether or not Germany planned to attack British interests, or whether or not she was in a position to strike a blow at England. The prospect that she might become stronger than any possible hostile continental combination suggested that it was time “to redress the balance of power.”32

The situation was more complicated than it had been during earlier centuries. Great Britain launched her alliance policy by concluding an Anglo-Japanese .alliance in 1902, but it was easy to see that the rising imperial power of Japan might become a real challenge to British interests in Asia. Both the United States and Germany surpassed Great Britain in industrial strength before 1914. British power since 1750 had been based more on industrial and naval supremacy than on diplomacy, and the loss of industrial supremacy made the British position more difficult. A challenge to Germany would play into the hands of the United States, just as a challenge to America, which almost occurred during the 1895-1896 Venezuelan crisis, would have played into the hands of Germany. Cecil Rhodes, the architect of British imperial expansion in Africa, recognized this dilemma, and this prompted him to advocate permanent peace and cooperation among Great Britain, Germany, and the United States. This would have meant the abandonment of the balance of power policy, but Cecil Rhodes was sufficiently shrewd to see that the policy was obsolete. The ruling British leaders did not see it that way and Great Britain suffered an enormous loss of power and prestige in World War I despite her victory over Germany.33

The Soviet Union began to emerge as an industrial giant of incalculable power during the two decades after World War I. It was evident that there were at least four nations immediately or potentially far more powerful than Great Britain. These four nations were the United States, the Soviet Union, Germany, and Japan. This was different than in the old days when it had merely been a question of one preponderant Spain, or one preponderant France. The bankruptcy of the British balance of power policy should have been evident to everyone. It was as obsolete as Italian balance of power politics after the intervention, with overwhelming forces, of King Charles VIII of France in Italian affairs in 1494. The balance of power policy always had been an unhealthy and decadent basis from which to approach diplomatic relations. It substituted for a healthy pursuit of common interests among states the tortuous attempt to [185] undermine or even destroy any state which attained a leading position. It took no regard of the attitude of such a state toward England. The policy was also extremely unstable. It demanded otherwise inexplicable shifts of position when it was evident that one state had been overestimated or another underestimated. It was particularly tragic when France abandoned an independent policy and became dependent on Great Britain. This meant that France was in danger, along with Great Britain, of contributing to the blunders of an obsolete British policy.34

It seemed momentarily that Great Britain might be returning to the policies of Stanhope and Castlereagh when she joined the League of Nations in 1919. Unfortunately this was not the case. France after 1919 was no longer as powerful as Great Britain, but she enjoyed continental preponderance for several years because of the treaty restrictions on Germany, the intrinsic feebleness of Italy, and the disappearance of Austria-Hungary. Revolutionary upheavals after the defeat in World War I temporarily reduced Russian power. The British responded by employing their balance of power policy against France. There had, been notorious rivalry between the two nations in the Near East during World War I, because of oil and traditional prestige factors, and the British nearly succeeded in “biffing” the French out of their Syrian claims. The British and French took opposite sides in the post-war struggle between the Greeks and the Turks. The British continued to oppose French policies with increasing vigor when the Turks emerged victorious with French support.35

The climax came when Great Britain opposed the efforts of France and Belgium to collect reparations in the Ruhr in 1923-1924. The French were confidently pursuing a policy of independence under Poincaré’s bold leadership, but the debacle suffered in the Ruhr was a stunning psychological blow to the French. Edouard Herriot, who took the reins of policy from Poincaré, concluded that nothing could succeed without British cooperation. There were later instances of friction between France and Great Britain, but the French leaders were always inclined to accept the British lead. It was apparent to everyone during the Czech crisis in 1938 that Anglo-French policy was conducted from London. 36

The British occasionally pursued policies which seemed to strengthen French preponderance on the continent. They joined France and Italy in squelching the feeble attempt of Chancellor Brüning of Germany to conclude a customs union with Austria in 1931. It did not seem that the “Hunger Chancellor” was capable of removing the threat of Communism in Germany, which implied a new preponderant Russo-German combination, or of challenging the old preponderance of France.37

The situation changed with the arrival of Hitler in 1933. The new Chancellor dealt a few annihilating blows to German Communism, and challenged France by withdrawing Germany from the disarmament conference at Geneva, where German claims to equality received farcical treatment. The balance of power on the continent was restored When Hitler sent German troops into the Rhineland in 1936. The French might have challenged this move successfully had they received an assurance of British support. As it was, the French feared that action would mean an Anglo-German combination against them as in 1923.38

Duff Cooper and Chamberlain agreed in October 1938 that Great Britain [186] should continue the balance of power policy. They agreed that everything possible should be done to prevent a permanent alignment of Italy with Germany. They both underestimated the Soviet Union and believed that she was much less powerful than Germany. They also agreed that the Czech cause as such was not worth British participation in a European war. The sole point where they disagreed was whether or not it would be wise for Great Britain to attack Germany in 1938. Duff Cooper believed that Great Britain was sufficiently strong in 1938 to attack Germany, but Chamberlain believed that it would be wiser to play for time. Neither Chamberlain nor Duff Cooper had any sympathy for Germany, the nation which Chamberlain called the bully of Europe as early as 1935. It is possible from this perspective to see that the differences within the British Conservative Party in October 1938 were not really very profound. Anti-German prejudice was the dominant attitude within the entire Conservative Party.39


Tory and Labour War Sentiment

The London Times seemed to incline toward the evaluation of Duff Cooper when it announced on October 3, 1938, that Germany was relieved to escape from a war “which, in the opinion of most sections of the population, it would almost certainly have lost.” The Times predicted that “Mr. Chamberlain will find plenty of critics” in the current parliamentary debates. It is important to recall that Geoffrey Dawson, the editor of the Times, had provided valuable support for Halifax and Chamberlain during the Czech crisis. On the afternoon of September 6, 1938, he had revised the famous article which appeared in the Times on the following day, and advocated the cession of the Sudeten districts to Germany.40

Dawson was especially close to Halifax, whom he had met in South Africa in 1905. He published an article on October 30, 1925, which praised Halifax without stint or limit when it was announced in London that the latter had been appointed Viceroy of India. Halifax had given Dawson a detailed private analysis of his visit to Hitler in November 1937, and he had told Dawson that he was well-satisfied with the visit. Dawson noted that Halifax probably could have negotiated a lasting agreement with Germany at that time, had Great Britain agreed to remain aloof from possible complications between Germany and her eastern neighbors. Dawson also realized that Halifax was not willing to do this.41

It was significant that the London Times, which had been the principal journalistic organ of appeasement during the Czech crisis, began to adopt a more critical attitude toward Germany immediately after the Munich conference. It followed the policy of Halifax in this respect. The differences between the attitudes of the Times and of the Daily Express toward Germany became increasingly pronounced. This was because Lord Beaverbrook, the owner of the Daily Express, was a sincere advocate of appeasement as a permanent policy, whereas Geoffrey Dawson was not. The Daily Express continued to hope and to predict that there would be no war with Germany until within a few days of the outbreak of World War II in September 1939. This attitude reflected the wishes of wide sections of the British population in the autumn of 1938, and in [187] November 1938 the Daily Express noted that its circulation had increased to over 2 ½  million within a very short time, which gave it the largest circulation of any newspaper in British history. When Halifax at last launched a gigantic propaganda campaign in March 1939 to sell the British public on war with Germany, the editorial policy of the Daily Express gradually became a liability for circulation rather than an asset. It is not surprising that Beaverbrook finally made concessions to the warlike mood in order to preserve his newspaper. It became evident that a large-circulation British newspaper with consistent principles was an impossibility in the modern age.42

Chamberlain paid special tribute to Halifax in the British House of Commons on October 3, 1938. He claimed that Halifax felt a duty not only to England, but to all humanity. There was no point in wondering what prompted Chamberlain to make this sentimental statement, because it was consistent with his usual oratorical style. There is no record that Halifax ever recanted his maiden speech to Parliament, in which he denied that all men were equal and insisted that the British were the “superior race” within an Empire which comprised more than a quarter of the population of the world. Chamberlain leaned on the prestige of Halifax to protect his own position.43

Chamberlain reminded Commons that there was a very considerable difference between the terms of Munich and the proposals of Hitler at Bad Godesberg. The Munich agreement permitted the Czechs to withdraw important strategic materials from the areas about to be ceded, and the region which the Germans were permitted to occupy in five gradual stages was smaller than the area Hitler had requested. He reminded the members that the avoidance of a catastrophe at Munich was in the interest of the Four Munich Powers rather than merely a triumph for one of them. These cogent remarks of the Prime Minister were greeted with shouts of “Shame!, Shame!” from the Opposition benches. This was to be expected. The current Labour Party leaders had supported Chamberlain’s trip to Munich, but they hoped to make political capital by denouncing his policy after he returned.44

The situation was explained later by Hugh Dalton, one of the top Labour Party leaders. Dalton, like many of his colleagues, was pro-Communist, and he referred to a visit to the Soviet Union in July 1932, during the greatest famine in Russian history, as an inspiring experience.” Dalton and the other Labour Party leaders actually had considerable confidence in Chamberlain’s leadership. They knew that he would never permit the return of the German colonies or make any tangible concession to Germany at British expense. They were angry that Charles Lindbergh had discouraged war in 1938 by emphasizing current German strength in the air. They agreed with Duff Cooper after Munich that 1938 would have been a favorable year to oppose Germany. They hoped that by contesting the results of the Munich conference they could either unseat Chamberlain or push him into an anti-German policy. They knew that the Labour Opposition was much too weak in Parliament to accomplish this result without important allies from the British Conservative Party. The Labour Party leaders professed to believe that cooperation with National Socialist Germany in foreign affairs would discourage necessary reforms at home.45

Chamberlain continued his speech by reading the text of the Anglo-German declaration of friendship of September 30, 1938. He mentioned that this [188] agreement would not be effective unless there was good will on both sides. This left room to claim later that the British had to oppose Germany because Hitler did not show good will toward England. Chamberlain noted that Munich had merely provided a foundation for peace and that the structure was still lacking. He then turned to his favorite theme of British armament, and he reminded the House with pride that the pace of the British armament campaign was increasing daily. He promised that the British Empire would not relax her efforts unless the rest of the world disarmed. He concluded with the announcement that military power was the key to successful British diplomacy.

Clement Attlee, the new Labour Party leader, spoke of the Munich agreement as a huge victory for Hitler and “an annihilating defeat for democracy,” which of course was meant to include so-called Soviet democracy. Eden gave a speech in which he criticized Chamberlain on detailed points, and expressed doubt that Great Britain would implement her promised guarantee to the Czech state. He drew on his old experience as special British representative to the League of Nations, and he denounced the idea of the Munich Powers deciding an important question without consulting the smaller states. He advised the House to regard the current situation as a mere pause before the next crisis. He claimed that the British armament campaign was still somewhat too slow.

Hoare concluded the debate in Commons on October 3, 1938, with a mild defense of Chamberlain’s policy. He introduced an argument which was to be one of his favorites, except when applied to Poland. He suggested that a new World War would have been useless as an attempt to maintain the old Czech borders. The Germans and other minorities were saturated with Czech rule and would not accept it again. He added that the British Government would be willing to give the Czechs an effective guarantee at some future date, but only after the outstanding problems which afflicted the Czechs were settled.46

Halifax delivered an important speech in the British House of Lords on October 3, 1938. He shared the opinion of Hoare that Great Britain should never fight for a foreign state unless she was in a position to restore its old frontiers after a victorious war. This was an interesting idea, especially when one considers that Halifax refused to guarantee the Polish frontier with the Soviet Union when he concluded the Anglo-Polish alliance of August 25, 1939. It was obvious that this argument was largely sophistry to Halifax, and a sop to appease the Opposition. He revealed to the Lords that he had done what he could to improve British relations with the Soviet Union by placing the blame solely on Germany and Italy for refusing to invite the Soviets to Munich. He had given a formal declaration to this effect to Soviet Ambassador Maisky on October 1, 1938. Halifax regarded all this as a permanent trend in British foreign policy. Relations between Maisky and Halifax became more cordial in the months after Munich, and the Soviet Ambassador scored a great triumph on March 1, 1939, when Chamberlain and Halifax attended a reception at the Soviet embassy in London shortly before Stalin himself delivered a bitter speech denouncing the Western Powers. Halifax was obviously intent upon switching British appeasement from Germany to the Soviet Union.

The key to the Halifax speech of October 3rd was the statement that Great Britain would continue to prepare for a possible war against Germany despite the Anglo-German friendship declaration of September 30, 1938. Halifax, like [189] Chamberlain, devoted the latter part of his speech to a discussion of the British armament campaign. He emphasized that the need for more weapons was the principal British concern at the moment.47

Baldwin delivered a speech in Lords on the following day. He complained that it had been difficult to establish personal contact with the German and Italian dictators during the past five years. This was an astonishing statement when one recalls that Hitler had made repeated efforts to meet Baldwin at any time or place while the latter was Prime Minister. Baldwin dropped the mask completely when he claimed that Great Britain needed the spirit of 1914 to solve contemporary world problems. He was supposedly defending the peace settlement of Chamberlain, but in reality he was invoking the glory of the British attack on Germany in 1914. He mentioned that in the recent crisis he had been reminded of Sir Edward Grey, who looked like a man who had gone through hell when he pushed for war in 1914. Baldwin did not mention that the main reason for Grey’s concern was the fear that the mountain of deceit on which he had built British foreign policy would be discovered by the British Parliament. The British Parliament did not realize in 1914 that Grey had given the French a commitment to fight Germany whether Belgium was invaded or not. The French had concentrated their navy in the Mediterranean, and had entrusted the defense of their northern coastline to the British, before there was the slightest sign of an impending German invasion of Belgium. This situation was explored and explained by historians of many nations after World War I, but Baldwin, like Halifax, preferred to evaluate Grey in terms of 1914 war propaganda.48

Arthur Greenwood and Herbert Morrison resumed the Labour attack on Chamberlain in Commons on October 4, 1938. They repeated many of the arguments which Clement Attlee and Hugh Dalton had made on the previous day. It was known that President Roosevelt in January 1938 had advocated a world conference on European problems, which was supposed to include both the United States and the Soviet Union. The Labour leaders adopted the world conference slogan and stressed the importance of the voice of the Soviet Union in the councils of Europe. Leslie Burgin, Minister of Transport, spoke on behalf of Chamberlain, and he repeated the argument that a war for the Czechs would have been immoral, unless it could have been shown that it was possible to restore the Czech state in its entirety after the war. It is astonishing that these same people accepted war on behalf of Poland without a murmur, when it was obvious after August 22, 1939, that the Soviet Union was hostile to Poland, and that Great Britain had no intention of opposing Russia. It should have been apparent to anyone that the defeat of Germany would not enable the British to restore the new Polish state. In reality, the British leaders were not truly concerned about either the Czechs or the Poles.49 The same argument about not being able to restore the Czechs was repeated on October 4th by Sir Thomas Inskip, another British Cabinet member. In the following weeks the argument was repeated ad nauseam. It seems impossible that anyone could have forgotten it within the short span of one year. Nevertheless, the deluge of propaganda in England, after March 1939, was so great that it would have been easy to forget the Ten Commandments.50

Sir John Simon declared complacently in Commons on October 5, 1938, that history would have to decide whether or not the Munich agreement was [190] the prelude to better times. The debate was entering the third day, and it had already surpassed all other parliamentary debates on British foreign policy since World War I. Simon admitted candidly that article 19 of the League covenant for peaceful territorial revision had always been a dead letter. Eden pursued the tactics of October 3rd, and he inquired of Simon if the Government in the future intended to participate in the settlement of European problems by means of Four Power diplomacy. Simon emphatically denied this, and he intimated that the British leaders hoped that the Soviet Union and the smaller Powers would have more to say in the future. Winston Churchill followed with his long awaited anti-German speech. The other English war enthusiasts hoped that he would make his speech as provocative as possible, and he did not disappoint them. He agreed with his close friend in America, Bernard Baruch, that Hitler should not be allowed to “get away with it.”51

Churchill claimed that Hitler had extracted British concessions at pistol point, and he loved to use the image of Hitler as a highwayman or a gangster. He hoped to worry Hitler by intimating that he had contacts with an underground movement in Germany. He suggested that a common Anglo-Franco-Soviet front in support of the Czechs would have enabled an opposition movement within Germany to cause trouble for Hitler, and possibly to overthrow him. He used flowery rhetoric to describe the allegedly mournful Czechs slipping away into a darkness comparable to the Black Hole of Calcutta. The speech was couched in elegant phrases dear to the hearts of many of Churchill’s countrymen. The simple and stark purpose of the speech was to foment a war of annihilation against Germany.

Churchill had been excluded from Conservative Governments in England for many years, but he had made countless speeches, and his personal influence remained tremendous. He had propagated the myth that Great Britain was disarmed in 1932, indeed, that she had wrongly practiced a policy of unilateral disarmament in response to the noble sentiment of the League Covenant. In reality, the British military establishment in 1932 was gigantic compared to that of Germany, and much larger than that of the United States. Great Britain had less than one million men in all of her ground forces throughout the Empire, but it had never been traditional British policy to maintain a large standing army. She had the largest navy in the world, despite the Washington conference of 1921-1922 which envisaged eventual British equality with the United States. The maintenance of a navy was no less expensive or militaristic than the upkeep of an army.52

Churchill had conducted an uninterrupted campaign of agitation against Germany since March 1933, and he was a veteran in the field. Some of his inaccurate statements about alleged German armaments in this period are contained in his 1948 volume, The Gathering Storm, and in his 1938 book of speeches, When England Slept. Churchill wanted to convince his countrymen that Germany was governed by an insatiable desire for world conquest. In his speech of October 5, 1938, he did more than anyone else to warn Hitler that Germany was in danger of being strangled by a British coalition in the style of 1914. Churchill does not bear direct responsibility for the attack on Germany in1939, because he was not admitted to the British Cabinet until the die was cast .  The crucial decisions on policy were made without his knowledge, and he was [191] frankly amazed when Halifax suddenly shifted to a war policy in March 1939. Churchill was useful to Halifax in building up British prejudice against Germany, but he was a mere instrument, at the most, in the conduct of British policy in 1938 and 1939.53

The most convincing speech in defense of the Munich conference was delivered by Rab Butler, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Butler held moderate views on international questions, and he admired the diplomacy which had produced the Munich conference. He declared on October 5th that a war to deny self-determination to the Sudeten Germans was unthinkable, and he defended Munich as the only possible solution of a difficult problem. He denied the proposition that Great Britain had departed from democratic principles in seeking an agreement with Germany.54

The debate was interrupted but not terminated when Chamberlain proposed a motion on the following day to adjourn until November 1, 1938. Churchill supported the Labour Opposition in opposing the motion, and he delivered a bitter personal attack against Chamberlain. He had refrained from doing this in his major speech on the previous day because he was concentrating his fire against the Germans. The adjournment motion was followed by a vote of confidence. Chamberlain carried the vote, but many of the prominent Conservatives refrained from voting, and of course Labour and the Liberals voted against him. The roster of Conservatives who refused to accept the Munich agreement or vote for Chamberlain is impressive. It included Churchill, Eden, Duff Cooper, Harold Macmillan, Duncan Sandys, Leopold Amery, Harold Nicolson, Roger Keyes, Sidney Herbert, and General Spears. These men comprised about half of the leading figures of the Conservative Party in 1938, and they were well-known to the British public. They were joined by a score of lesser figures in the House of Commons, and they were supported by such prominent peers as Lord Cranborne and Lord Wolmer in the House of Lords. It was recognized that many other members of Parliament refrained from joining them solely because they were concerned about Conservative Party discipline, particularly in case they were men of limited reputation. Chamberlain won the vote of confidence, but it was doubtful if he possessed the confidence of the British Conservative Party.54

Chamberlain produced his major rhetorical effort on behalf of Munich just before the vote of confidence on October 6th. He declared that his conscience was clear; he did not regret that Great Britain was not fighting Germany over the Czech issue. He stressed the horrors of modern war as the main justification for any peace policy. Chamberlain suggested that the Czech state might best survive in the future if it became permanently neutral in the Swiss style. He added proudly that new elections at this time would be an unfair advantage for the Government because of the sentiment of the country: Everyone listening knew that the current Conservative majority was unnaturally large because advantage had been taken of the sentiment aroused by the Ethiopian crisis in 1935. Baldwin had given the country the false impression that the Government was prepared to win a great victory for collective security at Ethiopia, and the stirring slogans which followed had rallied the voters.56

Chamberlain reverted to his previous, tactic of painting the contemporary situation in somber rather than bright colors. He implied that Europe was [192] gripped by a great crisis despite the Munich conference and the Anglo-German friendship declaration. He warned that elections might impair the unity of the nation at a crucial moment. He added that great efforts would be demanded from the nation in coming weeks because of the expanded armament campaign, and he claimed that it was important to keep differences of opinion about British policy to a minimum. He created the impression, which he had to do under the circumstances, that war was not inevitable. Hitler had accepted the Munich conference because he believed this. Chamberlain declared that war would be inevitable unless some sort of relations were maintained with the “totalitarian states.” He said that there was no reason to suppose that a new war would end the European crisis more successfully than the last war had done. He rejected the idea of the world conference, proposed by Labour, with the argument that it had no prospect of success. He finished his speech by emphasizing Anglo-French unity and the need to increase the production of British arms. The Prime Minister was obviously not optimistic about the prospects for peace.57

Chamberlain went much further in this speech in stressing the need for war preparation than can be indicated in a brief summary. He nearly persuaded Anthony Eden and Leopold Amery, who denounced Munich and favored war, to vote for him. Amery and Eden would not have reacted in this manner had the dominant theme been an expression of faith in the continuation of peace.58


Control of British Policy by Halifax

One of the most dramatic incidents in England after Munich was the firm bid of Halifax to take the reins of British foreign policy into his own hands, or resign. Halifax permitted Chamberlain to have the lead during the Czech crisis, but he made it clear afterward that the time had come for a change. He wanted sole responsibility, and he did not wish Chamberlain to travel abroad to important conferences again without his Foreign Minister. This situation reached a climax before Chamberlain’s speech on October 6th. Halifax was firmly in control after this date. Halifax, like Eden earlier, had rejected Chamberlain’s policy, but, unlike Eden, Halifax put through his own policy. Chamberlain chose to conform, as illustrated by the following excerpt from his apologetic letter to Halifax of March 11, 1939: “Your rebuke ... was fully merited . . . I was horrified at the result of my talk . . . I promise faithfully not to do it again, but to consult you beforehand.”59

The roles of Chamberlain and Halifax were reversed. Halifax felt like a mere spectator of events during the Sudeten crisis, and Chamberlain felt the same way after October 6th.60

The change of tactics by Halifax, during the months of October and November 1938, offers striking evidence of this. American Ambassador Kennedy had tea with Halifax on October 12th, and he received a complacent picture of the European situation from the British Foreign Secretary. It was evident that Halifax did not wish to create the impression of an abrupt change of course. It should be noted that this tea occurred after the furor created by Hitler’s Saarbruecken speech of October 9th, which had criticized Conservative [193] warmongering tactics against Germany. Halifax admitted to Kennedy that everyone in a position of influence knew that Hitler did not desire war against England. Great Britain intended to increase her air strength, but this did not necessarily mean that she planned to interfere with Hitler on the continent. Halifax told Kennedy that he expected Hitler to make a bid for the annexation of both Danzig and Memel, and he suggested that Great Britain might not intervene if Hitler moved as far as Rumania. He added that Great Britain was seeking to prepare for all eventualities by improving her relations with the Soviet Union.61

Halifax discussed the same European situation with Kennedy again on October 28th. The only new development in the interim was the German offer to Poland, and Halifax himself had predicted on October 12th that Hitler would seek to acquire Danzig. Halifax painted a somber picture of Hitler’s attitude toward Great Britain in this second conversation, and he also gave Kennedy a great quantity of unreliable information about Hitler’s alleged attitudes toward a number of current continental problems. A few weeks later he claimed to Kennedy that Hitler was consumed by passionate hatred of England, and that he had a plan to tear the Soviet Union to pieces in the Spring of 1939. The purpose of these deceptive tactics was obvious. Halifax was exercising his diplomatic talents in preparation for a British attack on Germany. He was also indulging in the easy task of adding fuel to the dislike of the American leaders for Germany. World War I had amply vindicated the efficacy of propaganda.62


Tory Alarmist Tactics

The speeches which Chamberlain delivered for public consumption during the debate on the Munich conference are important. They show that the British public was not receiving a cheerful picture of the European situation, and that the Anglo-German declaration of friendship received far less emphasis than the need to prepare for war against Germany. These speeches provided no clue to Chamberlain’s real motives in going to Munich. The motive at one moment seemed to be a genuine desire to avert war permanently, and, at another, to postpone war until Great Britain was ready. It is necessary to consider what Chamberlain told his intimate advisers in private conversation. These men learned after Munich that the attempt to come to terms with the dictators was not the primary reason for Chamberlain’s Munich policy. They were told by Chamberlain that two other factors were more important. The most weighty was momentary British un-readiness for a test of arms with Germany. The second consideration was French opposition to a military offensive on behalf of the Czechs. Chamberlain’s attitude would have been different in 1938 if the French had possessed a brilliant offensive strategy to aid the Czechs, and were prepared to use it. It is probable that Chamberlain would have pushed Great Britain into war against Germany had British armaments reached the 1939 level, or had the French pursued a more aggressive policy.63

The Conservative leaders delivered two important speeches on British foreign policy between the adjournment of Parliament on October 6th and the reopening of Parliament on November 1, 1938. Sir Samuel Hoare spoke at [194] Clacton-on-Sea on October 20th. His speech explained an elementary fact of great importance. He pointed out that a war against Germany on behalf of the Czechs would have been a preventive war. He reminded his listeners that the verdict of history condemned the doctrine of preventive war. Hoare noted that preventive wars always were great mistakes, and that a nation had no right to appeal to arms except in defense of her own interests. It seems almost incredible, when one reads this speech, to anticipate that Hoare supported a policy of preventive war against Germany a few months later. Hoare reminded his listeners that Hitler had abided by the terms of the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Treaty. Hoare also lauded the British armament campaign, and he promised that no nation which favored peace need fear British arms. It was a promise which received little support from the British record. It was the expression of an ideal which Great Britain had not attained. It was an ideal totally incompatible with the policy of the balance of power.64

Halifax spoke at Edinburgh on October 24th. He explained to his listeners that the British leaders were not satisfied with the existing peace because it was an armed peace. He hoped that a peace of understanding could be attained, but it was too early to say how this might be achieved. He was seemingly conciliatory toward Germany, and he described the Anglo-German declaration as an important step toward obviating existing dangers. He then suggested that Czechoslovakia had been saved at Munich, because the Czech state would have been destroyed by war, regardless of the number of Powers participating in war against Germany. Halifax had begun to emphasize the salvation of Czechoslovakia as a principal justification for Munich. This was clever strategy at a time when competent observers were predicting that the Czech state was on the verge of collapse. Halifax was interested in discrediting Munich while appearing to defend it. This was not apparent to all of his listeners, and the speech was well-received in Scotland, where there was much less dissatisfaction with the Munich agreement than in England.65

The debate about Munich was resumed in Parliament on November 1,1938, when Clement Attlee delivered another speech which described the Munich agreement as a tremendous British defeat. Chamberlain replied with a prepared speech. He added a few objections to Attlee’s remarks, but he concentrated his principal fire on Lloyd George. The unpredictable Welshman, who later advocated peace with Germany after the defeat of Poland in 1939, had delivered an inflammatory speech against Chamberlain to the American radio audience on October 27, 1938. Chamberlain denounced this speech with great bitterness, and he accused Lloyd George of performing a disservice to the country by claiming that the British Empire was in a condition of decline under Chamberlain’s leadership. The debate on Munich continued with sound and fury, and it was not terminated until the following day. Chamberlain at that time won an important parliamentary victory when the April 1938 Anglo-Italian agreement was ratified by an overwhelming vote.66

The furor about the Munich agreement might have subsided in the following months had not the Conservative leaders contrived by various means to keep the public in a state of alarm about Germany. A few of the more important instances will illustrate this problem. Earl De la Warr, Education Minister in the Chamberlain Cabinet, insisted in a speech at Bradford on December 4, 1938, [195] that the feeling was prevalent in Great Britain that nothing could ever be done to satisfy Germany. This was a propaganda trick designed to create the very opinion which he claimed existed. It was tantamount to saying that the appeasement policy which culminated at Munich was a farce.67 Prime Minister Chamberlain pointedly declared in the House of Commons on December 7th that he did not disagree with the inspired remarks of his Minister. On December 13th he delivered a speech stressing the importance of his coming visit to Italy, and praising the increased tempo of the armament campaign and the support which it enjoyed.68

Sir Auckland Geddes, the Administrator of the British National Service Act, predicted in a speech on January 17, 1939, that the British people would be in the front line of a coming war, and he explicitly urged them to hoard food supplies in anticipation of this eventuality. This horrendous suggestion produced great public alarm. Geddes added that the British Air Force would take a heavy toll of the invading bombers which he had conjured with frightening clarity, and he urged the British people to show the world that they did not fear war.69

The most provocative of these speeches was delivered on January 23, 1939, by Chamberlain himself. Chamberlain urged public support of the national service program, “which will make us ready for war.” He denied that Great Britain ever would begin a war, but his next statement demolished whatever assurance one might have deduced from this announcement. He warned that Great Britain might participate in a war begun by others. This was a different situation than responding to an attack on Great Britain or on British interests. Chamberlain was embracing the doctrine of preventive war which had been denounced publicly by Hoare three months earlier. That the British leaders were not at all accurate in their estimates of the respective strength of such Powers as Germany or the Soviet Union illustrated the supremacy of the balance of power policy. It was an evil omen for the future.70


Tory Confidence in War Preparations

The alarmist public utterances of the British leaders, when Hitler had done nothing contrary to the Anglo-German declaration or the Munich agreement, were mild compared to statements made through the channels of secret diplomacy. The January 1939 visit of Halifax and Chamberlain to Rome offered eloquent testimony of hostile British intentions toward Germany. The British leaders were in excellent spirits because of the unexpected successes of the aerial armament campaign after the Munich conference. The production of British fighter aircraft was 25% beyond the figure which had been predicted at the time of Munich in the early autumn of 1938.71

The American expert Charles Lindbergh, who lived in England, made a considerable impression on the English leaders before Munich with his report on German air power. Lindbergh praised the quality of German aerial armament in the strongest terms which the facts would permit. He was glad to contribute what he could to pointing out the senselessness of a new European war, and he surmised correctly that the British attitude was the key factor in deciding whether or not there would be such a war. He was overjoyed by the news of [196] Munich, and he sincerely hoped that peace had been saved.72

Unfortunately, the British leaders realized that the German lead in the air was very narrow in 1938. They were not merely interested in defense against a possible German aerial offensive. They hoped that their own air power would be a decisive offensive instrument in a future war. British aerial strategy since 1936 had been based on the doctrine of mass attacks against objectives far behind the military front. Their strategy contrasted sharply with that of the Germans, who hoped that aerial bombardment would be restricted to frontline military action in the event of war. The difference in strategy was reflected in the types of aircraft produced by the two countries. Germany produced many light and medium bombers for tactical operations in support of ground troops, but the major British emphasis was on the construction of heavy bombers to attack civilian objectives far behind the front. The British Defence Requirements Committee decided as early as February 1934 that “the ultimate potential enemy” in any major war would be Germany.73

The British in the Spring of 1938 were hoping to build 8,000 military aircraft in the year beginning April 1939, and this goal was later achieved and surpassed. They had expected to build only 4,000 military aircraft in the year April 1938 to April 1939, but they were far ahead of schedule by January 1939, and their key secret defense weapon, the “radar project,” had made gigantic strides since 1935. The British leaders and experts were concerned about their air defenses, but they had not lost sight of a possible aerial offensive against the civilian population of Germany. The ratio of fighters to bombers in the autumn of 1938 program of Air Minister Sir Kingsley Wood was 1:1.7. The construction of medium bombers had been discontinued, and the emphasis was solely on heavy bombers capable of attacking distant objectives. The British leaders admitted that defensive preparation of British civilian centers to meet German retaliation bombing was “insufficient to dispel anxiety” during the final months before the outbreak of World War II. Nevertheless, they were convinced that they were reasonably secure against successful German retaliation, and hence the strategy for the bombardment of the German civilian masses was developed with single-minded energy.74


Mussolini Frightened by Halifax and Chamberlain

It is not surprising that the sudden and unexpected increase in military power made the British leaders more aggressive in attitude, and this was reflected in their conversations with the Italian leaders. It is interesting to compare the British and Italian records of these talks. Two of the principal conversations included Chamberlain, Halifax, Mussolini, and Ciano, one included Halifax and Ciano, and one included Chamberlain and Mussolini. The first conversation of the four leaders took place at Mussolini’s office in the Palazzo Venezia in Rome on the afternoon of January 11, 1939. The British record noted that Mussolini pledged Italy to a policy of peace for internal reasons, and for the general stability of Europe. The Italian leader asserted that a new war could destroy civilization, and he deplored the failure of the Four Munich Powers to cooperate more closely to preserve peace. He reminded Chamberlain and Halifax that he [197] had envisaged close cooperation when he proposed a Four Power Pact of consultation and friendship among Great Britain, France, Italy, and Germany in 1933. He favored the limitation of arms. The Jewish question was discussed, and Mussolini stated his personal opinion that the best solution would be for all Jews to come under the laws of a sovereign Jewish state, although they need not all live there. Mussolini was concerned about the British attitude toward Germany. Chamberlain declared that he had considered the possibility of conversations with the Germans toward the end of 1938, but that he had changed his mind. He claimed that he had reconsidered because he was disappointed in the German attitude.

A conversation took place between Halifax and Ciano on the morning of January 12, 1939, at the office of the Italian Foreign Minister in the Palazzo Chigi. This conversation was devoted entirely to problems connected with the Spanish Civil War. Ciano gave Halifax assurances that Italy intended to withdraw her volunteers from Spain, and that she did not intend to establish military bases in that country.

Mussolini, Ciano, Chamberlain, and Halifax met at the Palazzo Venezia again on the afternoon of January 12, 1939. Franco-Italian relations were on the agenda. The Italian leaders insisted that the mysterious recent demonstrations against France in the Italian Chamber of Deputies on November 30, 1938, were entirely spontaneous. They blamed the French for much of the recent tension between Italy and France, which had culminated in this incident. Chamberlain turned the discussion to Germany. He claimed to be impressed by rumors of sinister German intentions. He had heard that Germany was planning to establish an independent Ukraine, and to attack Great Britain, France, Poland, and the Soviet Union. Mussolini assured the British leaders that German armaments were defensive, and that Hitler had no plans for an independent Ukraine or for attacks on the various countries which Chamberlain had mentioned. He added that Germany desired peace. Chamberlain disagreed. He declared that German arms were more than sufficient to deal with attacks from countries immediately adjacent to Germany, and that hence the Germans must be harboring aggressive plans. He claimed that Great Britain, on the other hand, was merely concerned with defending herself from the German menace. He defended the extremists of the British Conservative Party, and he denied that anyone, including Churchill, advocated a British military offensive against Germany.

The British and Italian leaders agreed that it would be difficult to guarantee the Czechs, and the British mentioned a guarantee formula which the French had previously rejected. This formula stipulated no aid to the Czechs unless three of the Four Munich Powers agreed that aggression had taken place. Mussolini mentioned a series of requirements, including the need for stable conditions within the Czech state, which would have to be met before a guarantee could be considered. The conversation concluded with comments about the British General Election planned for the autumn of 1940 and the Rome International Exposition scheduled for 1942. Mussolini was much concerned about plans for the Rome Exposition, and Chamberlain made the obvious remark that the British would like to participate.

Chamberlain and Mussolini discussed the general situation, following a dinner] 198] at the British Embassy on the evening of Friday, January 13, 1939. Chamberlain told Mussolini that he distrusted Hitler, and that he remained unconvinced by Mussolini’s arguments that the German armament program was defensive in scope. He hoped to make Mussolini uneasy by referring to a rumor that Germany had launched special military preparations in the region near the Italian frontier. He assured Mussolini categorically that Great Britain and France, in contrast to 1938, were now prepared to fight Germany.75

The Italian record of these conversations corresponded closely to the British record in the matter of topics, but there were decisive differences of emphasis and factual points. The Italians gave German Ambassador Mackensen a copy of their record of the January 11, 1939, conversation on January 12th, and Mackensen forwarded the information to Hitler at once. Mussolini told the British leaders that the Anglo-Italian pact of April 16, 1938, was an essential factor in the conduct of Italian policy. He said that Italy’s association with Germany in the Axis was also important, but he emphasized that this association was not “of an exclusive nature (di natura esclusiva).” He added that Italy had no direct ambitions (ambizione diretta)” in Spain. Chamberlain thanked Mussolini for his assurance that peace was essential for the consolidation of Italy, and he added that he and Halifax had never doubted the good will of Mussolini. He contrasted his attitudes toward Italy and toward Germany, and he complained that he had seen no signs of German friendship toward Great Britain since Munich.

Mussolini promised that he would make an effort to improve Franco-Italian relations. He hoped that this would be possible after the end of the Spanish war. Chamberlain complained of “feverish armament” in Germany, and alleged German offensive plans. Mussolini, in denying that such plans existed, placed primary emphasis on the point that German defensive requirements should be considered in relation to the Russian armament campaign. It is significant that there is no mention of this point in the British record.76

The Red Army had been vastly increased in recent months, and an attempt was underway to replace recently purged Red Army officers with officers from the reserves, and with officers from the training schools in the younger cadres. The incorporation of reserve units in the Red Army in late 1938 had increased the Russian peacetime army to two million men, which was nearly triple the number of peacetime German soldiers. A Supreme War Council directed by Stalin had been created in 1938 to supervise the War Council headed by People’s Commissar of Defense Voroshilov. The Red Army and Red Air Force were under Voroshilov and the Red Fleet was under a separate command. The new Council under Stalin was intended to coordinate the commands in a program of preparation for war. The Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) on the morning of January 11, 1939, demanded the victory of Communism over the entire world. These were public facts available to everyone, but the British leaders preferred to believe that Stalin’s arrest of 20,000 officers had banned the danger of Communism. Their prejudice against Communism prompted them to belittle Soviet power. The British considered Mussolini’s comments about their own complacency toward the Russian threat too insignificant to be included in their record of the conversations at Rome.77

The British also neglected another major point made by Mussolini. The Italian [199] leader could understand British concern about rumors suggesting an impending attack on their own country or on neighboring France. He could not appreciate their apparent concern about the welfare of the Soviet leadership. Mussolini denied that Hitler had plans for the dismemberment of Russia, but he could not refrain from commenting that the end of Communism in Russia would be a blessing for the Russian people. This remark did not impress the British leaders. Mussolini swore that he knew with absolute certainty that Hitler had no hostile plans against the West.

Mussolini also was surprised that Chamberlain was predicting trouble between Germany and Poland. He shared the optimism of Hitler that an understanding between Germany and Poland could be attained. Polish Foreign Minister Beck had recently visited Hitler, and the German Foreign Minister was scheduled to visit Beck at Warsaw in a few days. The Italian leader was unaware that Polish Ambassador Raczynski in London had requested British support against Germany in December 1938, or that Halifax had expressed a desire to support Poland at Danzig as early as September 1938. Mussolini warned Chamberlain not to be influenced by anti-National Socialist propaganda. Chamberlain stridently denied Mussolini’s claims about German defensive needs, and he insisted that Russia did not have the strength to be a menace to anyone. One is reminded here of the statement of Anthony Eden in March 1935 that the Soviet Union would not be in a position to wage a war of aggression for fifty years. Mussolini was amazed by Chamberlain’s remark, and he repeated that Germany had good reason to fear a hostile coalition of overwhelming strength.

The Italian leader used every possible argument to cope with Chamberlain’s anti-German phobia. He cited the Siegfried line, along the German frontier with France and Belgium, as an indication of the defensive nature of German armament. Chamberlain insisted that German armament was far too impressive, and he suggested that Hitler should speak publicly of his desire for peace, if he was truly peaceful. This suggestion astonished Mussolini, and he inquired if Chamberlain was unaware of Hitler’s New Year Declaration of January 1, 1939, in which the German leader had professed a fervent desire for the perpetuation of European peace. Mussolini repeated that the current scope of German armament was fully justified by the existing situation. He wished to be helpful in allaying Chamberlain’s alleged fear of German intentions. He was willing to cooperate with Chamberlain in organizing a conference for qualitative disarmament as soon as the war in Spain had ended. Chamberlain displayed no interest in this proposal.

Mussolini referred to the inner instability of the Czech state, the failure of the Czechs to dissolve their ties with Russia or to adopt a policy of neutrality, and the fact that the new Czech borders in many directions had not received their final definition on the ground by international border commissions. The Italian record was emphatic in stating that Chamberlain agreed with Mussolini’s remarks about the Czechs.78

The Italian record also shows that Mussolini was disappointed by Chamberlain’s attitude. The visit was successful from the British perspective, but unsuccessful from the Italian standpoint. The British leaders had hoped to intimidate Mussolini, and to discourage him from supporting Hitler if and when war came. They were successful in this effort, although this diplomatic success [200] was cancelled in 1940 because of the unexpected fall of France. The Italians, on the other hand, had hoped that their assurances would prompt the British to adopt a more tolerant attitude toward Germany and a more cooperative policy toward the settlement of current European problems. They were fully disappointed in this expectation. It was evident that British hostility toward Germany was implacable.

Mussolini discussed the situation with German Ambassador Mackensen at the British Embassy reception on the evening of January 13, 1939. He said that the results of the visit were meager, and he complained that the British had made him feel like a lawyer in one of their courts when he had attempted to explain German armaments and German foreign policy. He left no doubt in Mackensen’s mind that the British leaders were ready to find Germany guilty of every crime.79

The Germans received further information about the Rome visit from Italian Ambassador Attolico in Berlin on January 17, 1939. This included an excellent condensed summary of the conversation of January 11, 1939. It was followed by a report from Mackensen, which contained an account of the conversation of Chamberlain, Halifax, Mussolini, and Ciano on January 12, 1939. The Germans learned that their armament program provided the main topic of discussion. Mackensen also discovered that Chamberlain had been clever in making table-talk propaganda with Mussolini. Chamberlain referred to Italy and Great Britain as imperial Powers, with colonies overseas, in contrast to Germany, a mere continental nation. This was satisfactory to Hitler, who had no desire to hoist the German flag in distant parts.80

It was evident to Mussolini that Germany was threatened by a possible British attack. The British leaders were in full motion against Germany many weeks before their public switch in policy after the German occupation of Prague in March 1939. It is for this reason that the Rome conversations stand out so sharply in the diplomatic history of 1939. Mussolini knew that war would be a disaster, and he hoped that Hitler would be able to avoid it. He made it clear to the Germans that his efforts to allay British prejudice against them had failed. He hoped to play a constructive role in helping to avoid an unnecessary war, but he recognized that his first obligation to his own people was to keep Italy out, of a disastrous Anglo-German conflict. It was for this reason that he had been careful not to offend his British guests, and he explained this to the Germans. The suggestion of Churchill that Mussolini was contemptuous of British military strength at this time was inaccurate. Mussolini was sufficiently wise to fear British military power and to recognize the vulnerable position of his own country. Mussolini’s decision for war against Great Britain in June 1940 does not alter this fact. He resisted pressure to enter the war during its early months despite a British blockade on Italian trade. The German victories over Great Britain in Norway and France in 1940 altered the situation, and Mussolini entered a war which he believed was nearly finished in order to give his country a voice at the peace conference. He never would have taken this action had it not been for the amazing German victories of 1940 over superior Allied Forces.81


Hitler’s Continued Optimism

The tragedy which overtook Italy in World War II indicates that Mussolini’s alarm at British hostility toward Germany in January 1939 was amply justified. There had been no German moves since Munich. Nevertheless, the same British Prime Minister who had persuaded Hitler to sign the declaration of Anglo-German friendship on September 30, 1938, was branding Germany an aggressor nation in January 1939. His assurance that Great Britain was ready for war with Germany indicated that he envisaged the likelihood of a conflict, and his defense of Churchill’s attitude toward Germany was ominous.

Cohn Brooks was one of the leading British writers of the 1930’s who advocated huge British armaments. He explained in his persuasive book, Can Chamberlain Save Britain? The Lesson of Munich, which was written in October 1938, that “the Four Power Conference of Munich in September 1938 gave to the world either an uneasy postponement of conflict or the promise of a lasting peace.’ This was true, but the promise of lasting peace was undermined by the attitude of the British leaders toward Germany. Brooks was an alarmist. He claimed that Great Britain was in peril because the balance of power was threatened. He called on British youth to be equal to the British imperialistic tradition, and not to be further influenced in their attitudes by the unusually heavy losses suffered by Great Britain in World War I. He reminded his readers that Great Britain had spent 102 years fighting major wars during the past 236 years since 1702, and that the had fought many minor wars during the otherwise peaceful intervals. He recognized that Great Britain had a record of aggressive military action unequalled by any other Power in modern times. He wished British youth to recognize this obvious fact, and to prepare for the new struggle against Germany. He was one of the best examples of the militant England of 1938 which Maring Gilbert and Rich Gott were still seeking to justify with reckless abandon in their chronicle, The Appeasers, some twenty-five years later.82

Karl Heinz Pfeffer, a cosmopolitan German expert on British and American attitudes, attempted in a 1940 book, England: Vormacht der buergerlichen Welt (England: Guardian of the bourgeois World), to explain British hostility toward Germany during this period. He noted that the alleged British disarmament between World War I and World War II was a myth, but that the British public had been deluged with the peace propaganda of private groups late in 1931, on the eve of the much-heralded general disarmament conference of February 1932. French obstruction wrecked the conference, and Great Britain began to search for justification for an increase in her already considerable armament. Propaganda was needed to overcome the popular longing for peace. The experience of World War I suggested the answer, and this partially explained the initial hate campaign against Germany in the period 1932-1938.

Pfeffer emphasized that German power did not grow at British expense during this period. He expressed the devout wish that the German people would never again accept British claims about the alleged sins of German leaders, and hoped that German experience in the recent Pax Britannica would discourage this tendency, which had undermined German morale in 1918. The German middle class had been ruined by inflation during the interwar British peace, the [202] German farmer class had been brought to the brink of destruction, and the German workers had been exposed to the threat of total unemployment.

Pfeffer wished that the German people would never forget that the contemporary British leaders did not have the correct answers to the problems of the world. Awareness of these facts contributed to the excellent morale which was maintained by the vast majority of the German population throughout World War II.83

Hitler had been warned by Mussolini. Ribbentrop’s prediction of January 2, 1938, that it would be impossible for Germany to arrive at a lasting agreement with England, before Hitler had completed his program of peaceful revision, had received new confirmation. Hitler hoped that he could complete his program before the British were ready to attack Germany, and that he could persuade them afterward to accept the new situation. This had been the sole answer to the dilemma of British hostility in the age of Bismarck. It offered a fair prospect of success, but a policy of drift offered none at all.

Germany was the major Power in the European region between Great Britain in the West and the Soviet Union in the East. British hostility was reaching a crest, and the alternatives were peace or war. Hitler was in the middle of the stream. He was determined to reach the high bank. He wished to rescue Germany from the swampland of insecurity, decline, and despair. He wished Germany to have the national security and the opportunity for development which had been the heritage of Great Britain and the United States for many generations. He hoped to bring Germany out of danger, and to reach solid ground which was safe from any hostile British tide. He believed that this objective could be attained without harming Great Britain or the United States in any way.

Hitler looked forward to an era of Anglo-American-German cooperation. This would have been the best possible guarantee of stability and peace in the world. There was good reason to believe in January 1939 that this objective could be achieved, although the perils which faced Germany were very great. The worst of these was British hostility after Munich. [203]

Chapter 9


FRANCO-GERMAN RELATIONS AFTER MUNICH

France an Obstacle to British War Plans

The belligerent attitude of the British leaders by January 1939, and the unwillingness of the Poles to settle their differences with Germany, might seem to imply that World War II was inevitable by that time. Many people in the Western world accepted the contention of Halifax and other British leaders after World War II that an Anglo-German war has been inevitable after the German military reoccupation of the Rhineland in March 1936.1 There were some who said that Hitler’s program might have been stopped without war as late as Munich in September 1938, but that this was the last possible moment when the otherwise inevitable catastrophe might have been avoided. These opinions were predicated on the hypothesis that Hitler started World War II. They ignored the fact that World War II resulted from the British attack on Germany in September 1939. The British Defence Requirements Committee branded Germany “the ultimate potential enemy” as early as November 14, 1933, because they considered it likely that Great Britain would eventually intervene in some quarrel between Germany and one of her continental neighbors. The British leaders themselves did not believe that Hitler intended to attack their country.2

Hence, it might be concluded that British hostility toward Germany after Munich, and German-Polish friction in 1938 and 1939, made World War II inevitable. The British leaders were planning an attack on Germany, and a German conflict with a continental neighbor such as Poland would provide the pretext for such an attack. There was no indication that Hitler was about to present more drastic demands to the Poles after they failed to respond to his offer of October 1938, but it would be a simple matter for the British leaders to advise the Poles to provoke Hitler, when British war preparations were deemed sufficient. European history offered many examples of similar policies. British Ambassador Buchanan at St. Petersburg in July 1914 urged the Russians to provoke Germany by ordering a Russian general mobilization against her [    184] systems. It was feared in London that the two systems might combine against England in one of the frequent colonial crises of these years. Joseph Chamberlain, the father of Neville, led a group who favored an English alliance policy. Prime Minister Salisbury opposed an alliance policy. He insisted that alliances were superfluous for England and would impair the flexibility of English policy. The military reverses suffered by England in the early phase of the Boer War helped to carry the day for Chamberlain and alliances Salisbury was right when he insisted that the opposite conclusion should have been drawn, because the continental Powers did not intervene against England in this crisis when she was most vulnerable.31

The growth of German wealth und productive power in these years was phenomenal, and it seemed to more than compensate for the reverses currently suffered by Germany in diplomatic affairs. Many of the British leaders began to suspect that German growth was a challenge to the balance of power. The balance of power had its own morality. Any nation which seemed to challenge it should be treated as an enemy. It did not matter whether or not Germany planned to attack British interests, or whether or not she was in a position to strike a blow at England. The prospect that she might become stronger than any possible hostile continental combination suggested that it was time “to redress the balance of power.”32

The situation was more complicated than it had been during earlier centuries. Great Britain launched her alliance policy by concluding an Anglo-Japanese alliance in 1902. but it was easy to see that the rising imperial power of Japan might become a real challenge to British interests in Asia. Both the United States and Germany surpassed Great Britain in industrial strength before 1914. British power since 1750 had been based more on industrial and naval supremacy than on diplomacy, and the loss of industrial supremacy made the British position more difficult. A challenge to Germany would play into the hands of the United States, just as a challenge to America, which almost occurred during the 1895-1896 Venezuelan crisis, would have played into the hands of Germany. Cecil Rhodes, the architect of British imperial expansion in Africa, recognized this dilemma, and this prompted him to advocate permanent peace and cooperation among Great Britain, Germany, and the United States. This Would have meant the abandonment of the balance of power policy, but Cecil Rhodes was sufficiently shrewd to see that the policy was obsolete. The ruling British leaders did not see it that way; and Great Britain suffered an enormous loss of power  and prestige in World War I despite her victory over Germany.33

The Soviet Union began to emerge as an industrial giant of incalculable power during the two decades after World War I. It was evident that there were at least four nations immediately or potentially far more powerful than Great Britain. These four nations were the United States, the Soviet Union, Germany, and Japan. This was different than in the old days when it had merely been a question of one preponderant Spain, or one preponderant France. The bankruptcy of the British balance of power policy should have been evident to everyone. It was as obsolete as Italian balance of power Politics after the intervention, with overwhelming forces, of King Charles VIII of France in Italian affairs in 1494. The balance of power policy always had been an unhealthy and decadent basis from which to approach diplomatic relations. It substituted for a healthy pursuit of common interests among states the tortuous attempt to [185] undermine or even destroy any state which attained a leading position. It took no regard of the attitude of such a state toward England. The policy was also extremely unstable. It demanded otherwise inexplicable shifts of position when it was evident that one state had been overestimated or another underestimated. It was particularly tragic when France abandoned an independent policy and became dependent on Great Britain. This meant that France was in danger, along with Great Britain, of contributing to the blunders of an obsolete British policy.34

It seemed momentarily that Great Britain might be returning to the policies of Stanhope and Castlereagh when she joined the League of Nations in 1919. Unfortunately this was not the case. France after 1919 was no longer as powerful as Great Britain, but she enjoyed continental preponderance for several years because of the treaty restrictions on Germany, the intrinsic feebleness of Italy, and the disappearance of Austria-Hungary. Revolutionary upheavals after the defeat in World War I temporarily reduced Russian power. The British responded by employing their balance of power policy against France. There had, been notorious rivalry between the two nations in the Near East during World War I, because of oil and traditional prestige factors, and the British nearly succeeded in “biffmg” the French out of their Syrian claims. The British and French took opposite sides in the post-war struggle between the Greeks and the Turks. The British continued to oppose French policies with increasing vigor when the Turks emerged victorious with French support.35

The climax came when Great Britain opposed the efforts of France and Belgium to collect reparations in the Ruhr in 1923-1924. The French were confidently pursuing a policy of independence under Poincaré’s bold leadership, but the debacle suffered in the Ruhr was a stunning psychological blow to the French. Edouard Herriot, who took the reins of policy from Poincaré, concluded that nothing could succeed without British cooperation. There were later instances of friction between France and Great Britain, but the French leaders were always inclined to accept the British lead. It was apparent to everyone during the Czech crisis in 1938 that Anglo-French policy was conducted from London. 36

The British occasionally pursued policies which seemed to strengthen French preponderance on the continent. They joined France and Italy in squelching the feeble attempt of Chancellor Brüning of Germany to conclude a customs union with Austria in 1931. It did not seem that the “Hunger Chancellor” was capable of removing the threat of Communism in Germany, which implied a new preponderant Russo-German combination, or of challenging the old preponderance of France.37

The situation changed with the arrival of Hitler in 1933. The new Chancellor dealt a few annihilating blows to German Communism, and challenged France by withdrawing Germany from the disarmament conference at Geneva, where German claims to equality received farcical treatment. The balance of power on the continent was restored when Hitler sent German troops into the Rhine-land in 1936. The French might have challenged this move successfully had they received an assurance of British support. As it was, the French feared that action would mean an Anglo-German combination against them as in 1923.38

Duff Cooper and Chamberlain agreed in October 1938 that Great Britain [186] should continue the balance of power policy. They agreed that everything possible should be done to prevent a permanent alignment of Italy with Germany. They both underestimated the Soviet Union and believed that she was much less powerful than Germany. They also agreed that the Czech cause as such was not worth British participation in a European war. The sole point where they disagreed was whether or not it would be wise for Great Britain to attack Germany in 1938. Duff Cooper believed that Great Britain was sufficiently strong in 1938 to attack Germany, but Chamberlain believed that it would be wiser to play for time. Neither Chamberlain nor Duff Cooper had any sympathy for Germany, the nation which Chamberlain called the bully of Europe as early as 1935. It is possible from this perspective to see that the differences within the British Conservative Party in October 1938 were not really very profound. Anti-German prejudice was the dominant attitude within the entire Conservative Party.39


Tory and Labour War Sentiment

The London Times seemed to incline toward the evaluation of Duff Cooper when it announced on October 3, 1938, that Germany was relieved to escape from a war “which, in the opinion of most sections of the population, it would almost certainly have lost.” The Times predicted that “Mr. Chamberlain will find plenty of critics” in the current parliamentary debates. It is important to recall that Geoffrey Dawson, the editor of the Times, had provided valuable support for Halifax and Chamberlain during the Czech crisis. On the afternoon of September 6, 1938, he had revised the famous article which appeared in the Times on the following day, and advocated the cession of the Sudeten districts to Germany.40

Dawson was especially close to Halifax, whom he had met in South Africa in 1905. He published an article on October 30, 1925, which praised Halifax without stint or limit when it was announced in London that the latter had been appointed Viceroy of India. Halifax had given Dawson a detailed private analysis of his visit to Hitler in November 1937, and he had told Dawson that he was well-satisfied with the visit. Dawson noted that Halifax probably could have negotiated a lasting agreement with Germany at that time, had Great Britain agreed to remain aloof from possible complications between Germany and her eastern neighbors. Dawson also realized that Halifax was not willing to do this.41

It was significant that the London Times, which had been the principal journalistic organ of appeasement during the Czech crisis, began to adopt a more critical attitude toward Germany immediately after the Munich conference. It followed the policy of Halifax in this respect. The differences between the attitudes of the Times and of the Daily Express toward Germany became increasingly pronounced. This was because Lord Beaverbrook, the owner of the Daily Express, was a sincere advocate of appeasement as a permanent policy, whereas Geoffrey Dawson was not. The Daily Express continued to hope and to predict that there would be no war with Germany until within a few days of the outbreak of World War II in September 1939. This attitude reflected the wishes of wide sections of the British population in the autumn of 1938, and in [187] November 1938 the Daily Express noted that its circulation had increased to over 2 ½ million within a very short time, which gave it the largest circulation of any newspaper in British history. When Halifax at last launched a gigantic propaganda campaign in March 1939 to sell the British public on war with Germany, the editorial policy of the Daily Express gradually became a liability for circulation rather than an asset. It is not surprising that Beaverbrook finally made concessions to the warlike mood in order to preserve his newspaper. It became evident that a large-circulation British newspaper with consistent principles was an impossibility in the modern age.42

Chamberlain paid special tribute to Halifax in the British House of Commons on October 3, 1938. He claimed that Halifax felt a duty not only to England, but to all humanity. There was no point in wondering what prompted Chamberlain to make this sentimental statement, because it was consistent with his usual oratorical style. There is no record that Halifax ever recanted his maiden speech to Parliament, in which he denied that all men were equal and insisted that the British were the “superior race” within an Empire which comprised more than a quarter of the population of the world. Chamberlain leaned on the prestige of Halifax to protect his own position.43

Chamberlain reminded Commons that there was a very considerable difference between the terms of Munich and the proposals of Hitler at Bad Godesberg. The Munich agreement permitted the Czechs to withdraw important strategic materials from the areas about to be ceded, and the region which the Germans were permitted to occupy in five gradual stages was smaller than the area Hitler had requested. He reminded the members that the avoidance of a catastrophe at Munich was in the interest of the Four Munich Powers rather than merely a triumph for one of them. These cogent remarks of the Prime Minister were greeted with shouts of “Shame!, Shame!” from the Opposition benches. This was to be expected. The current Labour Party leaders had supported Chamberlain’s trip to Munich, but they hoped to make political capital by denouncing his policy after he returned.44

The situation was explained later by Hugh Dalton, one of the top Labour Party leaders. Dalton, like many of his colleagues, was pro-Communist, and he referred to a visit to the Soviet Union in July 1932, during the greatest famine in Russian history, as an inspiring experience.” Dalton and the other Labour Party leaders actually had considerable confidence in Chamberlain’s leadership. They knew that he would never permit the return of the German colonies or make any tangible concession to Germany at British expense. They were angry that Charles Lindbergh had discouraged war in 1938 by emphasizing current German strength in the air. They agreed with Duff Cooper after Munich that 1938 would have been a favorable year to oppose Germany. They hoped that by contesting the results of the Munich conference they could either unseat Chamberlain or push him into an anti-German policy. They knew that the Labour Opposition was much too weak in Parliament to accomplish this result without important allies from the British Conservative Party. The Labour Party leaders professed to believe that cooperation with National Socialist Germany in foreign affairs would discourage necessary reforms at home.45

Chamberlain continued his speech by reading the text of the Anglo-German declaration of friendship of September 30, 1938. He mentioned that this [188] agreement would not be effective unless there was good will on both sides. This left room to claim later that the British had to oppose Germany because Hitler did not show good will toward England. Chamberlain noted that Munich had merely provided a foundation for peace and that the structure was still lacking. He then turned to his favorite theme of British armament, and he reminded the House with pride that the pace of the British armament campaign was increasing daily. He promised that the British Empire would not relax her efforts unless the rest of the world disarmed. He concluded with the announcement that military power was the key to successful British diplomacy.

Clement Attlee, the new Labour Party leader, spoke of the Munich agreement as a huge victory for Hitler and “an annihilating defeat for democracy,” which of course was meant to include so-called Soviet democracy. Eden gave a speech in which he criticized Chamberlain on detailed points, and expressed doubt that Great Britain would implement her promised guarantee to the Czech state. He drew on his old experience as special British representative to the League of Nations, and he denounced the idea of the Munich Powers deciding an important question without consulting the smaller states. He advised the House to regard the current situation as a mere pause before the next crisis. He claimed that the British armament campaign was still somewhat too slow.

Hoare concluded the debate in Commons on October 3, 1938, with a mild defense of Chamberlain’s policy. He introduced an argument which was to be one of his favorites, except when applied to Poland. He suggested that a new World War would have been useless as an attempt to maintain the old Czech borders. The Germans and other minorities were saturated with Czech rule and would not accept it again. He added that the British Government would be willing to give the Czechs an effective guarantee at some future date, but only after the outstanding problems which afflicted the Czechs were settled.46

Halifax delivered an important speech in the British House of Lords on October 3, 1938. He shared the opinion of Hoare that Great Britain should never fight for a foreign state unless she was in a position to restore its old frontiers after a victorious war. This was an interesting idea, especially when one considers that Halifax refused to guarantee the Polish frontier with the Soviet Union when he concluded the Anglo-Polish alliance of August 25, 1939. It was obvious that this argument was largely sophistry to Halifax, and a sop to appease the Opposition. He revealed to the Lords that he had done what he could to improve British relations with the Soviet Union by placing the blame solely on Germany and Italy for refusing to invite the Soviets to Munich. He had given a formal declaration to this effect to Soviet Ambassador Maisky on October 1, 1938. Halifax regarded all this as a permanent trend in British foreign policy. Relations between Maisky and Halifax became more cordial in the months after Munich, and the Soviet Ambassador scored a great triumph on March 1, 1939, when Chamberlain and Halifax attended a reception at the Soviet embassy in London shortly before Stalin himself delivered a bitter speech denouncing the Western Powers. Halifax was obviously intent upon switching British appeasement from Germany to the Soviet Union.

The key to the Halifax speech of October 3rd was the statement that Great Britain would continue to prepare for a possible war against Germany despite the Anglo-German friendship declaration of September 30, 1938. Halifax, like [189] Chamberlain, devoted the latter part of his speech to a discussion of the British armament campaign. He emphasized that the need for more weapons was the principal British concern at the moment.47

Baldwin delivered a speech in Lords on the following day. He complained that it had been difficult to establish personal contact with the German and Italian dictators during the past five years. This was an astonishing statement when one recalls that Hitler had made repeated efforts to meet Baldwin at any time or place while the latter was Prime Minister. Baldwin dropped the mask completely when he claimed that Great Britain needed the spirit of 1914 to solve contemporary world problems. He was supposedly defending the peace settlement of Chamberlain, but in reality he was invoking the glory of the British attack on Germany in 1914. He mentioned that in the recent crisis he had been reminded of Sir Edward Grey, who looked like a man who had gone through hell when he pushed for war in 1914. Baldwin did not mention that the main reason for Grey’s concern was the fear that the mountain of deceit on which he had built British foreign policy would be discovered by the British Parliament. The British Parliament did not realize in 1914 that Grey had given the French a commitment to fight Germany whether Belgium was invaded or not. The French had concentrated their navy in the Mediterranean, and had entrusted the defense of their northern coastline to the British, before there was the slightest sign of an impending German invasion of Belgium. This situation was explored and explained by historians of many nations after World War I, but Baldwin, like Halifax, preferred to evaluate Grey in terms of 1914 war propaganda.48

Arthur Greenwood and Herbert Morrison resumed the Labour attack on Chamberlain in Commons on October 4, 1938. They repeated many of the arguments which Clement Attlee and Hugh Dalton had made on the previous day. It was known that President Roosevelt in January 1938 had advocated a world conference on European problems, which was supposed to include both the United States and the Soviet Union. The Labour leaders adopted the world conference slogan and stressed the importance of the voice of the Soviet Union in the councils of Europe. Leslie Burgin, Minister of Transport, spoke on behalf of Chamberlain, and he repeated the argument that a war for the Czechs would have been immoral, unless it could have been shown that it was possible to restore the Czech state in its entirety after the war. It is astonishing that these same people accepted war on behalf of Poland without a murmur, when it was obvious after August 22, 1939, that the Soviet Union was hostile to Poland, and that Great Britain had no intention of opposing Russia. It should have been apparent to anyone that the defeat of Germany would not enable the British to restore the new Polish state. In reality, the British leaders were not truly concerned about either the Czechs or the Poles.49 The same argument about not being able to restore the Czechs was repeated on October 4th by Sir Thomas Inskip, another British Cabinet member. In the following weeks the argument was repeated ad nauseam. It seems impossible that anyone could have forgotten it within the short span of one year. Nevertheless, the deluge of propaganda in England, after March 1939, was so great that it would have been easy to forget the Ten Commandments.50

Sir John Simon declared complacently in Commons on October 5, 1938, that history would have to decide whether or not the Munich agreement was [190] the prelude to better times. The debate was entering the third day, and it had already surpassed all other parliamentary debates on British foreign policy since World War I. Simon admitted candidly that article 19 of the League covenant for peaceful territorial revision had always been a dead letter. Eden pursued the tactics of October 3rd, and he inquired of Simon if the Government in the future intended to participate in the settlement of European problems by means of Four Power diplomacy. Simon emphatically denied this, and he intimated that the British leaders hoped that the Soviet Union and the smaller Powers would have more to say in the future. Winston Churchill followed with his long awaited anti-German speech. The other English war enthusiasts hoped that he would make his speech as provocative as possible, and he did not disappoint them. He agreed with his close friend in America, Bernard Baruch, that Hitler should not be allowed to “get away with it.”51

Churchill claimed that Hitler had extracted British concessions at pistol point, and he loved to use the image of Hitler as a highwayman or a gangster. He hoped to worry Hitler by intimating that he had contacts with an underground movement in Germany. He suggested that a common Anglo-Franco-Soviet front in support of the Czechs Would have enabled an opposition movement within Germany to cause trouble for Hitler, and possibly to overthrow him. He used flowery rhetoric to describe the allegedly mournful Czechs slipping away into a darkness comparable to the Black Hole of Calcutta. The speech was couched in elegant phrases dear to the hearts of many of Churchill’s countrymen. The soirée and stark purpose of the speech was to foment a war of annihilation against Germany.

Churchill had been excluded from Conservative Governments in England for many years, but he had made countless speeches, and his personal influence remained tremendous. He had propagated the myth that Great Britain was disarmed in 1932, indeed, that she had wrongly practiced a policy of unilateral disarmament in response to the noble sentiment of the League Covenant. In reality, the British military establishment in 1932 was gigantic compared to that of Germany, and much larger than that of the United States. Great Britain had less than one million men in all of her ground forces throughout the Empire, but it had never been traditional British policy to maintain a large standing army. She had the largest navy in the world, despite the Washington conference of 1921-1922 which envisaged eventual British equality with the United States. The maintenance of a navy was no less expensive or militaristic than the upkeep of an army.52

Churchill had conducted an uninterrupted campaign of agitation against Germany since March 1933, and he was a veteran in the field. Some of his inaccurate statements about alleged German armaments in this period are contained in his 1948 volume, The Gathering Storm, and in his 1938 book of speeches, While England Slept. Churchill wanted to convince his countrymen  that Germany was governed by an insatiable desire for world conquest. In his speech of October 5, 1938, he did more than anyone else to warn Hitler that Germany was in danger of being strangled by a British coalition in the style of 1914. Churchill does not bear direct responsibility for the attack on Germany 1939, because he was not admitted to the British Cabinet until the die was cast. The crucial decisions on policy were made without his knowledge, and he was [191] frankly amazed when Halifax suddenly shifted to a war policy in March 1939. Churchill was useful to Halifax in building up British prejudice against Germany, but he was a mere instrument, at the most, in the conduct of British policy in 1938 and 1939.53

The most convincing speech in defense of the Munich conference was delivered by Rab Butler, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Butler held moderate views on international questions, and he admired the diplomacy which had produced the Munich conference. He declared on October 5th that a war to deny self-determination to the Sudeten Germans was unthinkable, and he defended Munich as the only possible solution of a difficult problem. He denied the proposition that Great Britain had departed from democratic principles in seeking an agreement with Germany.54

The debate was interrupted but not terminated when Chamberlain proposed a motion on the following day to adjourn until November 1, 1938. Churchill supported the Labour Opposition in opposing the motion, and he delivered a bitter personal attack against Chamberlain. He had refrained from doing this in his major speech on the previous day because he was concentrating his fire against the Germans. The adjournment motion was followed by a vote of confidence. Chamberlain carried the vote, but many of the prominent Conservatives refrained from voting, and of course Labour and the Liberals voted against him. The roster of Conservatives who refused to accept the Munich agreement or vote for Chamberlain is impressive. It included Churchill, Eden, Duff Cooper, Harold Macmillan, Duncan Sandys, Leopold Amery, Harold Nicolson, Roger Keyes, Sidney Herbert, and General Spears. These men comprised about half of the leading figures of the Conservative Party in 1938, and they were well-known to the British public. They were joined by a score of lesser figures in the House of Commons, and they were supported by such prominent peers as Lord Cranborne and Lord Wolmer in the House of Lords. It was recognized that many other members of Parliament refrained from joining them solely because they were concerned about Conservative Party discipline, particularly in case they were men of limited reputation. Chamberlain won the vote of confidence, but it was doubtful if he possessed the confidence of the British Conservative Party.55

Chamberlain produced his major rhetorical effort on behalf of Munich just before the vote of confidence on October 6th. He declared that his conscience was clear; he did not regret that Great Britain was not fighting Germany over the Czech issue. He stressed the horrors of modern war as the main justification for any peace policy. Chamberlain suggested that the Czech state might best survive in the future if it became permanently neutral in the Swiss style. He added proudly that new elections at this time would be an unfair advantage for the Government because of the sentiment of the country: Everyone listening knew that the current Conservative majority was unnaturally large because advantage had been taken of the sentiment aroused by the Ethiopian crisis in 1935. Baldwin had given the country the false impression that the Government was prepared to win a great victory for collective security at Ethiopia, and the stirring slogans which followed had rallied the voters.56

Chamberlain reverted to his previous, tactic of painting the contemporary situation in somber rather than bright colors. He implied that Europe was [192] gripped by a great crisis despite the Munich conference and the Anglo-German friendship declaration. He warned that elections might impair the unity of the nation at a crucial moment. He added that great efforts would be demanded from the nation in coming weeks because of the expanded armament campaign, and he claimed that it was important to keep differences of opinion about British policy to a minimum. He created the impression, which he had to do under the circumstances, that war was not inevitable. Hitler had accepted the Munich conference because he believed this. Chamberlain declared that war would be inevitable unless some sort of relations were maintained with the “totalitarian states.” He said that there was no reason to suppose that a new war would end the European crisis more successfully than the last war had done. He rejected the idea of the world conference, proposed by Labour, with the argument that it had no prospect of success. He finished his speech by emphasizing Anglo-French unity and the need to increase the production of British arms. The Prime Minister was obviously not optimistic about the prospects for peace.57

Chamberlain went much further in this speech in stressing the need for war preparation than can be indicated in a brief summary. He nearly persuaded Anthony Eden and Leopold Amery, who denounced Munich and favored war, to vote for him. Amery and Eden would not have reacted in this manner had the dominant theme been an expression of faith in the continuation of peace.58


Control of British Policy by Halifax

One of the most dramatic incidents in England after Munich was the firm bid of Halifax to take the reins of British foreign policy into his own hands, or resign. Halifax permitted Chamberlain to have the lead during the Czech crisis, but he made it clear afterward that the time had come for a change. He wanted sole responsibility, and he did not wish Chamberlain to travel abroad to important conferences again without his Foreign Minister. This situation reached a climax before Chamberlain’s speech on October 6th. Halifax was firmly in control after this date. Halifax, like Eden earlier, had rejected Chamberlain’s policy, but, unlike Eden, Halifax put through his own policy. Chamberlain chose to conform, as illustrated by the following excerpt from his apologetic letter to Halifax of March 11, 1939: “Your rebuke ... was fully merited ... I was horrified at the result of my talk . . . I promise faithfully not to do it again, but to consult you beforehand.”59

The roles of Chamberlain and Halifax were reversed. Halifax felt like a mere spectator of events during the Sudeten crisis, and Chamberlain felt the same way after October 6th.60

The change of tactics by Halifax, during the months of October and November 1938, offers striking evidence of this. American Ambassador Kennedy had tea with Halifax on October 12th, and he received a complacent picture of the European situation from the British Foreign Secretary. It was evident that Halifax did not wish to create the impression of an abrupt change of course. It should be noted that this tea occurred after the furor created by Hitler’s Saarbruecken speech of October 9th, which had criticized Conservative [193] warmongering tactics against Germany. Halifax admitted to Kennedy that everyone in a position of influence knew that Hitler did not desire war against England. Great Britain intended to increase her air strength, but this did not necessarily mean that she planned to interfere with Hitler on the continent. Halifax told Kennedy that he expected Hitler to make a bid for the annexation of both Danzig and Memel, and he suggested that Great Britain might not intervene if Hitler moved as far as Rumania. He added that Great Britain was seeking to prepare for all eventualities by improving her relations with the Soviet Union.61

Halifax discussed the same European situation with Kennedy again on October 28th. The only new development in the interim was the German offer to Poland, and Halifax himself had predicted on October 12th that Hitler would seek to acquire Danzig. Halifax painted a somber picture of Hitler’s attitude toward Great Britain in this second conversation, and he also gave Kennedy a great quantity of unreliable information about Hitler’s alleged attitudes toward a number of current continental problems. A few weeks later he claimed to Kennedy that Hitler was consumed by passionate hatred of England, and that he had a plan to tear the Soviet Union to pieces in the Spring of 1939. The purpose of these deceptive tactics was obvious. Halifax was exercising his diplomatic talents in preparation for a British attack on Germany. He was also indulging in the easy task of adding fuel to the dislike of the American leaders for Germany. World War I had amply vindicated the efficacy of propaganda.62


Tory Alarmist Tactics

The speeches which Chamberlain delivered for public consumption during the debate on the Munich conference are important. They show that the British public was not receiving a cheerful picture of the European situation, and that the Anglo-German declaration of friendship received far less emphasis than the need to prepare for war against Germany. These speeches provided no clue to Chamberlain’s real motives in going to Munich. The motive at one moment seemed to be a genuine desire to avert war permanently, and, at another, to postpone war until Great Britain was ready. It is necessary to consider what Chamberlain told his intimate advisers in private conversation. These men learned after Munich that the attempt to come to terms with the dictators was not the primary reason for Chamberlain’s Munich policy. They were told by Chamberlain that two other factors were more important. The most weighty was momentary British un-readiness for a test of arms with Germany. The second consideration was French opposition to a military offensive on behalf of the Czechs. Chamberlain’s attitude would have been different in 1938 if the French had possessed a brilliant offensive strategy to aid the Czechs, and were prepared to use it. It is probable that Chamberlain would have pushed Great Britain into war against Germany had British armaments reached the 1939 level, or had the French pursued a more aggressive policy.63

The Conservative leaders delivered two important speeches on British foreign policy between the adjournment of Parliament on October 6th and the reopening of Parliament on November 1, 1938. Sir Samuel Hoare spoke at [194] Clacton-on-Sea on October 20th. His speech explained an elementary fact of great importance. He pointed out that a war against Germany on behalf of the Czechs would have been a preventive war. He reminded his listeners that the verdict of history condemned the doctrine of preventive war. Hoare noted that preventive wars always were great mistakes, and that a nation had no right to appeal to arms except in defense of her own interests. It seems almost incredible, when one reads this speech, to anticipate that Hoare supported a policy of preventive war against Germany a few months later. Hoare reminded his listeners that Hitler had abided by the terms of the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Treaty. Hoare also lauded the British armament campaign, and he promised that no nation which favored peace need fear British arms. It was a promise which received little support from the British record. It was the expression of an ideal which Great Britain had not attained. It was an ideal totally incompatible with the policy of the balance of power.64

Halifax spoke at Edinburgh on October 24th. He explained to his listeners that the British leaders were not satisfied with the existing peace because it was an armed peace. He hoped that a peace of understanding could be attained, but it was too early to say how this might be achieved. He was seemingly conciliatory toward Germany, and he described the Anglo-German declaration as an important step toward obviating existing dangers. He then suggested that Czechoslovakia had been saved at Munich, because the Czech state would have been destroyed by war, regardless of the number of Powers participating in war against Germany. Halifax had begun to emphasize the salvation of Czechoslovakia as a principal justification for Munich. This was clever strategy at a time when competent observers were predicting that the Czech state was on the verge of collapse. Halifax was interested in discrediting Munich while appearing to defend it. This was not apparent to all of his listeners, and the speech was well-received in Scotland, where there was much less dissatisfaction with the Munich agreement than in England.65

The debate about Munich was resumed in Parliament on November 1,1938, when Clement Attlee delivered another speech which described the Munich agreement as a tremendous British defeat. Chamberlain replied with a prepared speech. He added a few objections to Attlee’s remarks, but he concentrated his principal fire on Lloyd George. The unpredictable Welshman, who later advocated peace with Germany after the defeat of Poland in 1939, had delivered an inflammatory speech against Chamberlain to the American radio audience on October 27, 1938. Chamberlain denounced this speech with great bitterness, and he accused Lloyd George of performing a disservice to the country by claiming that the British Empire was in a condition of decline under Chamberlain’s leadership. The debate on Munich continued with sound and fury, and it was not terminated until the following day. Chamberlain at that time won an important parliamentary victory when the April 1938 Anglo-Italian agreement was ratified by an overwhelming vote.66

The furor about the Munich agreement might have subsided in the following months had not the Conservative leaders contrived by various means to keep the public in a state of alarm about Germany. A few of the more important instances will illustrate this problem. Earl De la Warr, Education Minister in the Chamberlain Cabinet, insisted in a speech at Bradford on December 4, 1938, [195] that the feeling was prevalent in Great Britain that nothing could ever be done to satisfy Germany. This was a propaganda trick designed to create the very opinion which he claimed existed. It was tantamount to saying that the appeasement policy which culminated at Munich was a farce.67 Prime Minister Chamberlain pointedly declared in the House of Commons on December 7th that he did not disagree with the inspired remarks of his Minister. On December 13th he delivered a speech stressing the importance of his coming visit to Italy, and praising the increased tempo of the armament campaign and the support which it enjoyed.68

Sir Auckland Geddes, the Administrator of the British National Service Act, predicted in a speech on January 17, 1939, that the British people would be in the front line of a coming war, and he explicitly urged them to hoard food supplies in anticipation of this eventuality. This horrendous suggestion produced great public alarm. Geddes added that the British Air Force would take a heavy toll of the invading bombers which he had conjured with frightening clarity, and he urged the British people to show the world that they did not fear war.69

The most provocative of these speeches was delivered on January 23, 1939, by Chamberlain himself. Chamberlain urged public support of the national service program, “which will make us ready for war.” He denied that Great Britain ever would begin a war, but his next statement demolished whatever assurance one might have deduced from this announcement. He warned that Great Britain might participate in a war begun by others. This was a different situation than responding to an attack on Great Britain or on British interests. Chamberlain was embracing the doctrine of preventive war which had been denounced publicly by Hoare three months earlier. That the British leaders were not at all accurate in their estimates of the respective strength of such Powers as Germany or the Soviet Union illustrated the supremacy of the balance of power policy. It was an evil omen for the future.70


Tory Confidence in War Preparations

The alarmist public utterances of the British leaders, when Hitler had done nothing contrary to the Anglo-German declaration or the Munich agreement, were mild compared to statements made through the channels of secret diplomacy. The January 1939 visit of Halifax and Chamberlain to Rome offered eloquent testimony of hostile British intentions toward Germany. The British leaders were in excellent spirits because of the unexpected successes of the aerial armament campaign after the Munich conference. The production of British fighter aircraft was 25% beyond the figure which had been predicted at the time of Munich in the early autumn of 1938.71

The American expert Charles Lindbergh, who lived in England, made a considerable impression on the English leaders before Munich with his report on German air power. Lindbergh praised the quality of German aerial armament in the strongest terms which the facts would permit. He was glad to contribute what he could to pointing out the senselessness of a new European war, and he surmised correctly that the British attitude was the key factor in deciding whether or not there would be such a war. He was overjoyed by the news of [196] Munich, and he sincerely hoped that peace had been saved.72

Unfortunately, the British leaders realized that the German lead in the air was very narrow in 1938. They were not merely interested in defense against a possible German aerial offensive. They hoped that their own air power would be a decisive offensive instrument in a future war. British aerial strategy since 1936 had been based on the doctrine of mass attacks against objectives far behind the military front. Their strategy contrasted sharply with that of the Germans, who hoped that aerial bombardment would be restricted to frontline military action in the event of war. The difference in strategy was reflected in the types of aircraft produced by the two countries. Germany produced many light and medium bombers for tactical operations in support of ground troops, but the major British emphasis was on the construction of heavy bombers to attack civilian objectives far behind the front. The British Defence Requirements Committee decided as early as February 1934 that “the ultimate potential enemy” in any major war would be Germany.73

The British in the Spring of 1938 were hoping to build 8,000 military aircraft in the year beginning April 1939, and this goal was later achieved and surpassed. They had expected to build only 4,000 military aircraft in the year April 1938 to April 1939, but they were far ahead of schedule by January 1939, and their key secret defense weapon, the “radar project,” had made gigantic strides since 1935. The British leaders and experts were concerned about their air defenses, but they had not lost sight of a possible aerial offensive against the civilian population of Germany. The ratio of fighters to bombers in the autumn of 1938 program of Air Minister Sir Kingsley Wood was 1:1.7. The construction of medium bombers had been discontinued, and the emphasis was solely on heavy bombers capable of attacking distant objectives. The British leaders admitted that defensive preparation of British civilian centers to meet German retaliation bombing was “insufficient to dispel anxiety” during the final months before the outbreak of World War II. Nevertheless, they were convinced that they were reasonably secure against successful German retaliation, and hence the strategy for the bombardment of the German civilian masses was developed with single-minded energy.74


Mussolini Frightened by Halifax and Chamberlain

It is not surprising that the sudden and unexpected increase in military power made the British leaders more aggressive in attitude, and this was reflected in their conversations with the Italian leaders. It is interesting to compare the British and Italian records of these talks. Two of the principal conversations included Chamberlain, Halifax, Mussolini, and Ciano, one included Halifax and Ciano, and one included Chamberlain and Mussolini. The first conversation of the four leaders took place at Mussolini’s office in the Palazzo Venezia in Rome on the afternoon of January 11, 1939. The British record noted that Mussolini pledged Italy to a policy of peace for internal reasons, and for the general stability of Europe. The Italian leader asserted that a new war could destroy civilization, and he deplored the failure of the Four Munich Powers to cooperate more closely to preserve peace. He reminded Chamberlain and Halifax that he [197] had envisaged close cooperation when he proposed a Four Power Pact of consultation and friendship among Great Britain, France, Italy, and Germany in 1933. He favored the limitation of arms. The Jewish question was discussed, and Mussolini stated his personal opinion that the best solution would be for all Jews to come under the laws of a sovereign Jewish state, although they need not all live there. Mussolini was concerned about the British attitude toward Germany. Chamberlain declared that he had considered the possibility of conversations with the Germans toward the end of 1938, but that he had changed his mind. He claimed that he had reconsidered because he was disappointed in the German attitude.

A conversation took place between Halifax and Ciano on the morning of January 12, 1939, at the office of the Italian Foreign Minister in the Palazzo Chigi. This conversation was devoted entirely to problems connected with the Spanish Civil War. Ciano gave Halifax assurances that Italy intended to withdraw her volunteers from Spain, and that she did not intend to establish military bases in that country.

Mussolini, Ciano, Chamberlain, and Halifax met at the Palazzo Venezia again on the afternoon of January 12, 1939. Franco-Italian relations were on the agenda. The Italian leaders insisted that the mysterious recent demonstrations against France in the Italian Chamber of Deputies on November 30, 1938, were entirely spontaneous. They blamed the French for much of the recent tension between Italy and France, which had culminated in this incident. Chamberlain turned the discussion to Germany. He claimed to be impressed by rumors of sinister German intentions. He had heard that Germany was planning to establish an independent Ukraine, and to attack Great Britain, France, Poland, and the Soviet Union. Mussolini assured the British leaders that German armaments were defensive, and that Hitler had no plans for an independent Ukraine or for attacks on the various countries which Chamberlain had mentioned. He added that Germany desired peace. Chamberlain disagreed. He declared that German arms were more than sufficient to deal with attacks from countries immediately adjacent to Germany, and that hence the Germans must be harboring aggressive plans. He claimed that Great Britain, on the other hand, was merely concerned with defending herself from the German menace. He defended the extremists of the British Conservative Party, and he denied that anyone, including Churchill, advocated a British military offensive against Germany.

The British and Italian leaders agreed that it would be difficult to guarantee the Czechs, and the British mentioned a guarantee formula which the French had previously rejected. This formula stipulated no aid to the Czechs unless three of the Four Munich Powers agreed that aggression had taken place. Mussolini mentioned a series of requirements, including the need for stable conditions within the Czech state, which would have to be met before a guarantee could be considered. The conversation concluded with comments about the British General Election planned for the autumn of 1940 and the Rome International Exposition scheduled for 1942. Mussolini was much concerned about plans for the Rome Exposition, and Chamberlain made the obvious remark that the British would like to participate.

Chamberlain and Mussolini discussed the general situation, following a dinner [198] at the British Embassy on the evening of Friday, January 13, 1939. Chamberlain told Mussolini that he distrusted Hitler, and that he remained unconvinced by Mussolini’s arguments that the German armament program was defensive in scope. He hoped to make Mussolini uneasy by referring to a rumor that Germany had launched special military preparations in the region near the Italian frontier. He assured Mussolini categorically that Great Britain and France, in contrast to 1938, were now prepared to fight Germany.75

The Italian record of these conversations corresponded closely to the British record in the matter of topics, but there were decisive differences of emphasis and factual points. The Italians gave German Ambassador Mackensen a copy of their record of the January 11, 1939, conversation on January 12th, and Mackensen forwarded the information to Hitler at once. Mussolini told the British leaders that the Anglo-Italian pact of April 16, 1938, was an essential factor in the conduct of Italian policy. He said that Italy’s association with Germany in the Axis was also important, but he emphasized that this association was not “of an exclusive nature (di natura esciusiva).” He added that Italy had no direct ambitions (ambizione diretta)” in Spain. Chamberlain thanked Mussolini for his assurance that peace was essential for the consolidation of Italy, and he added that he and Halifax had never doubted the good will of Mussolini. He contrasted his attitudes toward Italy and toward Germany, and he complained that he had seen no signs of German friendship toward Great Britain since Munich.

Mussolini promised that he would make an effort to improve Franco-Italian relations. He hoped that this would be possible after the end of the Spanish war. Chamberlain complained of “feverish armament” in Germany, and alleged German offensive plans. Mussolini, in denying that such plans existed, placed primary emphasis on the point that German defensive requirements should be considered in relation to the Russian armament campaign. It is significant that there is no mention of this point in the British record.76

The Red Army had been vastly increased in recent months, and an attempt was underway to replace recently purged Red Army officers with officers from the reserves, and with officers from the training schools in the younger cadres. The incorporation of reserve units in the Red Army in late 1938 had increased the Russian peacetime army to two million men, which was nearly triple the number of peacetime German soldiers. A Supreme War Council directed by Stalin had been created in 1938 to supervise the War Council headed by People’s Commissar of Defense Voroshilov. The Red Army and Red Air Force were under Voroshilov and the Red Fleet was under a separate command. The new Council under Stalin was intended to coordinate the commands in a program of preparation for war. The Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) on the morning of January 11, 1939, demanded the victory of Communism over the entire world. These were public facts available to everyone, but the British leaders preferred to believe that Stalin’s arrest of 20,000 officers had banned the danger of Communism. Their prejudice against Communism prompted them to belittle Soviet power. The British considered Mussolini’s comments about their own complacency toward the Russian threat too insignificant to be included in their record of the conversations at Rome.77

The British also neglected another major point made by Mussolini. The Italian [199] leader could understand British concern about rumors suggesting an impending attack on their own country or on neighboring France. He could not appreciate their apparent concern about the welfare of the Soviet leadership. Mussolini denied that Hitler had plans for the dismemberment of Russia, but he could not refrain from commenting that the end of Communism in Russia would be a blessing for the Russian people. This remark did not impress the British leaders. Mussolini swore that he knew with absolute certainty that Hitler had no hostile plans against the West.

Mussolini also was surprised that Chamberlain was predicting trouble between Germany and Poland. He shared the optimism of Hitler that an understanding between Germany and Poland could be attained. Polish Foreign Minister Beck had recently visited Hitler, and the German Foreign Minister was scheduled to visit Beck at Warsaw in a few days. The Italian leader was unaware that Polish Ambassador Raczynski in London had requested British support against Germany in December 1938, or that Halifax had expressed a desire to support Poland at Danzig as early as September 1938. Mussolini warned Chamberlain not to be influenced by anti-National Socialist propaganda. Chamberlain stridently denied Mussolini’s claims about German defensive needs, and he insisted that Russia did not have the strength to be a menace to anyone. One is reminded here of the statement of Anthony Eden in March 1935 that the Soviet Union would not be in a position to wage a war of aggression for fifty years. Mussolini was amazed by Chamberlain’s remark, and he repeated that Germany had good reason to fear a hostile coalition of overwhelming strength.

The Italian leader used every possible argument to cope with Chamberlain’s anti-German phobia. He cited the Siegfried line, along the German frontier with France and Belgium, as an indication of the defensive nature of German armament. Chamberlain insisted that German armament was far too impressive, and he suggested that Hitler should speak publicly of his desire for peace, if he was truly peaceful. This suggestion astonished Mussolini, and he inquired if Chamberlain was unaware of Hitler’s New Year Declaration of January 1, 1939, in which the German leader had professed a fervent desire for the perpetuation of European peace. Mussolini repeated that the current scope of German armament was fully justified by the existing situation. He wished to be helpful in allaying Chamberlain’s alleged fear of German intentions. He was willing to cooperate with Chamberlain in organizing a conference for qualitative disarmament as soon as the war in Spain had ended. Chamberlain displayed no interest in this proposal.

Mussolini referred to the inner instability of the Czech state, the failure of the Czechs to dissolve their ties with Russia or to adopt a policy of neutrality, and the fact that the new Czech borders in many directions had not received their final definition on the ground by international border commissions. The Italian record was emphatic in stating that Chamberlain agreed with Mussolini’s remarks about the Czechs.78

The Italian record also shows that Mussolini was disappointed by Chamberlain’s attitude. The visit was successful from the British perspective, but unsuccessful from the Italian standpoint. The British leaders had hoped to intimidate Mussolini, and to discourage him from supporting Hitler if and when war came. They were successful in this effort, although this diplomatic success [200] was cancelled in 1940 because of the unexpected fall of France. The Italians, on the other hand, had hoped that their assurances would prompt the British to adopt a more tolerant attitude toward Germany and a more cooperative policy toward the settlement of current European problems. They were fully disappointed in this expectation. It was evident that British hostility toward Germany was implacable.

Mussolini discussed the situation with German Ambassador Mackensen at the British Embassy reception on the evening of January 13, 1939. He said that the results of the visit were meager, and he complained that the British had made him feel like a lawyer in one of their courts when he had attempted to explain German armaments and German foreign policy. He left no doubt in Mackensen’s mind that the British leaders were ready to find Germany guilty of every crime.79

The Germans received further information about the Rome visit from Italian Ambassador Attolico in Berlin on January 17, 1939. This included an excellent condensed summary of the conversation of January 11, 1939. It was followed by a report from Mackensen, which contained an account of the conversation of Chamberlain, Halifax, Mussolini, and Ciano on January 12, 1939. The Germans learned that their armament program provided the main topic of discussion. Mackensen also discovered that Chamberlain had been clever in making table-talk propaganda with Mussolini. Chamberlain referred to Italy and Great Britain as imperial Powers, with colonies overseas, in contrast to Germany, a mere continental nation. This was satisfactory to Hitler, who had no desire to hoist the German flag in distant parts.80

It was evident to Mussolini that Germany was threatened by a possible British attack. The British leaders were in full motion against Germany many weeks before their public switch in policy after the German occupation of Prague in March 1939. It is for this reason that the Rome conversations stand out so sharply in the diplomatic history of 1939. Mussolini knew that war would be a disaster, and he hoped that Hitler would be able to avoid it. He made it clear to the Germans that his efforts to allay British prejudice against them had failed. He hoped to play a constructive role in helping to avoid an unnecessary war, but he recognized that his first obligation to his own people was to keep Italy out, of a disastrous Anglo-German conflict. It was for this reason that he had been careful not to offend his British guests, and he explained this to the Germans. The suggestion of Churchill that Mussolini was contemptuous of British military strength at this time was inaccurate. Mussolini was sufficiently wise to fear British military power and to recognize the vulnerable position of his own country. Mussolini’s decision for war against Great Britain in June 1940 does not alter this fact. He resisted pressure to enter the war during its early months despite a British blockade on Italian trade. The German victories over Great Britain in Norway and France in 1940 altered the situation, and Mussolini entered a war which he believed was nearly finished in order to give his country a voice at the peace conference. He never would have taken this action had it not been for the amazing German victories of 1940 over superior Allied Forces.81

The tragedy which overtook Italy in World War II indicates that Mussolini’s alarm at British hostility toward Germany in January 1939 was amply justified. There had been no German moves since Munich. Nevertheless, the same British Prime Minister who had persuaded Hitler to sign the declaration of Anglo-German friendship on September 30, 1938, was branding Germany an aggressor nation in January 1939. His assurance that Great Britain was ready for war with Germany indicated that he envisaged the likelihood of a conflict, and his defense of Churchill’s attitude toward Germany was ominous.

Cohn Brooks was one of the leading British writers of the 1930’s who advocated huge British armaments. He explained in his persuasive book, Can Chamberlain Save Britain? The Lesson of Munich, which was written in October 1938, that “the Four Power Conference of Munich in September 1938 gave to the world either an uneasy postponement of conflict or the promise of a lasting peace.’ This was true, but the promise of lasting peace was undermined by the attitude of the British leaders toward Germany. Brooks was an alarmist. He claimed that Great Britain was in peril because the balance of power was threatened. He called on British youth to be equal to the British imperialistic tradition, and not to be further influenced in their attitudes by the unusually heavy losses suffered by Great Britain in World War I. He reminded his readers that Great Britain had spent 102 years fighting major wars during the past 236 years since 1702, and that the had fought many minor wars during the otherwise peaceful intervals. He recognized that Great Britain had a record of aggressive military action unequalled by any other Power in modern times. He wished British youth to recognize this obvious fact, and to prepare for the new struggle against Germany. He was one of the best examples of the militant England of 1938 which Maring Gilbert and Rich Gott were still seeking to justify with reckless abandon in their chronicle, The Appeasers, some twenty-five years later. 82

Karl Heinz Pfeffer, a cosmopolitan German expert on British and American attitudes, attempted in a 1940 book, England: Vormacht der buergerlichen Welt (England: Guardian of the bourgeois World), to explain British hostility toward Germany during this period. He noted that the alleged British disarmament between World War I and World War II was a myth, but that the British public had been deluged with the peace propaganda of private groups late in 1931, on the eve of the much-heralded general disarmament conference of February 1932. French obstruction wrecked the conference, and Great Britain began to search for justification for an increase in her already considerable armament. Propaganda was needed to overcome the popular longing for peace. The experience of World War I suggested the answer, and this partially explained the initial hate campaign against Germany in the period 1932-1938.

Pfeffer emphasized that German power did not grow at British expense during this period. He expressed the devout wish that the German people would never again accept British claims about the alleged sins of German leaders, and hoped that German experience in the recent Pax Britannica would discourage this tendency, which had undermined German morale in 1918. The German middle class had been ruined by inflation during the interwar British peace, the [202] German farmer class had been brought to the brink of destruction, and the German workers had been exposed to the threat of total unemployment.

Pfeffer wished that the German people would never forget that the contemporary British leaders did not have the correct answers to the problems of the world. Awareness of these facts contributed to the excellent morale which was maintained by the vast majority of the German population throughout World War II.83

Hitler had been warned by Mussolini. Ribbentrop’s prediction of January 2, 1938, that it would be impossible for Germany to arrive at a lasting agreement with England, before Hitler had completed his program of peaceful revision, had received new confirmation. Hitler hoped that he could complete his program before the British were ready to attack Germany, and that he could persuade them afterward to accept the new situation. This had been the sole answer to the dilemma of British hostility in the age of Bismarck. It offered a fair prospect of success, but a policy of drift offered none at all.

Germany was the major Power in the European region between Great Britain in the West and the Soviet Union in the East. British hostility was reaching a crest, and the alternatives were peace or war. Hitler was in the middle of the stream. He was determined to reach the high bank. He wished to rescue Germany from the swampland of insecurity, decline, and despair. He wished Germany to have the national security and the opportunity for development which had been the heritage of Great Britain and the United States for many generations. He hoped to bring Germany out of danger, and to reach solid ground which was safe from any hostile British tide. He believed that this objective could be attained without harming Great Britain or the United States in any way.

Hitler looked forward to an era of Anglo-American-German cooperation. This would have been the best possible guarantee of stability and peace in the world. There was good reason to believe in January 1939 that this objective could be achieved, although the perils which faced Germany were very great. The worst of these was British hostility after Munich.

[204]
Franco-German Relations After Munich

This step encouraged Great Britain to intervene against Germany in a continental war. Napoleon III advised Sardinian Premier Cavour at Plombieres in 1858 to foment a war against Austria, and this step enabled the French to attack the Austrians in the Italian peninsula in 1859. This style of diplomacy was familiar to the British leaders of 1939, and they were sufficiently imaginative and unscrupulous to resort to it in achieving their goal.3

The plain truth, however, is that the British had to work very hard until the evening of September 2, 1939, to achieve the outbreak of World War II. The issue was in no sense decided before that time, and there was no justification for the later fatalism which suggested that World War II was inevitable after 1936 or 1938. This fact should eliminate every element of anti-climax in the story of events which preceded September 1939. The fundamental issue of war or peace for Europe remained undecided until the last moment. This would not have been true had Poland been the sole factor in preparing the stage for the British assault. It was true because the British leaders had decided that the participation of France as their ally was the conditio sine qua non for the launching of British hostilities against Germany. The French leaders, unlike Halifax, were increasingly critical of the alleged wisdom of a preventive war against Germany. It became evident as time went on that they might call a halt to the British plan of aggression by refusing to support any such scheme. It became clear that the British would have to work hard to push France into war; and there was good reason to hope that this British effort would fail. The leaders of France were eventually regarded in both Italy and Germany as the principal hope for peace.4

These circumstances illuminate the key role of France in Europe after the Munich conference. There was a strange and ironical reversal of roles. The French leaders in the past had solicited British support for action in one situation or another, and they had usually been turned down. The British leaders began to press for action against Germany after the Munich conference, and the French, who were inclined to adopt a passive policy, occupied the former British position of deciding whether or not to grant support. The French had considered British support essential in the past, and now the British regarded French support as indispensable.5

The difficulty was that the French were habitually inclined to follow the British lead, and a tremendous effort of will was required to deny the importunity of British demands. Furthermore, the British situation was uniquely favorable compared to that of France. The United States and Germany were both intent on establishing intimate and friendly relations with Great Britain. The two countries were also friendly toward France after 1936, but it was obvious that Great Britain occupied the primary place in their consideration. This was not off-set by the French alliance with the Soviet Union, which desired to embroil France and Germany in a war. Lazar Kaganovich, the Soviet Politburo leader and brother-in-law of Stalin, announced in Izvestia (The News) on January 27, 1934, that a new Franco-German war would promote the interests of the Soviet Union.6

The strategy of encouraging a Franco-German war while the Soviet Union remained neutral continued to be the principal feature of Soviet foreign policy. The French leaders faced the combined threats of isolation and British resentment if they failed to do the bidding of Chamberlain and Halifax. It was evident [205] that it would not be easy for France to pursue an independent policy while British pressure was exerted upon her. Nevertheless, the British recognized that Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister after April 1938, was an extremely capable man. They could never assume that France would accept the role of puppet while he was at the Quai d’Orsay.7


The Popularity of the Munich Agreement in France

The reception of the Munich agreement in France was very different from that in Great Britain, apart from the initial demonstrations of popular enthusiasm for Daladier and Chamberlain when the two leaders returned from Munich by air to their respective countries.8 The Munich agreement was received with enthusiasm by the French Parliament on October 4, 1938. The vote of approval for Munich in the French Chamber was an overwhelming 535-75. Premier Daladier delivered a moderate speech in which he stressed that there was hope for peace in Europe again, but that peace was not secure. The discussion of recent French diplomacy was extremely brief. A desire to spoil the atmosphere created at Munich by a protracted controversy, of the type which was raging in England, was conspicuously lacking. There were 73 Communists in the French Chamber of 1938, and 72 were present to vote against the Munich agreement. Only three deputies from other Parties joined the Communists in this vote, and Léon Blum, the leader of the Socialists, was not among them.9 The triumph of Daladier was complete. It is ironical that Daladier was much more worried than Chamberlain about the reception he would receive at home. The event proved that Munich was politically far more popular in France than in England. Georges Bonnet correctly interpreted this situation as a mandate to conclude a friendship agreement with Germany, and he had the full support of the French Ambassador in Berlin, François-Poncet, who had great influence with French business and industry, in the negotiations which followed. 10


The Popular Front Crisis a Lesson for France

It was fortunate for France that she had a stable Government at last. The Daladier Government, which was appointed in April 1938, had no difficulty in maintaining its position during the remaining months of peace in Europe before the outbreak of World War II. It seemed that the crisis which began with the Stavisky affair and the riots against the French Government in February 1934 was over at last. Furthermore, France began to make rapid strides after November 1938 to terminate the depression which had plagued the country throughout this period. It seemed that more than four years of instability and confusion had prepared the country to accept a greater amount of discipline. It also appeared that France was inclined to draw important conclusions about her foreign policy from the events of this period.11

France was the dominant continental Power when the 1934-1938 domestic crisis began. Nevertheless, her position was weakened by the depression and the instability of her Government. Unemployment had increased from 500,000 [206] in 1931 to 1,300,000 at the end of 1933. This was a huge figure for France, which had a much smaller industrial population than Great Britain or Germany, and it did not include partial or seasonal unemployment. In the meantime, a dangerous attitude of complacency, which blocked reforms, was created by the fact that there was a deflation in which prices were falling faster than salaries. The Government had had a deficit budget since 1931, and several plans to increase production and employment by means of public works were defeated. The Government in November 1933 revived the National Lottery, an expedient of the old monarchy, in an endeavor to improve its financial position.

The Left Parties seized upon an old slogan of Joseph Cailaux, the father of the French income tax, that a point arrives where taxes devour taxes. This was true, but the Left used this as a pretext to oppose any increases in direct taxes to cope with the growing deficit. The Government responded by seeking to reduce public expenditure, but to no avail. The Cabinets of Joseph Paul-Boncour, Edouard Daladier, and Albert Sarraut were overthrown on this issue in 1933. Georges Bonnet was Finance Minister in the Sarraut Government, and he employed every possible tactic to gain the support which his predecessors had lacked. Nevertheless, the Chamber rejected his program in November 1933 by a vote of 321.247.12

Camille Chautemps formed a Government on November 26, 1933, but the repercussions of the Stavisky affair forced him to resign on short notice in January 1934. A number of paramilitary organizations reflected the dissatisfaction of France at this time. These included the dissatisfied peasants in the Front Paysan of Dorgres, the royalist Camelots du Roi, and the Croix de Feu veteran organization directed by the World War I hero, Colonel de la Rocque. There were also two tiny militant organizations, the Solidarite francaise of Jean Renaud, and the Francisme of Marcel Bucard, which believed that current German and Italian methods should be employed to end the crisis in France. The Communists exploited the existence of these groups to claim that France was in danger of a Fascist revolution. The Communist Party was growing rapidly at this time. The Socialist Party had split in May 1933 when young Marcel De’at and his friends rejected the leadership of Léon Blum and formed the Neo-socialists. The Communists gained from the confusion in Socialist ranks and won many converts from both the workers and the bourgeoisie. The prestige of Communism was served by the adherence of leading intellectuals, such as Ramon Fernandez and André Gide, and the growth of the movement created genuine alarm in other sections of the population. The atmosphere in France, and especially at Paris, was charged with tension. Many people were still complacent, but the Stavisky affair, which produced a major eruption of violence, shattered this complacency.13

Alexander Stavisky was a reckless criminal, currently conducting a fantastic embezzlement operation at the expense of the municipal credit systems of the cities of Orleans and Bayonne. At Bayonne alone he had seized 300,000,000 francs by the time his operation was exposed by M. de la Baume of the commercial section at the Quai d’Orsay in January 1934. The public was furious at the criminal temerity of yet another Jewish immigrant, not having forgotten the recent Oustric and Hanau scandals. Pressard, the brother-in-law of Premier Chautemps, had aided Stavisky in the issuance of fraudulent remissions, and the [207] brother of the Premier was one of Stavisky’s lawyers. Several leaders of the Radical Socialists, the party of Chautemps, were implicated, and one of them, Albert Dalimier, was obliged to resign from the Cabinet at once. Joseph PaulBoncour was implicated because of his relations with Arlette Simon, the mistress of Stavisky. The public was denied the balm of a trial of the chief culprit. Stavisky fled eastward, and he was found dead near Chamonix with a bullet in his head. The veteran French statesman, André Tardieu, fanned the suspicion that Stavisky had been slain by the police, when he declared that he had at least been able to arrest Oustric and Hanau alive. This bitter jest of a statesman on the Right was echoed by André Botta from the Left. Botta explained to the readers of Le Populaire, the principal Socialist newspaper, that the police had neglected several opportunities to take Stavisky alive before he fled from Paris. This was no ordinary scandal, and it was evident that a crisis of major proportions was brewing.

It seemed that nearly everyone of importance in French public life had been involved with Stavisky in some way, although this did not necessarily imply a criminal association. Philippe Henriot, a Deputy of the Right, led a passionate attack against the Center Government and the contemporary parliamentary regime in the French Chamber. He received enthusiastic support from Le Jour, La Victoire, La Liberte and ‘Action Francaise, the principal newspapers of the Right. The Government responded by resigning on January 29, 1934, following a violent demonstration of 100,000 Parisians. There was a superficial shuffling of ministers, and Edouard Daladier replaced his friend Chautemps as Premier. The new Cabinet was appointed on January 30, 1934. One of its first steps was to retaliate against the Right by removing Chiappe, the Paris Chief Prefect of Police, and by transfering him to Morocco. Chiappe had known Stavisky and he was a leading figure of the Right. He held a key position at Paris. He had feared removal by a Center or Left Government since the election victory of the Left in 1932. He refused to accept the decision of the Daladier Government in 1934, and he had the support of the Paris municipal council. The Right had accepted the challenge of the Government, and the climax of the crisis had arrived.14

The Right staged a major demonstration against the Government and in support of Chiappe on February 6, 1934. The demonstrators intended nothing less than the occupation of the Palais-Bourbon where the Chamber met. It was believed that the dispersal of the deputies of the Left election victory of 1932 would clear the way for the appointment of a Government of the Right, which would conduct a major program of reforms. Everything depended on a successful demonstration at the Palais-Bourbon. Thousands of Parisians who had no political connection with the Right participated in the demonstration and shouted the slogan: “Down with the thieves!” The Paris municipal council marched at the head of the demonstration. The regular police organization was loyal to Chiappe, but the Government controlled important reserves. The main question was whether or not the Government would be willing to inflict heavy casualties on the demonstrators. Daladier was reluctant to make this decision, and he resigned on the following day. Edouard Herriot, another Radical Socialist leader, and French President Albert Lebrun did not hesitate. They persuaded Daladier to order the Paris Mobile Guard to protect the Chamber by attacking the demonstrators. The Chamber was in session and the demonstrators were at []208] the portals when the Mobile Guard attack took place at 7:00 p.m. An attempt was made to keep fatalities at a minimum, and it was surprising in view of the scope of the attack that only twenty demonstrators were killed. Many hundreds of Parisians were severely wounded in the debacle. The Communist newspaper, L’Humanité adopted the same line as the Right press on February 7, 1934, when it condemned the Government for attacking the people. This was merely part of the Communist campaign to discredit both the Government and the demonstrators. The defeat of the demonstration of February 6, 1934, played directly into the hands of the Communists. It marked an important turning point in French policy both at home and abroad. 15

The 1934-1938 crisis in France was the crisis of the Popular Front. The Popular Front was made possible by the Stavisky affair. The Center and Right were discredited. The propaganda about fascism and insurrectionary plots became increasingly effective as time went on. The Communists were permitted by Stalin to adapt their tactics to this new situation. The Communists suddenly appeared in the guise of the Party of sweetness and light, which demanded nothing for itself and merely wished to align with other “democratic” groups to protect the existing order against the fascist wolves. The Socialist Party under the leadership of Leon Blum was not adverse to a close alliance with the Communists. It was believed that such an alliance would enable the Socialist Party to maintain its hold over its more radical following. Edouard Herriot, the Radical Socialist mayor of Lyons, had long relied on Communist support to maintain his hold over the metropolis of the Rhone. Blum, who preferred Herriot to Daladier, argued persuasively that the Radical Socialist Party, which held the proud reputation of providing most of the leaders of the Third Republic, could best recover its prestige and position by forming a coalition with Socialism and Communism. The desperate situation of the Radical Party promoted the majority of its leaders, by 1935, to accept this experiment, and Daladier was extremely clever in seizing the initiative in this movement from his rival, Herriot. The Popular Front Government under the leadership of Lion Blum did not achieve power until the overwhelming Left election victory of May 1936. Nevertheless, the Popular Front movement received its impetus from the events of February 1934, and it was the dominant trend in French public life from that time.16

Edouard Daladier and Edouard Herriot were the principal leaders of the Radical Socialist Party during this period. They had entirely different attitudes toward the Popular Front experiment. Herriot was sincerely pro-Communist, and he also favored the closest possible alliance between France and the Soviet Union. Daladier was much less enthusiastic about the Soviet Union, and he distrusted the French Communists and the Popular Front experiment, which he accepted for tactical reasons. Nevertheless, Herriot represented the Right within the Radical Socialist Party, and Daladier represented the Left. The Party was remarkably flexible in matters of dogma.17

The French Government press favored the Popular Front movement by claiming immediately after February 6, 1934, that it had been saved from a fascist revolution. Gaston Doumergue, a former French President who was in retirement at Toulouse, was called upon to form an emergency Government. Louis Barthou, whose policy gave the coup de grace to the international [209] disarmament conference in April 1934, was appointed Foreign Minister. The new Government included Neo-socialists, but no Socialists, and it was opposed by both Socialists and Communists as an instrument of the “fascist revolutionaries” in countless demonstrations. Conditions in France remained chaotic. Eight persons were killed and three hundred were wounded in a Communist demonstrations on February 9, 1934. The first Popular Front gesture was a call for a general strike on February 12, 1934, by a committee which included the Communist, Jacques Doriot, the Radical Socialist, Gaston Bergery, and the Socialist, Georges Monnet. The action was disavowed, and Doriot and Bergery resigned from their respective Parties, but it was a portent of things to come.18

The Doumergue Government fell before the end of 1934, following the scandal which accompanied the assassinations of King Alexander of Yugoslavia and French Foreign Minister Barthou at Marseilles. The customary police protective measures, which ordinarily accompany the visit of a foreign chief of state, had been conspicuously lacking. The retirement of Albert Sarraut, Minister of Interior, and Henry Ch~ran, Minister of Justice, failed to appease the critics, and the Government was brought down. Louis Barthou died of his wounds on October 15, 1934, and Raymond Poincaré, the elder statesman who had been his closest friend, died on the following day. The Socialists were restrained in their mourning for the passing of the two statesmen of the Right. Léon Blum wrote an article which explained why Poincaré, despite his fame, had not been a great man.19

Louis Barthou had adopted a militantly hostile policy toward Germany during the short time that he was at the Quai d’Orsay. Barthou had been a member of the group of French bellicistes before 1914, who had silently and methodically prepared a war of revenge against Germany for 1870, and his attitude toward William II, Stresemann, and Hitler was the same. He claimed that he intended to frustrate the “congenital megalomania” of Germany. He advocated a series of “eastern Locarno” pacts with Italy, the Little Entente, and the Soviet Union, in an effort to keep the Germans pinned permanently within their existing frontiers. On April 20, 1934, he departed for Warsaw and a grand tour of the eastern capitals. He was particularly worried about Polish policy toward Germany and the Czechs, and he received scant solace in Warsaw. He knew that Foreign Minister Sir John Simon in Great Britain opposed his alliance policy. Barthou decided that the time had come to award the Soviet Union a more prominent place in European affairs.

The first step was to bring the Soviet Union into the League of Nations. The Swiss, Dutch, and Portuguese delegates at Geneva delivered valiant speeches against this step, but Barthou replied that the Soviet Union would rejuvenate the League of Nations. Barthou also sought to improve relations with Italy, and to tighten relations among Czechoslovakia, Rumania, and Yugoslavia. His major move was to prepare the foundation for the Franco-Soviet alliance which was concluded in 1935. A French commitment to conclude this pact was made by Barthou before his death at Marseilles.20

 [210]
The 1935 Laval Policy Undermined by Vansittart

The year 1935 in France was dominated by the valiant effort of Pierre Laval to conduct a sensible French policy despite the rising threat of the Popular Front. He almost succeeded, but this did not reduce the repercussions when he failed. The failure of the Laval policy and the triumph of the Popular Front was disastrous for the position of France in Europe.

Pierre Laval was one of the most realistic French statesmen of all time. Like Briand and Caillaux, he advocated the Franco-German reconciliation embodied later in the policy of Charles de Gaulle and the French Fifth Republic. He was a man of courage, and his efforts to help France in the adverse circumstances following her military defeat in 1940 knew no limits. His execution in 1945, when the Communist tide was running high in France, was the worst of the many judicial crimes of that era. His influence on French politics from 1936 to 1940, following the overthrow of his Government in January 1936, was slight. Nevertheless, he used what influence he possessed in 1938 and 1939 to prevent France from joining Great Britain in an attack upon Germany. He had no dealings during those years with either official or private personages from Germany. Laval was especially important because of his influence on Georges Bonnet in the struggle to keep the peace.

Swarthy Pierre Laval came from Auvergne peasant stock, and he was said to have inherited Arab blood from his maternal line. He looked more like a Mongol, but he had the faculty to make a political asset of his distinctive and unusual appearance. He was not an eloquent speaker, but he was extremely intent upon being understood, and for this reason he became a master at communicating his ideas. He was never at a loss for a reply. He was a Socialist from 1903 to 1920, and afterward he was an independent. He was once asked during the early period whether he chose the red flag or the tricolor, and he replied, “I choose both.” Auguste Blanqui, the great French independent theoretician of the 19th century, was the father of his socialism rather than Karl Marx or Léon Blum. When he was chided after 1920 for having no Party affiliation, Laval replied, “Isolation is a weakness, but independence is a force.”21

Laval was held in high esteem by many of the leading Frenchmen of his day. He was the favorite of Aristide Briand, the eminent French diplomat who advocated a sincere policy of appeasement toward Germany until his death in 1932. He was especially close to Joseph Caillaux, the French financial genius, the leading figure in the French Senate and a courageous fighter for peace. During the 1930’s, Laval also established close relations with André Tardieu, who, along with Caillaux, was one of the two principal French elder statesmen after the death of Poincaré. He failed to establish a close basis of cooperation with Pierre-Etienne Flandin despite a similarity of views, and this was a handicap in the political careers of both men.

Laval was eleven times a Cabinet Minister, and four times a Premier of France before the outbreak of World War II. He moved from the Chamber of Deputies to the Senate at the age of 41 in 1927. He was mayor of the Paris suburb of d’Aubervillers continuously for more than 20 years after 1923, and it was customary for him to be in the city hall office at least twice a week even when he was Premier. He earned up to 120,000 francs a year as a lawyer in the period [211] from 1919-1927. He invested his money wisely in newspaper and radio stock, and he bought several valuable pieces of property. He was never immensely wealthy, and the Court which convicted him in 1945 was informed by financial experts of the perfect regularity and honesty of his financial operations.

Laval was appointed Foreign Minister in the Flandin Government of November 13, 1934, and he continued to conduct French foreign policy when he formed his own Government on June 7, 1935. He had an extremely clear conception of foreign policy. He recognized that either there would be a Franco-German entente or a catastrophe in Europe. He naturally wished France to negotiate an entente with Germany from a position of superior strength, but he did not fall into a rage and vow that the Germans should be destroyed, when France lost that position through no fault of his own. Laval recognized that Germany was intrinsically far more powerful than France, and that French supremacy depended upon the maintenance of an alliance system. Laval did not wish to alienate the Soviet Union by disavowing the alliance commitment which Barthou had made, but he hoped to keep the Soviet Union at a distance and to emasculate any Franco-Soviet alliance, just as Joseph Paul-Boncour had emasculated the Four Power Pact of Mussolini in 1933. Laval was mainly intent on consolidating French relations with Great Britain and Italy, and he recognized that a too close association with the Soviet Union might wreck that policy. He was also aware of the treacherous and disloyal foreign policy of the Soviet Union.22

Laval recognized the importance of the Italian position with perfect clarity. Italy was the one nation which could be relied upon to frustrate German aspirations in Austria. Laval recognized that the 1919 peace treaties contained many injustices toward Germany, but he was a conservative in foreign policy, and he feared that a successful German program of territorial revision would upset the European equilibrium and lead to disaster. Mussolini had delivered a speech at Milan on October 6, 1934, three days before the Croatian terrorists attacked Alexander and Barthou at Marseilles. The speech had been largely overlooked in the ensuing excitement, but Laval had not forgotten it. Mussolini had advocated the establishment of a Franco-Italian entente. Laval knew that Barthou had plans for the conclusion of an alliance with Italy. The rapprochement with Italy became the main feature of Laval’s policy. It is easy to see in retrospect that Franco-Italian relations were the crucial European issue in 1935. The Popular Front in France hoped to frustrate Franco-Italian reconciliation.

The difference between the policies of Barthou and of Laval was mainly one of emphasis. They both desired alliances with Italy and the Soviet Union, but Barthou had placed primary emphasis on the Soviet Union, which was a mistake from the French standpoint, and Laval correctly placed major emphasis on the alliance with Italy. Barthou wished a preponderant French position form which to humiliate Germany. Laval wished to appease Germany. Barthou advocated a policy of hate, and Laval pursued a policy of peace.

The situation in Italy at this time was extremely favorable for France. Mussolini, like many Italians, had been greatly influenced by French thought, and he wrote that Sorel, P~guy, and Lagardelle were the main influences on his intellectual development. He had advocated Italian participation in World War I as the ally of France in 1914. He delivered a series of pronouncements from the [212] autumn of 1932 until 1935 in favor of a definitive accord between Italy and France. He welcomed the appointment of Senator Henri de Jouvenel as French Ambassador to Rome in December 1932. The common Franco-Italian action against the German-Austrian customs union of 1931 had created a bond between the two countries. Mussolini dreamed of Latin cooperation in the Mediterranean region, and he did not begrudge France her military superiority. He declared without the slightest resentment in January 1935 that France had the finest army in the world.23

The French attitude toward Italy was complicated by several factors. The Little Entente of Rumania, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia enjoyed great prestige with the permanent officials at the Quai d’Orsay, and these “succession states” resented the Italian policy of supporting truncated Austria and Hungary. They failed to realize that Austria and Hungary would come under German influence if Italian support was withdrawn, although King Alexander of Yugoslavia had said that he would rather see Italian macaroni than German sausage at Trieste. The French press was widely subsidized by the Czechs, who disbursed huge sums in France during this period. Many journals declared that every attempt to improve Franco-Italian relations was treason to the Little Entente.

Important sections of the press of the French Left believed that insulting Italy was a solemn duty, and they denounced attempts to improve Franco-Italian relations as ideological treason. The Italian press naturally retaliated, and it was difficult to terminate the pres~ war which followed between the two countries. Jouvenel asked his superiors to take the usual measures to restrain the French press, but he received the trite answer that in this case such action would be contrary to “the free expression of opinion.” When he protested the tone of the Italian press at the Palazzo Chigi, he received the obvious reply that the Italians were merely retaliating. The rising tide of the Popular Front in France made the situation more perilous than ever before.

Mussolini’s attitude toward Germany was similar to Laval’s. The Italian leader believed that for reasons of his own prestige he should not permit Hitler to triumph in Austria, but he hoped to establish friendly relations with Germany. He told Jan Szembek in 1933 that he would be willing to mediate between Germany and Poland for an agreement which would give Germany an extra-territorial transit connection with East Prussia, and he noted that Szembek did not seem hostile to the idea. He told Jouvenel that France should exert pressure on Poland, and that Italy should apply pressure on Germany in an attempt to promote a German-Polish agreement. Mussolini often employed a favorite aphorism: “One is not able to make Europe without Germany.” Nevertheless, he hoped to establish closer relations with France than with Germany. Winston Churchill was impressed with Mussolini’s enthusiasm for France, and he had declared as early as 1927 that “I would be a Fascist if I were an Italian.”24

Laval visited Rome in January 1935. He actually made the visit which had been planned and scheduled by Barthou. A Franco-Italian accord was concluded at the Palazzo Farnese in Rome on January 6, 1935. The provisions concerning Ethiopia were crucial because of the crisis which had begun with the Ethiopian attack on the Italian post at Wal-Wal, Somaliland, in October 1934. Laval recognized that French acceptance of Italian expansion in East Africa would be valuable in retaining Italian support against Hitler’s aspirations in Austria. The secret clauses of the general agreement provided that France was economically disinterested in Ethiopia, except for the Djibuti-Addis Ababa railroad which France controlled. A declaration of economic disinterest and a free hand had long been identical terms in the settlement of colonial rivalry among the imperialist Powers. Mussolini took the initiative for a military entente with France on January 12, 1935, after the departure of Laval, and important conversations followed between General Gamelin and General Badoglio, the French and Italian military leaders. It seemed that Franco-Italian relations had been placed on a solid basis. The difficulty was that the Popular Front and the British leaders might seek to frustrate the realization of Italian aspirations in Ethiopia.25

The conversations between Anthony Eden and Mussolini at Rome on June 24-25, 1935, were a bad omen. Italian Foreign Minister Raffaele Guariglia claimed that Mussolini was patient with Eden, but the Italian leader objected to the conclusion of the Anglo-German naval pact of June 18, 1935. This pact was a violation of the Versailles Treaty, and the British had concluded it without consulting Italy and France. Eden was piqued, and he was tactless in his treatment of Mussolini. He had been offended by Mussolini’s speech at Cagliari, Sardinia, on June 8, 1935. The Italian leader had declared that “we imitate to the letter those who gave us the lesson.” The reference to British imperialism was not appreciated by Eden, and the Mussolini-Eden conversations ended on an unfriendly note.

The position of Laval was not enviable. He was caught between the fires of British prejudice toward Italy, and Popular Front hatred of Fascism. He received strong support from Sir Robert Vansittart, the Permanent Secretary at the British Foreign Office, who deplored Eden’s prejudice against Mussolini. Nevertheless, it was the indiscretion of Vansittart at Paris in December 1935 which upset the situation altogether, and which produced the alienation of Italy from France despite the efforts of Laval. It is amusing to read in the Autobiography of Lord Vansittart that “the usual indiscretion occurred at the Quai d’Orsay.” In this instance it was Vansittart, a British guest at the Quai d’Orsay, who committed the fatal indiscretion. It is ironical that Vansittart, who was obsessed by hatred of Germany, did more than anyone else to aid Hitler to win Italian friendship at a crucial moment. This friendship was the necessary foundation for Hitler’s program of peaceful territorial revision.26

The indiscretion of Vansittart was made to Genevieve Tabouis. She detested Pierre Laval, whom she recognized as the disciple of Caillaux and Briand. She preached what she considered to be the correct foreign policy of France from the pages of L’Oeuvre, a newspaper of the Left for “intellectuals.” She believed that Leon Blum and the Popular Front could provide the ideal leadership for the implementation of this policy. She blamed the assassinations of Barthou and King Alexander in October 1934 on a “Nazi plot,” although she had not the slightest evidence other than Communist propaganda to support this Chargé. She borrowed her techniques in journalism from the Communists, and she favored the closest possible collaboration between France and the Soviet Union.

She exploited her position as a journalist in 1935 to accompany Laval on his various missions in the hope of compromising him in some way. She was with [214] Laval at Rome in January 1935, at London in February 1935, at Stresa in April 1935, and at Moscow in May 1935. She suspected at Geneva in September 1935 that there was some friction between Laval and British Foreign Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare about the handling of the Ethiopian question. She met Sir Robert Vansittart at an aristocratic Parisian salon on December 5, 1935. Vansittart told her that Hoare was coming to Paris to complete a plan for the conciliation of Italy at Ethiopian expense, at a time when Great Britain was supposedly leading the League of Nations in a collective security campaign against Italy. Vansittart added that he was working with colleagues at the Qual d’Orsay for the preparation of this plan. This was virtually all that Tabouis needed to know to frustrate the success of the project. Secrecy would be necessary for at least a few days until the consent of Italy and Ethiopia had been obtained for the plan. Vansittart had imagined in his boundless vanity that Tabouls would respect his confidence, but he was mistaken. He believed that she would be obedient to him, because he was the recognized dean of the school which preached the destruction of Germany, but the hatred of Tabouis for Laval was greater than her admiration of Vansittart.27

The last conversation between Hoare and Laval took place on December 8, 1935. Tabouis had hurried to London in the meantime to gain further information. Laval had issued an order at the Quai d’Orsay that there should be no public reference to his negotiation with Hoare, and Tabouis was merely guessing about certain details of the projected plan. She consulted with the French journalist, André Géraud (Pertinax), who equalled her in his enthusiasm for a Franco-German war. The alleged Hoare-Laval plan was published by Tabouis in l’Oeuvre and by Géraud in l’Echo de Paris in France on December 13, 1935, and Tabouis also had arranged for it to appear in the Daily Telegraph in London. The result was a storm of British public protest which prompted Prime Minister Baldwin, the master of expediency, to sacrifice both Hoare and the plan on December 18, 1935. The breach which resulted between Italy on the one hand and Great Britain and France on the other wrecked the projected entente between Italy and France. Mussolini proceeded to complete the conquest of Ethiopia in defiance of the Western Powers.28

Laval struggled hard to maintain his position, and for a time it seemed that he might succeed. Tabouis upbraided Edouard Herriot at a banquet held by Maurice de Rothschild on December 26, 1935, for continuing to support the Laval Cabinet. Herriot withdrew his support on January 23, 1936, and the six Radical Socialist members resigned from the Laval Cabinet. The Popular Front was triumphant, and an election campaign was launched which was destined to bring the Left an unprecedented political triumph in May 1936. The French Chamber approved the Franco-Soviet alliance pact on February 27, 1936, and Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland on March 7, 1936. Italy was lost, the Soviet Union was unreliable, and Great Britain failed to support France in the Rhineland crisis. Tabouis was triumphant, and the foreign policy of Laval was in ruins. French preponderance on the European continent was lost within a few weeks after the resignation of Laval.

[215]
The Preponderant Position of France Wrecked by Leon Blum

The attitude of Léon Blum, the Popular Front leader, toward a rapprochement between France and Italy had been clear throughout 1935. This attitude was the primary influence on the actions of Genevieve Tabouis and Edouard Herriot. Blum made the following statement at the time of the Laval visit to Rome in January 1935: “For the first time, a French minister is the guest of the assassin of Matteotti. For the first time, a representative of the French Republic recognizes in the tyrant of Italy a chief of state by the deferential initiative of his visit.” The Communist method of smearing was clearly in evidence. There was not the slightest indication that Mussolini had had any advance knowledge of the fate of the Socialist leader, Matteotti, who had died from a heart attack during a beating he had received from local Fascist strongmen in 1926. This was an isolated incident in Italy, and it had taken place more than eight years earlier. The Soviet Union in the meantime had purged and killed hundreds of prominent Bolsheviks who were accused of opposition. Nevertheless, Blum did not raise the slightest objection to the visit of Laval to Stalin at Moscow in May 1935. Blum was much too ensnared by his own ideological prejudices to offer France effective leadership during this difficult period.29

The Albert Sarraut Government held office in France from January until June 1936. It was correctly described by the French press of the time as a mere caretaker regime which awaited the coming of Blum.30 The Communists, in the elections of April and May 1936, increased their strength in the French Chamber from 10 to 73, and the Socialists came up from 97 to 146. The Radical Socialists agreed to participate in a coalition Government headed by Blum, and the Communists agreed to vote for it. The Popular Front was in the saddle at last, and the country was virtually paralyzed with 1,500,000 industrial workers on strike by June 1936. Mob violence was resumed, and five persons were killed and three hundred wounded in a demonstration at Clichy. The social security program of Blum produced a rapid decline of French production. The program was barely launched on January 13, 1937, when Blum announced in the face of overwhelming difficulties that the time had arrived for a “necessary pause.” It was evident by the time the great Paris International Exposition opened on May 1, 1937, that the Popular Front experiment had failed in the economic, social, and political spheres.31

Léon Blum responded by requesting sweeping personal decree powers from the French Chamber on June 15, 1937, although he always had denounced others who had requested such powers. The Popular Front influence was sufficient to pass the measure in the Chamber by a vote of 346-247, but Joseph Caillaux succeeded in bringing down the Government with a vote of no-confidence in the Senate. Caillaux motivated his opposition with the explanation that the Blum decree would provoke the flight of capital from France to an unprecedented degree. The Blum Government resigned on June 21, 1937. Caillaux later explained that he had favored giving Blum every chance to prove himself, and that he had sought to advise him by referring him to the basic precepts of Jean Jaurès, the great French Socialist leader who had been assassinated by militarists in July 1914.32 Blum blamed his failure on the fact that he was limited in his policies by his need to collaborate with the Radical Socialists, [216] and he complained during World War II that bourgeois rule had remained uninterrupted in France since 1789. He also blamed the Communists for obstructing his program, and he argued that the ideal solution of European problems would have been to crush Germany by military action in 1933. The Popular Front in practice proved to be a fiasco in which coherent foreign and domestic policies were conspicuously lacking.33

The overthrow of Blum in June 1937 did not end the Popular Front era. Everyone knew that he would make another bid for power. The Socialist press advocated stripping the French Senate of its powers, and the Communists agreed to participate in a new Popular Front Cabinet. The Socialists accepted this offer, but the Radical Socialists refused. President Lebrun appointed Chautemps to form a Government, and Blum was included as Vice-Premier. No one was satisfied with the prevailing uncertain situation, and there was a clamor of voices asking for a new lease of life or a decent burial for the Popular Front. Chautemps failed to maintain his coalition with the Socialists and his Government resigned on January 14, 1938. He headed an interim Government of Radical Socialists for a few weeks until Blum was again appointed Premier. Blum won a vote of confidence before the Chamber on March 17, 1938, but he was soon overthrown again by the Senate. Blum was ready to quit, and the Popular Front era was over.

The Radical Socialist Party, under the leadership of Daladier, Chautemps, and Bonnet, had recovered from the Stavisky affair André Tardieu, the French elder statesman, wrote a brilliant analysis of their position in 1938. They were the Party of Tradition, and Daniel Halevy had traced their origins to the reign of Louis Philippe. They were the Party of Inconsistency. They had overthrown Governments of the Right in 1923 and 1928, but they had entered Governments of the Right in 1926 and 1934. They had suffered lamentable reverses when they headed Governments in 1885, 1896, 1898, 1924, 1932, 1934, 1937, and early 1938, but they had amazing powers of recuperation. Anatole France had said: “They govern badly, but they defend themselves well.”

Tardieu found that their Party doctrine was “infinitely vague.” Their existing doctrine was the utilitarianism and materialism of 19th century liberalism. They simultaneously exalted both the individual and the state in the 20th century, and they claimed a monopoly of the revolutionary tradition of 1789. Their position on constitutional reform was clear. They refused to a) reduce the number of parliamentary deputies, b) reform the electoral system, c) permit dissolution and new elections when Cabinets were overthrown, and d) allow for the introduction of popular referendum or popular initiative. They defended the status quo with tenacity.

Tardieu recognized their complacency, which contrasted with his own attitude. He had been thrice Premier and eleven times a Minister, and he had decided in 1933 that the current regime was not tolerable for France. He complained that when he expressed these views to the Radical Socialists, they wondered if he had become an imbecile. Their complacency was their strength. They had shared in the disastrous Popular Front, but they now ignored Blum, although he still claimed to have a voice in their councils. The alternatives to their rule had been tried. A new Government of the Right or a Government headed by the Socialists was now unthinkable. There were no alternatives,

and they were confident that they could maintain the support of the Senate and of the Chamber. The domestic situation was again in repose. The main concern of the Daladier Government in 1938 and 1939 was foreign policy. The French position in Europe had been transformed in the period between Laval in January 1936 and Daladier in April 1938.35


The Daladier Government and the Czech Crisis

The Daladier Government was immediately faced with the Czech crisis. The French press displayed a strange ambivalence toward the question of peace or war during the tense months which culminated in the Munich conference of September 1938. Three of the great French dailies had resolutely opposed war throughout the crisis. These were Le Journal of Pierre-Etienne Flandin, Le Jour of Leon Bailly, and Le Matin of Stephane Lauzanne. Genevieve Tabouls advocated war in L’Oeuvre, but Georges de la Foucherdivre was permitted to dispute her theories, and to advocate peace, in the pages of the same newspaper. The Jewish editor of Marianne, Emmanuel Berl, fiercely denounced the pro-war Jewish Cabinet Minister, Georges Mandel. In the Socialist daily, Le Populaire, Louis Levy and Oriste Rosenfeld advocated war, but Paul Faure was given ample space in the same newspaper to oppose their views. Charles Maurras of Action Francaise came out strongly against war for the Czechs in 1938, as did Henri Béraud in Gringoire. This was refreshing news to many observers, because the newspapers of the Right had given strong support to the French system of eastern alliances in the past. It was evident that many people were revising their views. The Communist leader, Maurice Thorez, demanded a French war on behalf of the Czechs in the pages of L’Humanité on September 10, 1938, but this was a surprise to no one. The same newspaper condemned a French war in support of Poland the following year after the conclusion of the Russo-German Pact on August 23, 1939. L’Ordre of Pierre Lazareff and Georges Weisskopf was one of several non-Communist newspapers which were solidly for war, just as there were several newspapers which were solidly for peace. Nevertheless, a considerable number of newspapers featured the advocates of both policies, and this exposed most of the French public to extensive arguments on both sides of the issue.


It was evident that the Daladier Government was in an enviable free position as far as the conduct of foreign policy was concerned. There was no overwhelming body of public opinion which demanded the pursuit of either alternative. The public was confused by a situation which had changed so rapidly, and the public was prepared to accept whatever the Government chose to decide.36

The termination of the uncertainty, at Munich, was a relief to many minds. Pierre Gaxotte wrote in a spirit of exuberant triumph in Je suis Partout on September 30, 1938, that Czechoslovakia was “an imbecile and abject state” which had never deserved French military support. Very few of the French bellicistes raised their voices in protest against Munich. One of the exceptions was Paul Reynaud, who was counting on the ultimate triumph of Churchill in England. Reynaud, the chief of the small Republican Center Party, had [218] astonished his cohorts of the French Right by defending the English repudiation of the Hoare-Laval pact in a Chamber speech on December 27, 1935. He had recently returned from one of his many trips to England, and he was promptly denounced as “the man of England.” He declared that British opposition to Mussolini’s Ethiopian venture was the most happy event since the American declaration of war against Germany in 1917. André Tardieu responded to this speech by announcing in a letter to Le Temps that he would have nothing more to do with Reynaud.37

Reynaud went to Germany in November 1937, and he returned to write a series of alarmist articles about alleged German designs against France. He advocated the closest possible military collaboration between France and the Soviet Union. Reynaud claimed in a Chamber speech on February 26, 1938, that Hitler was seeking the iron of Lorraine, the German minority of Alsace, and access to the Atlantic Ocean at French expense. Reynaud discussed future French policy with Churchill at Paris in March 1938 and with Halifax in England in May 1938. He advocated war during the Czech crisis, and he was delighted when Sir Robert Vansittart issued an unauthorized communiqué from the British Foreign Office on September 26, 1938, which stated that Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union would declare war on Germany in the event of a German-Czech conflict. Reynaud was proud to be the only member of the French Cabinet who failed to meet Daladier at le Bourget airport after Munich. He knew that his talents as Minister of Justice, then as Minister of Finance, in the Daladier Government were highly prized. He would not follow the example of Duff Cooper in England and resign because of Munich.38 It is also significant that Reynaud did not carry his utterances against Munich into the French Chamber. He enjoyed an appreciative audience, and he knew that it would have been useless to attempt to provoke a debate on Munich in the style of the British House of Commons. Nevertheless, Reynaud continued to follow the lead of Churchill after Munich. The case of Pierre-Etienne Flandin, who was known as the “man of the City” and the “man of Chamberlain,” was entirely different. Flandin had become a sincere advocate of appeasement, and he refused to follow Chamberlain and Halifax in their later shift to a war policy.39

Reynaud was the most militantly anti-German figure of the French Right, but he was closely seconded by the publisher and journalist, Henri de Kerillis who had led the aerial attack on the Easter 1916 children's parade at Karlsruhe. Kerillis did not share the enthusiasm of Reynaud for the Soviet Union, and he considered that Communism was a great threat to France. He deplored the failure of the Allies to destroy the Soviet Union after the end of World War I in 1918. Nevertheless, he considered that Germany was the principal threat to France. He admitted that the idea of a Franco-German entente was increasingly popular in France, but he claimed that Hitler could not be trusted when he promised that Germany had no territorial aspirations in the West. He also complained that France would be dwarfed by the Greater Germany of Hitler. Kerillis considered himself a prophet in the style of Alphonse Daudet, who had preached revenge against Germany after 1870. He accepted Munich at the time of the French Chamber vote of October 5, 1938, but he was soon proclaiming that France should block future German moves in the East. Kerillis declared that Hitler was not the disinterested Mahomet of a [219] crusade against Communism, but merely a German imperialist.

The views of Kerillis were contested by the principal French historical expert on contemporary Germany, Jacques Benoist-Méchin, who had been severely wounded during the German bombardment of Paris in April 1918. Benoist-Méchin quoted Marshal Lyautey on the importance of reading Mein Kampf, and of becoming familiar with the theories of Hitler at first hand. Benoist-Méchin emphasized that Hitler had many grievances against France when he wrote Mein Kampf. These grievances had been settled with the German military reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936. The fundamental fact was that the Hitler program in 1938 and 1939 was directed toward the East, and not against France.40

The position of Premier Edouard Daladier, the Marseilles Radical Socialist who had risen from the ranks to become a French officer in World War I, was crucial in the post-Munich situation. Daladier had shown great skill in out-maneuvering Herriot during the precarious Popular Front period. It was evident in 1938 that Georges Bonnet could rely on the support of Daladier for a policy of peace. Daladier knew that the military situation of France was utterly inadequate for an aggressive war against the Germans, and he continued to occupy the post of Minister of Defense in his own Government. Churchill was keenly aware of this situation. He had accepted an invitation from Reynaud to come to France on September 21, 1938. Churchill still hoped that the Czech crisis would lead to war at that time, and he suggested to Reynaud that negotiations with the Germans would be disrupted if Daladier could be overthrown, and if President Lebrun would appoint Edonard Herriot to succeed him. Reynaud was forced to explain that the influence of the anti-peace faction in the French Cabinet and Chamber was insufficient to bring down the Daladier Government.41

Daladier discussed the post-Munich situation with American Ambassador Bullitt at a luncheon on October 3, 1938. The French Premier made it clear to Bullitt that he had no illusions about the Munich conference, and he knew that Hitler had further demands to make in the realization of his program. He told Bullitt that Hermann Göring had been exceedingly friendly to him at Munich, and that the German Marshal had sought to flatter him and to praise France. The French Premier promised Bullitt that the military preparations of France would be accelerated in the months ahead, but he refused to give the slightest hint that France contemplated opposing future German moves in the East.42

Anatole de Monzie, the French Minister of Public Works, was a resolute champion of the project for a Franco-German entente. He noted during the Czech crisis that Premier Daladier and Vice-Premier Chautemps encouraged peace, but that they also sought to occupy the position of moderators between the two opposing groups in the French Cabinet. One group, which included Reynaud, Mandel, Champetier de Ribes, Rucart, and Zay, had favored war on behalf of the Czechs. A second group, which included Bonnet, Pomaret, Guy la Chambre, Marchandeau, and Monzie, had favored peace. The policy of Daladier and Chautemps, to throw their weight with the latter group, had decided the issue. The result would have been entirely different had Edouard Herriot headed the French Cabinet.43

Monzie also was grateful for the strong support [of Flandin and Caillaux] [220] which the Cabinet had received during the crisis. Flandin had denounced the French pressure groups working for war, in the Journal on September 15, 1938. Joseph Caillaux had returned to Paris from his retreat at Mamers in Normandy to work for “good sense and peace.” Monzie asked Daladier what he would do if the principal Cabinet bellicistes, Reynaud, Mandel, and Champetier de Ribes, offered to resign. Daladier replied that he would accept their resignations. Monzie was with Bonnet in Paris on September 30, 1938, when Daladier was at Munich. Bonnet gave lively expression to his legitimate joy that he had received adequate support for his policy of peace. This did not mean that either Monzie or Bonnet were complacent. Monzie was astonished to hear Otto Abetz, the idealistic German champion of Franco-German amity, say, at this time, that the foundation for future Franco-German collaboration had been achieved. Monzie realized that the question was merely entering its crucial phase, and that extreme watchfulness would be required in the days ahead.44

Monzie was aware that the Communists were spreading anti-Munich propaganda, and that Flandin had been criticized for his telegram of congratulations to Hitler following Munich. Monzie recognized that it was necessary to launch an active propaganda campaign in defense of Munich. He opened this campaign with a brilliant and effective lecture to the French journalists at Toulouse on October 12, 1938. Monzie rejoiced that the conduct of French foreign policy was in the hands of Georges Bonnet, “with an intelligence as agile as his face.”45


The Franco-German Friendship Pact of December 1938

Franco-German relations were the bright spot on the European scene in October 1938. The French seemed much more advanced than their English neighbors in adjusting to the new situation which had been created by the events of 1938. Good relations with France increased Hitler’s confidence that it would be possible to arrive at a satisfactory settlement with Poland. The frontier tension and minority problems which had plagued Franco-German relations during the age of Bismarck were almost entirely lacking at this time. The most positive element in the situation was the willingness of Germany to accept the loss of Alsace-Lorraine.

Hitler granted a farewell audience to André François-Poncet on October 18, 1938. The French Ambassador had been the most popular foreign diplomat in Berlin. He was eager to accept a mission to represent France to both Italy and the Vatican, and to apply his charm to Mussolini. But the personalities of Hitler and Mussolini were very different, and François-Poncet never succeeded in establishing with Mussolini the friendly personal relations he had enjoyed with Hitler.

The familiar atmosphere of cordiality between Hitler and the French diplomat was much in evidence on the occasion of their farewell conversation. Both men advocated a further improvement in Franco-German relations. Hitler made a formal offer of a Franco-German declaration of friendship, which could be used to settle points that had created anxiety in the relations between the two nations following the abrogation of the Locarno treaties in 1936. The [221] French Government returned a favorable response to the German offer on October 21, 1938.46

The tentative provisions for a treaty were discussed in Paris by Bonnet and Count Welczeck, the German Ambassador to France. It was easy to agree on a formulation of Germany’s willingness to guarantee the eastern border of France. The problem of German recognition of the Eastern European alliances of France was more difficult. Welczeck and Bonnet managed to reach an agreement on these points as early as October 25, 1938. It was assumed that France would proceed to invite Ribbentrop to Paris to conclude the formal treaty.47

An element of delay was produced by the Polish passport crisis, which culminated in the murder of Ernst vom Rath in Paris by Grynszpan, and in anti-Jewish measures and demonstrations in Germany. The French were worried by this situation, and the Temps predicted on November 17, 1938, that the anti-Jewish measures would produce a lasting bad effect on the relations of the Anglo-Saxon countries with Germany. Weizsäcker came to Paris to attend the funeral of vom Rath, and to discuss the general situation with Bonnet. The two men established good relations. Weizsäcker assured Bonnet that he shared Hitler’s hope that there would be no third Franco-German war to blight the hopes of the present generation. It was evident that recent incidents and delays would not prevent the French and German leaders from proceeding with their plan to conclude the treaty.48

The Italian and English leaders proved to be extremely jealous in this situation. Italian Ambassador Attolico in Berlin had presented a message from Foreign Minister Ciano as early as November 8, 1938, containing a protest about the proposed provisions of the treaty, which had been communicated to the Italians by the Germans. Ciano complained that Mussolini had expected a “platonic” pact in the style of the Anglo-German declaration. He and Ciano objected to article three of the proposed draft, which provided for periodic consultation between Germany and France.49

The British leaders feared that France might shake off her dependence on Great Britain and arrive at an independent understanding with Germany. They realized that they had deprived France of many of her bulwarks against Germany by refusing to support French policy in the past, and that it would be a logical move for the French to retaliate. Halifax dealt with this theme at great length in instructions to Sir Eric Phipps, the British Ambassador to France. Halifax on November 1, 1938, claimed to reject the theory that “the French Government might be tempted by German intrigue to drift apart from His Majesty’s Government.” He recognized that Germany had attained a preponderant position in Central Europe, but he was not inclined to abandon the thought of possible future British intervention in Central and Eastern Europe. He observed wryly that he found no pleasure in the prospect of becoming entangled by Russia in a war against Germany, yet said, “I should hesitate to advise the French Government to denounce the Franco-Soviet pact.” Tremendous changes had taken place in British policy since the time in 1935 when the British leaders had done what they could to prevent the conclusion of the pact.

Halifax confided to Phipps that he would make a major effort to persuade Mussolini to be “less dependent on Hitler.” This move would aid the conduct of [222] British balance of power policy against Germany. Halifax regarded it as axiomatic that Great Britain and France should remain preponderant in Western Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Near East, and that they should keep a “tight hold” on their colonial empires. He also emphasized the need of maintaining “the closest possible ties” with the United States.

The British Foreign Secretary admitted that this snug picture was disturbed by the prospect that France would leave the British system in order to achieve an independent understanding with Germany. He asserted that such a development would be a terrible blow to Great Britain, and he claimed that it might enable Germany “to hold us up to ransom” in the colonial question. Halifax was obviously worried, but he proclaimed again that he did not believe that France would “sign away her freedom.”51 Perhaps it would have been more truthful had he said that he did not believe France would attempt to regain her freedom.

Another wave of verbal assaults on Hitler by prominent Englishmen occurred at this time,52 and new instructions from Halifax to Phipps on November 7, 1938, betrayed the fact that Halifax was increasingly worried by the Franco-German negotiations.53 This was an old and familiar nervousness on the part of British leaders. It arose when it appeared that the leading continental nations might proceed to settle their differences independently of Great Britain. It was feared that this would destroy the British system of divide and rule by means of the balance of power. The British leaders believed that their position in the world depended upon the perpetuation of rivalries and divisions on the continent. The fears discussed by Halifax in 1938 were identical with those entertained by Sir Edward Grey in 1911, when Premier Joseph Caillaux of France and Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg of Germany appeared to be approaching an understanding.54

The final text of the Franco-German declaration was approved by the French Cabinet on November 23, 1938. Much news of the pact leaked out to the public. The French press on November 24, 1938, was enthusiastic about the coming treaty, and it was called a milestone in world history. Chamberlain and Halifax had arrived in Paris on November 23rd for conferences with the French leaders on the following day. They hoped to obtain assurances which would diminish the importance of the Franco-German treaty. They were greeted with jeers and French booing (i.e. whistling) on the streets of Paris on November 23, 1938, in the first important anti-British manifestations in the French capital since the visit of King Edward VII to Paris in 1903. The announcement on the following day that Ribbentrop would soon visit Paris pushed their visit into the background of the public interest.55

The new French Ambassador to Germany, Robert Coulondre, had met Hitler for the first time on November 21, 1938. Cordial relations between Hitler and Coulondre were easily established, although the new ambassador could never replace François-Poncet in Hitler’s estimation. Coulondre declared that his assignment to Germany was a mission of reconciliation. He was absolutely convinced that Hitler was sincere in his renunciation of Alsace-Lorraine. Hitler replied that he and Coulondre were both old front fighters, and they knew how to appreciate the value of peace. The final preparations for Ribbentrop’s visit to Paris were concluded after this interview.56

[223] The pact was completed several weeks before the departure of Ribbentrop and the German delegation for Paris. The Germans duplicated the French gesture of communicating the contents of the pact to the Poles, in advance of signature. Lipski expressed Beck’s gratitude for this courtesy in Berlin on December 5, 1938. Beck replied to the French by giving the pact his blessing and by claiming that the Polish Government sincerely welcomed the Franco-German rapprochement outlined in the treaty. Beck instructed Lipski to inform the Germans confidentially that the Soviet Union did not look on the Franco-German declaration with the same unmixed feelings.57

The Germans arrived in Paris and concluded the treaty with the French on December 6, 1938. The pact was virtually the same as the Anglo-German declaration except for the provisions relating to the guarantee question, the French eastern alliances, and the consultation clause. The Germans agreed to recognize the pattern of the existing French alliances in the East, but this was widely regarded to be a mere formality. It was not known to what extent France herself would seek to maintain this alliance pattern in the future.

Phipps reported to Halifax on December 7th that the Germans had come with “a large team.” He observed that some question had been raised about Bonnet’s dinner for Ribbentrop on December 6th. The two Jews in the French Cabinet, Secretary for Colonies Georges Mandel, and Secretary for Education Jean Zay, had not been invited. Bonnet explained in a special interview that only a few guests from the French Government, and many non-governmental guests, had been invited. Both Mandel and Zay were invited to the festivities at the German Embassy on the following day.58

German Ambassador Welczeck had made many unflattering remarks to Bonnet about Ribbentrop, in the period before the visit. Bonnet had considered the source, and he desired to find out for himself.59 Ribbentrop spoke excellent French, and he and Bonnet were able to engage in several intimate conversations without the presence of an interpreter. However, it seemed later that a serious misunderstanding about future French policy in Eastern Europe resulted from these talks, although it is also possible that later events, rather than the talks themselves, created the confusion. Ribbentrop received the impression that France intended to limit her commitments in Eastern Europe, and Bonnet later denied that he had intended to convey this. Polish Ambassador Juliusz Lukasiewicz was convinced from what he heard after Ribbentrop’s visit that Bonnet had definitely made some remarks about reducing French commitments.60

Bonnet was concerned about a possible Italian irredentist program at French expense. Ciano had delivered a speech in the Italian Chamber on November 30, 1938. A group of Italian deputies had responded by raising the cry of Italian ethnic claims to Nice, Corsica, and Tunisia. Mussolini, who was a witness of the demonstration, had remained impassive. The Italians denied that the demonstration was officially inspired. Ribbentrop succeeded in reassuring Bonnet about this agitation. He was convinced that although there were many more Italians than Frenchmen in the regions which the deputies had named, Italy had no intention of presenting territorial demands to France. He assured Bonnet that such claims would not receive German support if they were made. Ribbentrop observed that Germany had no regrets in renouncing Alsace-Lorraine, and [224] he added that she would scarcely be willing to make war against France for Italian claims to Djibouti or Corsica. The German Foreign Minister complained about the British attitude toward Germany. He observed significantly that the British leaders apparently regarded the Munich agreement as a mere expedient to gain time in order to prepare for war.61

Bonnet was impressed by Ribbentrop’s poise, and he later described him as an imperturbable negotiator.62 Ribbentrop laid a wreath on the tomb of the French unknown soldier on December 7th, and that evening he engaged in lengthy discussions with French political leaders. Monzie noted that Ribbentrop was much at ease in the fashion of the grand seigneur. He spent much time with Joseph Caillaux. The French elder statesman did most of the talking. He advised Ribbentrop about dealing with future problems of German policy, but he did so with tact. Monzie was moved by this serene and lengthy conversation between these two handsome men, who he thought represented the best elements of their respective nations.63

There were no hostile demonstrations in France during the visit of Ribbentrop. A group of French workers applauded Ribbentrop at the railway station as he departed from Paris on December 8, 1938. There was a further friendly demonstration for Ribbentrop when his train was forced to stop near Creil on the return journey.64 The Ribbentrop visit was a success, and the Franco-German declaration contributed to the relaxation of tension in Europe. The British were promptly informed by France that no secret agreements had been made, but Halifax continued to be suspicious of French policy, and President Roosevelt in the United States, and Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union, expressed their disapproval of the new treaty.65


The Flexible French Attitude After Munich

The Munich magazine Simplicissimus carried on the cover of its 1938 Christmas issue a picture of Marianne and Michel, the symbols of France and Germany, standing on the threshold of the front door to the House of Europe in perfect amity. It was evident that France was inclined to follow the example of Italy in seeking a rapproachment with Germany. The old attempt to form an Anglo-Franco-Italian front against Germany had failed. The new situation called for new measures. Hitler had made it clear that Germany intended to present no demands to Italy or France, and it was evident that Italy and France had no demands to make against Germany. The conditions for an understanding among these three principal continental nations were extremely favorable. The ideal was a solid Franco-Italo-German front for peace. It would be difficult for the British leaders to foment a war against Germany if the trend auspiciously launched in December 1938 was continued. It would be impossible for them to do so if a front among the Three Powers was actually created. The British were determined to attack Germany, with France as an ally, but they would not do so alone. The chances were favorable that they would become reconciled to the new situation if France made a definite stand in favor of it. The prospects for peace in Europe at the end of 1938 were still favorable despite British hostility toward Germany, and German difficulties with Poland. The future of Europe depended upon the [225] prevention of another World War.

Bertrand de Jouvenel analyzed the problems of Europe in a thoughtful book, Le Réveil de l’Europe (the Awakening of Europe), which appeared in 1938. Jouvenel recognized that Europeans of the 20th century were no longer confident about progress. The experience of World War I and the problems which had emerged in the post-war era had destroyed this confidence. He deplored the decline of France in Europe, but he regretted much more the decline of Europe in the world. This trend could be reversed if the hates of the past were forgotten, and if Europe concentrated on peace and production instead of war and destruction. Sir John Maynard Keynes in Great Britain had exposed the idiocy of the Versailles Treaty. Keynes had reminded the so-called peacemakers that they wished to make the conquered pay, but in reality they ruined the conquerors. Henry Ford in the United States had pointed out the hope afforded by a higher standard of living for the masses. He had shown that a greater market for production was possible when the salaries of the workers were higher. The obstacles to the realization of the dream of productivity and reconciliation were to be found in the old obsolete prejudices, such as the British policy of the balance of power. Jouvenel believed that the purpose of history was to combat the presumption behind such dogmas: “L’attitude de l’Histoire est bien faite pour abattre la presomption humaine (The study of history should be conducted to reduce human presumption).”66

Jouvenel sadly recalled that the Wilson propaganda slogan of 1918 had been a peace of justice. This sounded like some vague dream of perpetual peace. Jouvenel hoped that the time would come when mankind ceased waging perpetual war for perpetual peace. He was typical of the many Frenchmen who were making an honest effort to adjust to the new situation in Europe.67

Chapter 10


THE GERMAN DECISION TO OCCUPY PRAGUE


The Czech Imperium Mortally Wounded at Munich

The Czech state lingered in a moribund condition for nearly six months after the cession of the Sudeten districts to Germany. Czech rule over numerous minorities for nearly twenty years after 1918 had been based on a policy of stern intimidation, and the assurance of military support from a preponderant France. One by one, the German, Polish, and Hungarian minorities had been separated from Czech rule. The Slovaks and Ruthenians were also eager to escape from Czech rule, and they received encouragement from Poland and Hungary.

It seemed for a time that newly preponderant Germany might assume the old French role and protect the remnants of the Czech imperium. Hitler considered this possibility for about four months after Munich. He gradually came to the conclusion that the Czech cause was lost in Slovakia, and that Czech cooperation with Germany could not be relied upon. He decided, after receiving the news about the visit of the British leaders to Rome in January 1939, to transfer German support from the Czechs to the Slovaks. 2

The success of the Slovak cause was assured, but the Slovak leaders wished to have the protection of German military units in Slovakia. This meant that German troops would have to occupy Prague, at least temporarily, in order to establish military communications with Slovakia. Hitler was able to legalize this development by special treaties with the Czech and Slovak leaders.3 Czech President Emil Hacha did not believe that it would be wise to resist German plans. He received congratulations from Edvard Benes when he was elected to the presidency in November 1938, but Benes denounced him in March 1939 for cooperating with Germany.4

[228]

The Deceptive Czech Policy of Halifax

Hitler’s decision to support the Slovaks and to occupy Prague had been based on the obvious disinterest of the British leaders in the Czech situation. There had been ample opportunities for them to encourage the Czechs in some way, but they had repeatedly refused to do so. The truth was that the British leaders did not care about the Czechs. They used Hitler’s policy as a pretext to become indignant about the Germans.

Halifax resorted to trickery in a first major effort to sabotage the terms of the Munich agreement in October 1938. The Czech-Magyar dispute was on the agenda at that time. Polish Ambassador Lipski on October 24, 1938, had requested Polish participation in an international arbitration to settle the dispute. He had suggested that the arbitration team consist solely of Poles, Italians, and Germans. Ribbentrop was not enthusiastic about the proposal, but he agreed to sound out his Italian colleague. Ciano replied that the Polish proposition was unsatisfactory. Italy had worked for years to achieve a diplomatic concert among the Four Powers which had met at Munich, and Ciano did not favor abandoning this concert for the convenience of the Poles. It was evident that direct negotiation between the Czechs and Hungarians, which had been resumed on October 13th, was fruitless. Ciano invited Ribbentrop to discuss the problem at Rome, and the German Foreign Minister departed for the Italian capital on October 26, 1938.5

Ogilvie-Forbes, at the British Embassy in Berlin, discovered Italy’s attitude toward the Polish proposal before Ribbentrop left for Rome. Ogilvie-Forbes contacted Halifax and informed him that everything seemed to point toward a Four Power arbitration effort. He was astonished when Halifax immediately replied that it would not be feasible to seek the agreement of the Four Munich Powers in the Czech-Magyar dispute. Halifax believed that Germany and Italy would disagree on the Czech-Hungarian dispute if Great Britain and France withdrew from the Munich program. Dissension in German-Italian relations would follow, and Great Britain might be able to exploit this situation in her effort to separate Italy from Germany. He confided to Ogilvie-Forbes that Italy “apparently was favoring the cession of Ruthenia to Hungary.” He believed that Italy wished to keep Poland out of the arbitration effort in order to receive all the credit for the realization of Hungarian aims. He imagined that Italy was still intent upon preserving Hungary as a sphere of Italian influence, and that the Italians were jealous of the Poles, who were popular in Hungary. He hoped that Germany would oppose Italy in an arbitration effort by seeking to obtain a settlement in Ruthenia along the lines of self-determination.

Halifax suggested another motive for his refusal to permit Great Britain to assume her Munich conference obligations. Halifax wished to be spared the distasteful work of revising the territorial provisions of the 1919 peace treaties, which had remained unchallenged in Central Europe for nearly two decades before 1938. Halifax was also determined to maintain British supremacy in Rumania, and to prevent Rumania from forming closer relations with Germany. King Carol was planning to visit London on November 15, 1938, and Halifax did not wish to offend the Rumanian sovereign by appearing to support Hungarian claims. The Rumanians were bitterly opposed to Hungarian revisionism.

[229] The British Foreign Secretary speculated that the Germans might be considering the possibility of supporting the national Ukrainian movement in the Ruthenian area. Halifax did not believe that Germany would succeed in maintaining self-determination in Ruthenia against the opposition of Italy, Poland and Hungary. He predicted that Germany would capitulate, and this would mean the end of self-determination in dealing with Czech problems. This consideration did not bother Halifax. He argued that the Ruthenian Jews would be better off under Hungary than under the Czechs. He hoped that a common Hungarian-Polish frontier would increase the opposition of both Poland and Hungary to Germany. It seemed to Halifax that Great Britain would be serving her own interests by withdrawing completely from Czecho-Slovakia.6

Halifax informed Budapest confidentially that arbitration excluding Great Britain and France could be safely proposed. He consulted the Czech and Hungarian diplomats in London, and -requested them to approve British and French withdrawal from the Czech-Magyar dispute. Halifax wired Lord Perth, the British Ambassador in Rome, on the evening of October 26th, that his maneuver had been successful. The Czechs and Hungarians were prepared to accept Italo-German arbitration without the participation of the British and French support against Germany in the Czech-Hungarian dispute. He hoped to confront Ciano with a hasty fait accompli, and he instructed Perth to announce that “His Majesty’s Government saw no objection to the settlement of the Czech-Hungarian question by means of arbitration by Germany and Italy.” He sought to appease Ciano by declaring that the British were willing to participate in the discussions if both the Czechs and Hungarians insisted upon it. This was a clever gesture which cost Halifax nothing. Budapest and Prague had already agreed not to request British participation.7

Halifax reckoned with the possibility that this gesture might not fully satisfy Mussolini. He instructed Perth to appease Mussolini by asserting that Great Britain favored bilateral Anglo-Italian cooperation in the settlement of important European questions. Halifax was watching every factor when he instructed Perth: “You will, of course, appreciate that His Majesty’s Government do not wish to give the impression of trying to profit by any Italo-German disagreement over the future of Ruthenia.” A furious struggle over the future of Ruthenia was about to ensue m the imagination of the British Foreign Secretary. He pictured the Germans angrily and reluctantly submitting to combined pressure from Italy, Hungary, and Poland, and he rejoiced in the prospect. Great Britain would maintain an advantageous position on the sidelines. This was the culmination in the total abandonment of British responsibility toward the Czechs. Jdzef Beck at Warsaw concluded that the British would elude their responsibility to guarantee Czecho-Slovakia after the settlement of Hungarian and Polish claims. His analysis proved to be correct.9

Halifax’s anticipations were strengthened by another report from Ogilvie-Forbes on October 26th. Weizsäcker had told the British diplomats in Berlin that Germany would insist upon self-determination in both Slovakia and Ruthenia. Ogilvie-Forbes asked Weizsäcker if Ruthenia could be administered by the Czechs after the Magyar section was withdrawn. It appeared that the separation of the Magyar ethnic areas would disrupt Ruthenian communications. Weizsäcker “refused to be drawn and repeated that Ruthenia should have [229] self-determination.” The German State Secretary complained that the omission of Great Britain and France from the arbitration team was contrary to the provisions of the Munich agreement. He did not suspect Great Britain’s responsibility for this situation, and he went to great lengths to explain that Germany was not responsible. The British diplomat did not enlighten Weizsäcker about the true state of affairs. He informed Halifax that the Italian diplomats in Berlin were convinced that Italy would insist on the return of Ruthenia to Hungary. It appeared that the Germans were about to walk into a trap which would produce friction with Italy, Hungary, and Poland. 10

Jozef Beck was doing what he could to facilitate matters for Hungary at this point. He offered to meet Rumanian objections on October 26th by guaranteeing Rumanian access to the Czechs through Poland. He told British Ambassador Kennard that Poland was using every possible argument with the Germans to prove that the return of Ruthenia to Hungary was the only sensible solution. He added that he would travel to Germany to discuss the matter personally with Hitler and Ribbentrop if Hungary did not receive satisfaction in Ruthenia.11

Beck made a last effort to bring Poland into the arbitration team. He exerted pressure for an invitation to Poland in both Prague and Budapest. The Czechs replied that they would admit the Poles to the negotiation if the Rumanians also were included. This reply irritated Beck. He had no desire to sit at the negotiation table on the Ruthenian issue with the Rumanians again, and he was compelled to drop the matter.12

Halifax failed in his effort to foment a conflict between Germany, on the hand, and Italy, Poland, and Hungary on the other. The effort itself, however, would never have appeared as an element in British foreign policy after the Munich conference had not Halifax been willing to countenance the abandonment of Czech interests by Great Britain, despite the promise of the British Government at Munich to protect those interests in exchange for Czech willingness to accept a negotiated settlement of the Sudeten-Czech crisis. One part of the British commitment was to take part in the arbitration of the Czech-Hungarian dispute in case bilateral negotiations between the Czechs and Hungarians failed. Halifax’s refusal to fulfill this promise was tantamount to an abandonment of Czech interests by Great Britain, especially since Halifax hoped that Germany would fail to gain the more moderate solution for the Czechs which was actually achieved at Vienna.


The Vienna Award a Disappointment to Halifax

Ribbentrop discussed the Italo-German arbitration project with Mussolini and Ciano in Rome on October 28, 1938. He also told Mussolini that Hitler was worried about British hostility toward Germany. Hitler and Ribbentrop believed that an Italo-German alliance would discourage the war enthusiasts in England. There was no reference to Japan. This was embarrassing to Mussolini, because Japanese reluctance to sign an alliance pact with Germany and Italy had postponed the issue of an Italo-German alliance in the past. Mussolini was evasive about the proposed alliance, but he was conciliatory about Ruthenia. The settlement of Italo-German differences about Ruthenia was the main object of

Ribbentrop’s visit, and his mission to Rome was a success. Ribbentrop also discussed German-Polish relations with the Italian leaders, and he assured them that Hitler intended to establish German-Polish friendship on a permanent basis.13

Halifax had been more optimistic than Beck about Hungary’s chances to gain Ruthenia through Italo-German arbitration, and the British Foreign Secretary was destined to be disappointed. The main details were settled when Weizsäcker announced in Berlin on October 30, 1938, that Germany and Italy “have undertaken the arbitration of the new Czech-Hungarian frontier.” The arbitration work was carried forward by Ciano and Ribbentrop at Vienna in a friendly atmosphere, and the two diplomats vied with one another in satirizing the reactionary Vienna Peace Congress of 1815.

The Czech and Hungarian missions arrived at Vienna on November 2, 1938, to receive the arbitration award. There were also delegations from Slovakia and Ruthenia. The Hungarians had been. informed after the Ribbentrop visit to Rome that they must limit their claims to Magyar ethnic territory. The Hungarians had requested 14,000 square kilometers of territory from Slovakia and Ruthenia on this basis. Ciano and Ribbentrop granted them 10,000 square kilometers of territory.14

An agreement had been concluded on the basis of self-determination, which Great Britain was no longer willing to advocate in Czecho-Slovakia. Hungary received a very small part of Ruthenia, and Beck’s dream of a common frontier between Hungary and Poland was not realized. The Czechs agreed to begin evacuation of the regions awarded to Hungary on November 5, 1938, and the Magyars were allowed to complete the occupation of the recovered territory by November 10th. The Germans had entered the negotiation with a free hand. Rumania had appealed to Germany on October 28th for a “sign of friendship,” and a promise that Germany “would oppose a common Hungarian-Polish frontier.” The German Government in reply had refused to make a promise to Rumania in a matter to be decided exclusively by Italy and Germany. The problem was simplified because Ciano never insisted on the surrender of the entire Ruthenian area to Hungary.15


New Polish Demands on the Czechs

The Polish Government exploited the Czech-Magyar dispute by presenting Prague with a new ultimatum on October 31, 1938. The Poles demanded six Carpathian border districts from Slovakia. They threatened to attack the Czechs if an affirmative answer was not received the same day. The Czechs capitulated to the latest Polish ultimatum at 5:00 p.m. on October 31st. They also tried to stir up the British against Poland. Newton was informed by Czech Foreign Minister Chvalkovsky that there was reason to believe that this was only the beginning of a regular monthly series of Polish demands. 16

Josef Tiso, who had become the leader of the Slovakian national coalition after the failure of the Sidor mission to Warsaw, was furious at the extent of the Polish demands. He appealed to Germany for protection for the first time. Tiso explained to German Consul-General Ernst vom Druffel at Bratislava on [232] October 31, 1938, that the Polish demands had no ethnic basis, and that they went far beyond the small frontier adjustment suggested earlier. Tiso charged that the Poles were interested in seizing important strategic regions and in obtaining control over the Cadca-Zwardon railway, which would enable them to control communications in a number of Slovakian areas. He complained that they could have no ethnic basis for claiming a number of the highest, and, of course, uninhabited, peaks of the Tatra range of the Carpathians. He insisted that an independent Slovakia would have rejected the Polish demands. The Czechs had accepted them in the name of Slovakia. Tiso developed his favorite theme that Slovakia required the protection of a powerful neighbor. He added that Slovakia in the future would welcome German support against the Poles. The Poles had completed the process of undermining their earlier popularity in Slovakia.17

The Czech authorities also were required to make new concessions to the Poles in Moravia. The Poles promised them that the final delimitation of the Polish-Moravian frontier would be completed by November 15th, and of the Polish-Slovakian frontier by December 1st. The Czechs informed the Germans that they had submitted to Poland because of the military threat. They claimed that Poland would undertake further steps against Czecho-Slovakia despite her promises to the contrary.18

Jozef Beck was dissatisfied by the Vienna Award to Hungary of November 2, 1938, and he attempted several times to persuade the Germans to raise the Ruthenian question again. Ribbentrop responded by sending instructions to German Ambassador Moltke in Warsaw which illuminated the German strategy at Vienna. Moltke informed Beck on November 22, 1938, that Germany would offer no encouragement for a revision of the Ruthenian settlement unless an agreement was achieved between Germany and Poland. He added that Ribbentrop had warned the Hungarians not to challenge the recent Vienna Award “at the present time.” This seemed a superfluous gesture to Beck, who had long since concluded that the Hungarians would take no military action to secure their further aspirations, such as the acquisition of the entire province of Ruthenia. He casually assured Moltke that he would not encourage them in any such endeavor. He vigorously requested that something be done by peaceful negotiation “to meet Hungarian interests.” Moltke replied by emphasizing the need for a German-Polish agreement. He added a private assurance which he hoped would appease the Polish Foreign Minister. He informed Beck that Ribbentrop in Berlin had “told him only yesterday that he did not see why the Ukrainian problem should disturb German-Polish relations.” Moltke assured Beck that Germany had no ambition to exploit Ukrainian nationalism.19

Beck responded to German obstruction of his Ruthenian program by improving Polish relations with the Soviet Union. Russo-Polish relations had been exceptionally unfriendly since the Russian threat on September 23, 1938, to repudiate the Russo-Polish Non-Aggression Pact of 1932. Beck hastened to accept a Russian initiative in November 1938 to improve relations. Soviet Foreign Commissar Litvinov and Polish Ambassador Grzybowski issued a joint declaration on November 26, 1938, which announced an increase in trade between the two nations and the affirmation of their Non-Aggression Pact. The heavily industrialized Teschen region had provided many exports for Russia [233] while under Czech rule, and the Poles were willing to continue this trade. Moltke reported from Warsaw that Beck had conducted the negotiations as a reply to German obstruction in Ruthenia. German Ambassador Schulenburg in Moscow suggested that the Soviet Union considered the declaration to be an indirect protest to the forthcoming Franco-German declaration of friendship.20

Ribbentrop was displeased by the secrecy of Beck’s Russian policy. Lipski had given him no indication that Poland was negotiating with the Soviet Union. He discussed the question with Lipski on December 2, 1938. The Polish Ambassador said that the declaration was the consequence of a natural Polish desire to reduce tension along her eastern frontier. He described with intensity and color the series of border incidents and air battles with the Russians during the Teschen crisis. Ribbentrop assured him that Germany did not object to the Russo-Polish detente, but he was “surprised that Poland did not inform us beforehand.”21

Schulenburg warned Ribbentrop from Moscow on December 3, 1938, that “the Russians have lost every interest in Czechoslovakia since the latter can no longer serve as a barrier against Germany.” Schulenburg concluded that an alignment between the Soviet Union and Poland was no longer out of the question, since the Russians took no exception to Polish aims in Ruthenia. It was obviously in the interest of Russia to see any autonomous Ukrainian community suppressed. Ribbentrop concluded that the Soviet Union had joined the group of nations which favored, or were indifferent about, the further partition of Czecho-Slovakia.22


Czech-German Friction After the Vienna Award

There was considerable friction between the Czechs and Germans after the Vienna Award. The Czechs had by no means decided to throw in their lot with Germany despite the prognostications of Henderson at Berlin. They assured French diplomats at Prague that they had no intention of renouncing their alliance with the Soviet Union.23 Foreign Minister Chvalkovsky complained bitterly to Newton on November 5, 1938, that France was refusing economic aid to the Czechs, after the Munich conference, because she regarded the new Czech state as a German Satellite. The Czech Foreign Minister declared boldly that “it was too early to judge what Czechoslovakia’s eventual position would be.” He hinted that the situation would be clarified in three or six months, after the Czechs had coped with their immediate difficulties. Newton concluded that the Czechs had by no means abandoned the idea of participating in a front against Germany.24

Newton would have been impressed with these remarks had he believed in a future for the Czech state. He predicted to Halifax that Czecho-Slovakia would not survive much longer. Some expert local observers believed that both Slovakia and Ruthenia would be unable to avoid the conclusion that survival was impossible “without some form of association with Hungary.” Chvalkovsky insisted that the Czechs “would like to obtain the guarantee of the Four Munich Powers as soon as possible.” Newton believed that a guarantee would be unwise. He discouraged the Czech Foreign Minister from approaching the British in this [234] question. He assured Chvalkovsky that Great Britain was the least interested of all the Munich Powers in such a guarantee.25

The Czechs complained loudly a few days later about the final delimitation of the Czech-German frontier. They were relieved in October 1938 when Hitler renounced a plebiscite, which undoubtedly would have separated from the Czechs large regions beyond the five zones originally assigned to Germany. It had been agreed that a compromise settlement on the remaining areas in dispute should be completed by November 24, 1938. It was understood that German claims in the final delimitation would be very limited, and in practice they were. This did not discourage the Czechs from using the issue to agitate against Germany. Their statistics on the minority balance between the two nations were a complete inversion of the German figures. It is odd that they feared a border plebiscite when they claimed that only 377,196 Germans remained in Czecho-Slovakia, compared to more than 700,000 Czechs in Germany. They issued a special communiqué on November 6, 1938. which charged that there were twice as many Czechs and Slovaks in Germany as Germans in Czecho-Slovakia.26

The Czechs hoped that this propaganda would prevent the Germans from making any gains in the final border delimitation. They were due for a surprise when they received the German note of November 14, 1938. The Germans suggested border changes which would surrender nearly 40,000 inhabitants of Czecho-Slovakia to Germany. The Germans warned that they would revert to the plebiscite envisaged at the Munich conference if the Czechs refused to be reasonable. The Poles exploited the situation to claim that the changes proposed by the Germans justified the official Polish attitude that the Vienna Award was not final. The tension in Czech-Polish relations was extremely great at this moment, because Poland had expelled a large number of Czechs from the Teschen region.27

The Czechs were powerless to retaliate against Polish expulsion of their nationals, but they could have appealed to the British, French, and Italian members of the International Commission for the delimitation of the Czech-German Border in Berlin. The Czechs instead decided to arrive at an agreement with Germany. The Germans contacted the International Commission and informed them about German policy and the Czech response. A German-Czech agreement was negotiated on November 21, 1938. It was obvious that British diplomats in Berlin were not pleased by the situation, and Ogilvie-Forbes reported to Halifax that “the whole affair is being rushed and I fully appreciate the indignation which may be aroused in the United Kingdom.” In the upshot, this indignation was not very great.28

The Germans informed British diplomats in Berlin that arrangements had been completed with the Czechs for the Breslau-Vienna superhighway, for direct air service between Silesia and Austria, and for a canal to link the Oder and the Baltic Sea with the Danube and the Black Sea by way of the Moravian Corridor. Czech Minister Mastriy at Berlin continued to complain to the British about Czech losses in the border delimitation. He emphasized that the Czechs were losing the winter sport area of Jilemnice, which was popular in Prague, and the historic monument commemorating the Hussite period at Taus, in the area where Jan Hus was born. The Czech envoy concluded with resignation that his Government had decided to sign the agreement with the Germans to avoid more [235] unsatisfactory terms. The Czech Government communiqué of November 6, 1938, on minority figures, had also contained complaints about the cession of territory to Hungary on November 2nd. The sensitive Magyars were furious about the juggled Czech statistics. They published a communiqué on November 21, 1938, which denounced Czech statistics on minorities as a hoax. They offered their own statistics, which presented an entirely different picture.29

Sir Basil Newton inquired in Prague on November 22, 1938, if the Czech Government had raised the question of the territorial guarantee of Czecho-Slovakia in the recent negotiation with Germany. The Czechs replied that this point was not mentioned. The Czechs painted a lively picture of the German development-projects in the hope of alarming the British. They told Newton that German plans called for the completion of the superhighway to Vienna by 1940. The highway was to be fenced off, but the Czechs were free to use it without tolls on their own territory. The Czechs claimed the Germans had referred to plans for a superhighway system extending to Bagdad. They calculated at Prague that the British would be interested to learn of a scheme which was reminiscent of the Bagdad railway achievement of the previous German generation. The entire tone of the various Czech conversations with the British diplomats left no doubt that the Czechs still considered themselves to be the friends of the Soviet Union and the adversaries of Germany.30

The Poles continued to exert pressure on the Czechs. On November 26, 1938, Beck demanded the surrender of the remaining areas to be ceded to Poland on November 27th instead of December 1st. Kennard reported from Warsaw that Beck was furious with the Rumanians at this time. The Rumanian Government had answered Beck’s communiqué on Ruthenia by warning Hungary to respect the provisions of the Vienna Award.31


The Czech Guarantee Sabotaged by Halifax

The British press in late November 1938 was flooded with rumors that Germany was “massing” her troops in preparation for an invasion of Czecho-Slovakia. These irresponsible alarmist rumors originated in London. The British diplomats in Prague informed London that there had been no speculation on such a development in the Czech capital, and Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels at Berlin complained about the irresponsibility of the British press. Current history consisted of wars and rumors of wars for the British journalists of the 1930’s. The unfounded rumors in the British press attracted public attention to the question of the promised territorial guarantee of Czecho-Slovakia. This was a useful barometer, because the British Government did not share what little enthusiasm there was in England for a guarantee. Another rumor was circulated that the Soviet Union would join the guaranteeing Powers. Kennard responded to it from Warsaw with a report to Halifax which contained an interesting and valuable insight into the attitude of the Polish leaders toward the Soviet Union.

Halifax was informed that the Poles were opposed to a guarantee of Czecho-Slovakia, and that they would never respect any arrangement which included the Soviet Union as a guaranteeing Power. The Poles argued that the Russians could not execute a guarantee to the Czechs without crossing Polish territory. [236]

Kennard warned Halifax that the Poles would never permit Russian troops to operate on their territory. Halifax did not contest the validity of this unequivocal declaration from Kennard. This did not prevent him from urging the Poles eight months later to permit the operation of Russian troops on their territory.32

Kennard explained to Halifax on November 30, 1938, that the Polish leaders regarded Russia as their hereditary enemy. They were convinced that Russia intended to create a Communist Poland. It seemed obvious to the Poles that the Russians intended to seize the Polish Eastern territories. These factors prompted them to reject categorically any plan which involved Russian military intervention in Central Europe. Kennard assured Halifax that there was ‘no hope of the Polish attitude changing.” Furthermore, Kennard agreed that the Russian threat was “undeniably a position of real danger for them.” Kennard admitted in this one instance that a German-Polish war would be disastrous for Poland. The hostile Soviet Union in the Polish rear deprived the Poles of any hope in such an encounter. Kennard was not yet aware that Poland would be assigned a crucial role in the campaign of Halifax to foment a major war against Germany. Kennard noted the concern of foreign diplomats at Warsaw “that the Poles may now drift into a clash with Germany,” but he added that “in any case, even though the Poles are suffering from a swollen head at present, they are unlikely to provoke Germany beyond safe limits.” Kennard did not define what he meant by Polish provocation within safe limits.33

Halifax sent several of Sir Howard Kennard’s dispatches to Sir Basil Newton at Prague. Newton was less enthusiastic than Kennard about the Poles. He observed tartly in his subsequent report to Halifax that later events would decide whether the Polish anti-Czech policy was justifiable. He claimed that “nothing can be said in justification of their methods.” Newton believed that Poland was incredibly foolish to incur the wrath of the Slovaks. He noted that “Poland could probably have had an influential position in Slovakia for the asking.” Karol Sidor had been “notoriously pro-Polish up to a few weeks ago,” but there were no longer any champions of Poland among the Slovak leaders. Newton noted that Slovakia was hostile toward both Poland and the Czechs, and that it was a natural consequence for the Slovaks to turn to Germany for assistance.

Newton condemned the Poles for “the utterly ruthless policy toward the Czech inhabitants” in the former Czech regions which had been obtained by Poland. He noted that not alone “were the Czechs the only sufferers, for the Germans too were often ill-treated.” It was known in Czecho-Slovakia that at Teschen the local Germans and Czechs often made common cause against the Poles. Newton found it difficult to believe that Polish gains were “commensurate with the odium incurred.” He noted that the Czech Government had recently promised to treat the remaining German minority within their territory more decently in the future. It may be wondered how Halifax could later accept the claims of Kennard that Polish treatment of the minorities within her jurisdiction was exemplary.34

Ogilvie-Forbes on December 6, 1938, reported to Halifax from Berlin on rumors that Hitler would abandon self-determination in dealing with the Czech problem if the conditions in the area remained unsatisfactory. Great Britain and France had taken no steps to implement the territorial guarantee promised to [237] the Czechs at Munich. Halifax and Chamberlain had discussed the guarantee question when they visited the French leaders at Paris on November 24, 1938. Daladier and Bonnet was no reason why the guarantee could not be implemented if Germany and Italy had no objections. They told the British leaders that they assumed each guaranteeing Power would be individually responsible for the defense of the Czech status quo. The French were astonished to discover that Halifax did not share this view. He suggested a plan which seemed nothing more than a hoax to Bonnet. Halifax proposed that the guarantee would not be operative in the event of a German violation unless Mussolini agreed to support Great Britain and France against Germany. The French objected that this guarantee would be sterile and futile, and that it would be better to ignore the question than to propose it. Mussolini had refused to oppose the invasion of Austria by Germany, although Austria in early March 1938 was an Italian sphere of influence. It was unthinkable that Mussolini would oppose Hitler on behalf of the Czechs.35

These French objections left Halifax completely unmoved. He responded that there would be no guarantee at all unless the Powers accepted his formula. Halifax added that other states, such as Poland, could guarantee the Czech state if they wished to and on their own terms. He did believe that a Soviet Russian territorial guarantee to Czecho-Slovakia would be unwise, because it would provoke both Germany and Poland. The difficulty which was raised between the French and British leaders by the Halifax formula of November 24, 1938, was never resolved. The French and British took several perfunctory steps at Berlin in the guarantee question during the following months, but these steps were feeble and unconvincing, because there was no program behind them. Halifax never explained to the French leaders why he would not compromise in the guarantee question. The French naturally concluded that the British wished to avoid any guarantee to the Czechs. Newton inquired from Prague about the guarantee question on December 8, 1938, and Halifax admitted in reply that the French refused to accept the British formula.36

Newton was not displeased to learn that the Czechs would receive no guarantee. He predicted that the collapse of Czecho-Slovakia was inevitable with or without a guarantee. He knew “from several sources that the Czechs are to-day more worried by their internal than their external difficulties.” He cited Slovakia as golden proof of the fact that “the Czechs for some reason lack the gift of making themselves popular.” He found no sympathy whatever in Slovakia for the “woes” of the Czechs, and he noted that the German minority in Czecho-Slovakia continued to have many grievances. These valid points provided valuable support to Halifax in his policy of evading the British promises to the Czechs, which had been made at Munich.37


Czech Appeals Ignored by Halifax

The Czechs were annoyed and mystified by the impasse in the guarantee question. They did not know that Halifax at Paris had sabotaged the proposed guarantee on November 24, 1938. Czech Foreign Minister Chvalkovsky complained to Newton on December 11th that the Czech Government had not [238] been consulted at Munich, and that it had no basis to “express views to the four powers in regard to the fulfillment of their promises.” Chvalkovsky admitted that the Czechs were in a “delicate position” on the home front, and that they would be thankful for any kind of guarantee. He sensed that Great Britain and France were reluctant to take the initiative in the question, although he would. have expected them to do so rather than Germany or Italy. The Czechs in the past had been more friendly to Great Britain and France than to the Axis Powers. He would not object if the natural order was reversed. He would accept separate guarantees from Germany and Italy, with the understanding that Great Britain and France would follow suit at some later date. Chvalkovskly claimed. that he was yearning for the “peace and neutrality” of Switzerland, which had been undisturbed since 1815. The Czech Foreign Minister may not have realized that there had been several instances in which Switzerland was in extreme peril from threatened French and Austrian invasions during the two generations after 1815. The Swiss security of 1938 had not been built in a day, despite the international guarantee of the Vienna Congress.38

Halifax was informed of Czech wishes, but nothing was done to meet them. The British Foreign Secretary interpreted Newton’s report to mean that the Czechs did not expect the British to fulfill their guarantee obligation. Henderson and Coulondre announced in Berlin on December 22, 1938, that France and Great Britain would approve of a separate German guarantee to the Czechs. This proposal did not help the Czecho-Slovak cause. The Germans saw no reason why they should take the initiative in guaranteeing a state which recently had operated in a militant front against them, when France, the actual ally of the Czechs, displayed no willingness to do so. The Munich conference agreement had stipulated that identical action should be taken by the Four Powers.39

The Germans suspected that the British and French would soon pursue the question and offer some suggestion along the lines of the Munich agreement. Nothing of the sort happened. It seemed that the more interest the Czechs showed, the more negative the British attitude in the guarantee question became. The argument against the guarantee was eloquently expressed to Halifax by Ogilvie-Forbes on January 3, 1939. The British diplomats knew that Halifax opposed the guarantee, and they vied with one another in reinforcing his position. Ogilvie-Forbes contended that Great Britain could not “guarantee the status quo in Central and Eastern Europe,” unless she was seeking a war.40 This was a drastic statement, but it proved only too true when Great Britain guaranteed Poland three months later. The professional diplomats at the British Foreign Office were fully aware of the true nature of British policy toward the Czechs after Munich. Sir William Strang, the chief of the Central Office which dealt with Germany, declared that the guarantee which the British had promised the Czechs was merely “a sham.”41


Hitler’s Support of the Slovak Independence Movement

Hitler made no public pretense of having found a permanent policy in dealing with the Czechs during this period. He told anyone who cared to listen that he did not know what future developments would be in the Czech area. The Belgian [239] legation at Berlin was elevated to an Embassy on November 21, 1938, and afterward Belgian Ambassador Vicomte Jacques Davignon attended a special reception held by Hitler at Berchtesgaden. The conversation between Hitler and Davignon turned to the Czech question. Hitler explained that German relations with Czecho-Slovakia were far from settled and he enumerated the difficulties which were unresolved. Davignon was impressed with the frankness of Hitler’s remarks.42

The negotiations between Czech Foreign Minister Chvalkovsky and the Germans in January 1939 were unsatisfactory. The Germans objected to the large Czech army, and to the continuation of the Czech-Soviet alliance. They were disturbed by the numerous higher officials in the Czech Government who expressed anti-German views, and by the tone of the Czech press. Chvalkovsky came to Berlin on January 21, 1939, to discuss these problems. He adopted a defiant attitude, and he told the Germans that a reduction of the Czech army would depend on German willingness to take the initiative in granting a territorial guarantee to the Czechs. The Germans were annoyed by this defiance, and they were tired of the requests for unilateral German action in the guarantee question. The German-Czech communiqué of January 28, 1939, concluded the fruitless negotiation. It was limited to a few minor points about the exchange of railroad facilities and the treatment of minorities.43

Reports were reaching Berlin that opposition to Czech rule was increasing in Slovakia, and Edmund Veesenmayer, from the National Socialist Foreign Policy Office, was sent to Slovakia by Ribbentrop to investigate conditions. The Germans received abundant confirmation that the Slovaks wished to end Czech rule. A meeting was arranged on February 12, 1939, between Hitler and Adalbert Tuka, the veteran leader of the Slovak independence movement. Tuka told Hitler that his experience in Czech courts and Czech prisons gave him the right to speak for the Slovak nation. Tuka declared that the continuation of Slovak association with the Czechs had become impossible for both moral and economic reasons. The Czechs had broken their political promises to the Slovaks, and they had exploited and damaged the Slovakian economy. Tuka declared that he was determined to achieve independence for the Slovak nation in collaboration with the other Slovakian nationalist leaders. The remarks of Tuka were consistent with what he had been saying for several months. The important fact was that Hitler willingly invited him to Germany to hear him say it. It was evident that Chvalkovsky had adopted an attitude of recalcitrance to provoke Hitler to choose a definite policy. The existing situation was one of complete uncertainty in which the Czechs received no support from abroad and constantly lost ground in their efforts to control their minorities at home. The response of Hitler was a definite decision against support to the Czecho-Slovak state, and a decision in favor of support to the Slovaks in their struggles against Prague. The result of this decision was soon apparent. The Czech position in Slovakia had been deteriorating before February 1939, but it collapsed altogether within a few weeks after Hitler received Tuka.44

 [240]
President Roosevelt Propagandized by Halifax

Halifax continued to maintain a detached attitude toward the Czech problem, and he secretly circulated rumors both at home and abroad which presented the foreign policy of Hitler in the worst possible light. Hitler would have been condemned by Halifax for anything he did in Czechoslovakia. Had he decided to throw German weight behind the Czechs in an effort to maintain Czech rule over the Slovaks, he would have been denounced for converting the Czech state into a German puppet regime. His decision to support the Slovaks should be denounced as a sinister plot to disrupt the Czecho-Slovak state which the Munich Powers had failed to protect with their guarantee.

The situation is illustrated by the message which Halifax dispatched to President Roosevelt on January 24, 1939. Halifax claimed to have received “a large number of reports from various reliable sources which throw a most disquieting light on Hitler’s mood and intentions.” He repeated the tactic he had used with Kennedy about Hitler’s allegedly fierce hatred of Great Britain. Halifax believed that Hitler had guessed that Great Britain was “the chief obstacle now to the fulfillment of his further ambitions.” It was not really necessary for Hitler to do more than read the record of what Halifax and Chamberlain had said at Rome to recognize that Great Britain was the chief threat to Germany, but it was untrue to suggest that Hitler had modified his goal of Anglo-German cooperation in peace and friendship.

Halifax developed his theme with increasing warmth. He claimed that Hitler had recently planned to establish an independent Ukraine, and that he intended to destroy the Western Powers in a surprise attack before he moved into the East. Not only British intelligence but “highly placed Germans who are anxious to prevent this crime” had furnished evidence of this evil conspiracy. This was a lamentable distortion of what German opposition figures, such as Theo Kordt and Carl Gördeler, had actually confided to the British during recent months. None of them had suggested that Hitler had the remotest intention of attacking either Great Britain or France.45

Roosevelt was informed by Halifax that Hitler might seek to push Italy into war in the Mediterranean to find an excuse to fight. This was the strategy which Halifax himself hoped to adopt by pushing Poland into war with Germany. Halifax added that Hitler planned to invade Holland, and to offer the Dutch East Indies to Japan. He suggested to Roosevelt that Hitler would present an ultimatum to Great Britain, if he could not use Italy as a pawn to provoke a war. Halifax added casually that the British leaders expected a surprise German attack from the air before the ultimatum arrived. He assured Roosevelt that this surprise attack might occur at any time. He claimed that the Germans were mobilizing for this effort at the very moment he was preparing this report.

The British Foreign Secretary reckoned that Roosevelt might have some doubt about these provocative and mendacious claims. He hastened to top one falsehood with another by claiming that an “economic and financial crisis was facing Germany” which would compel the allegedly bankrupt Germans to adopt these desperate measures. He added with false modesty that some of this “may sound fanciful and even fantastic and His Majesty’s Government have no wish to be alarmist.”

Halifax feared that he had not yet made his point. He returned to the Chargé and emphasized “Hitler’s mental condition, his insensate rage against Great Britain and his megalomania.” He warned Roosevelt that the German underground movement was impotent, and that there would be no revolt in Germany during the initial phase of World War II. He confided that Great Britain was greatly increasing her armament program, and he believed that it was his duty to enlighten Roosevelt about Hitler’s alleged intentions and attitudes “in view of the relations of confidence which exist between our two Governments and the degree to which we have exchanged information hitherto.” Halifax claimed that Chamberlain was contemplating a public warning to Germany prior to Hitler’s annual Reichstag speech on January 30, 1939. This was untrue, but Halifax hoped to goad Roosevelt into making another alarmist and bellicose speech. He suggested that Roosevelt should address a public warning to Germany without delay.46

Anthony Eden had been sent to the United States by Halifax, in December 1938, to spread rumors about sinister German plans, and Roosevelt had responded with a provocative and insulting warning to Germany in his message to Congress on January 4, l939.47 Halifax hoped that a second performance of this kind would be useful in preparing the basis for the war propaganda with which he hoped to deluge the British public. He did not achieve the desired response to this specific proposal. Secretary of State Hull explained, in what a British diplomat at Washington, D.C., jokingly described as “his most oracular style,” that the Administration was blocked in such efforts at the moment by hostile American public opinion. Halifax was comforted on January 27, 1939, when he was informed officially that “the United States Government had for some time been basing their policy upon the possibility of just such a situation arising as was foreshadowed in your telegram.” This was another way of saying that the New Deal, which had shot the bolt of its reforms in a futile effort to end the American depression, was counting on the outbreak of a European war.48

Halifax learned on January 30, 1939, that leading American “experts” disagreed with a few of the details of his analysis of the Dutch situation. They expected Hitler to mobilize his forces along the Dutch frontier and to demand the surrender of large portions of the Dutch East Indies without firing a shot. The ostensible purpose of this Rooseveltian fantasy would be to “humiliate Great Britain” and to “bribe Japan.” This dispatch was not sent on April Fool’s Day, and it was intended seriously. It enabled Halifax to see that he had pitched his message accurately to the political perspective of Roosevelt, Hull, and their advisers. Anyone in their entourage who did not declare that Hitler was hopelessly insane was virtually ostracized. Roosevelt hoped to have a long discussion with Joseph Stalin at Teheran in 1943 about the alleged insanity of Adolf Hitler. He was disappointed when Stalin abruptly ended this phase of the conversation with the blunt comment that Hitler was not insane. It was like telling the naked Emperor that he was wearing no clothes. It was evident to Stalin that Roosevelt was a clever and unscrupulous politician who lacked the qualities of the statesman.49

[242]
Halifax Warned of the Approaching Slovak Crisis

The British and French did not approach the Germans again on the Czech guarantee question until February 8, 1939. The Anglo-French disagreement about the guarantee remained, and their inquiry at Berlin was a casual one. Coulondre, the French Ambassador, merely said that he would welcome German suggestions about the guarantee. Ribbentrop discussed the matter with the Western Ambassadors, and he promised to study the current Czech situation before replying to them. The casual nature of the Anglo-French démarche encouraged Ribbentrop and Hitler to believe that the Western leaders were not vitally concerned about the problem.50

The Czech situation deteriorated rapidly during the weeks which followed. Ribbentrop discussed the guarantee question with Coulondre on March 2, 1939, and with Henderson on March 3rd. He told them that Germany had definitely decided against a German initiative in the guarantee question. He added that conditions in Czecho-Slovakia were exceedingly precarious and unstable. Ribbentrop believed that Czech internal conditions precluded a guarantee, and he dropped the pointed hint that a guarantee by the Western Powers might increase the existing difficulties. This was particularly significant, because Great Britain and France had shown no indication of taking any initiative.

The British and French Governments had received formal notes from Germany on February 28, 1939, which stated the German position against the guarantee. Ribbentrop noted in his conversations with the French and British Ambassadors several days later that no instructions had been sent to them which might have enabled them to contest the German position. The Germans had been frank in rejecting the guarantee, and the British and French Governments had failed to respond.

Czech-German friction was a dominant note during the period between the Anglo-French démarche of February 8, 1939, and the German reply of February 28th. The Czechs continued to reject the Sudeten Jews who had elected to remain Czech under the Munich terms. The Czechs simply insisted that they did not want the Jews. They complained to British diplomats in Prague that the Jews “had been even more active than Christian Germans in Germanising Bohemia in the old days.” They further complained that 21,000 Czechs from the Sudetenland had elected Czech citizenship, but that very few of the Germans in Czecho-Slovakia had elected German citizenship. The Czechs attributed this state of affairs to a deliberate German plot to maintain a large minority in the Czech area.51

Halifax learned on February 18, 1939, that Germany was considering intervention in Czecho-Slovakia. Henderson reported one of his “usual frank talks” with Marshal Göring on the morning of February 18th. The German Marshal was in excellent spirits. He had taken off forty pounds of excess weight, and he was planning a pleasant vacation at San Remo early in March. The conversation soon turned to serious subjects of high policy. Göring knew that “the vast sums of money for British rearmament” were either for British defenses or for a British preventive war against Germany. Göring confided that the Germans had reduced their arms expenditure after Munich until British measures prompted them to increase their own military budget. Göring [243] analyzed the current situation, and he claimed that German arms were costing less than British arms.52

Göring reminded Henderson that Hitler was more interested in peace than in war. Henderson reported to Halifax that in his opinion the German Marshal was absolutely sincere in this statement. Göring assured Henderson that there were no German plans for action on a large scale. He added that the British could expect to witness plenty of action on a relatively small scale in the immediate German neighborhood. He informed Henderson specifically”... that Memel will eventually and possibly sooner rather than later revert to Germany is a foregone conclusion and a settlement as regards Danzig equally so, Czecho-Slovakia may also be squeezed.” This was a blunt and frank confession which ordinarily would have been made only between Allies. It was a clear warning that decisive developments could be expected on the Czech scene. Weizsäcker predicted to Henderson on the same day that none of the questions arising in 1939 would “lead to a serious risk in the relations between the two countries.”53


Halifax’s Decision to Ignore the Crisis

Halifax was aware that a crisis was approaching, and he responded in the manner best calculated to serve his own purposes. The newspapers close to the Government, such as the London Times, were advised to desist from spreading alarmist reports and to present an optimistic and complacent view of the contemporary scene. The leading spokesmen of the Government were encouraged to make optimistic and conciliatory statements. The alarmist campaign of the Government, which had begun to reach a climax after January 1939, was allowed to subside temporarily. Halifax hoped to convince the British public that Hitler was launching unexpected bolts from the blue when the inevitable climax of the Czech crisis arrived.54

Increasingly serious internal difficulties faced the Czech state. The Slovak ministers demanded of their Czech colleagues, at the mid-February joint-meeting of the Central, Slovakian, and Ruthenian ministries, to drop the anti-German men in the Central Cabinet from their posts. The demands were not met. The leaders of the German minority claimed that the Czechs were applying economic pressures to force them to elect German citizenship and move to German territory. Theodor Kundt, a German minority leader, delivered a sensational speech at the German House in Prague on February 17, 1939. He demanded a return to the treatment that the Germans had been accorded by the Bohemian kings, many of whom had been German princes, in the old days. The Slovaks were angered by the Czech refusal to permit the Slovak soldiers of the Czecho-Slovak army to garrison Slovakia. The Prague Government was determined to keep the Czech troops in Slovakia, and the Slovak units in Bohemia. It was evident that a final breach was approaching between the Czech and Slovak leaders.55

The Czech Government was desperately searching for added prestige with which to meet the domestic crisis, and to ward off the spreading conviction that the Czecho-Slovak experiment was doomed to failure. On February 22, 1939, [244] the Czechs presented an aide-mémoire to the Four Munich Powers which contained an appeal for the territorial guarantee. The Czechs at last agreed to renounce their alliances and declare their neutrality in exchange for a guarantee.56

The Czech note aroused no enthusiasm in London. Sir Alexander Cadogan, the Permanent Under-Secretary at the British Foreign Office, complained that the Czechs had not made it clear whether or not they intended to declare their neutrality unilaterally in order to become eligible for the guarantee. The Swiss in the 19th century had declared their own neutrality before accepting the international guarantee of the Powers. This was an interesting point, but the British Government displayed no interest in obtaining clarification about it from the Czechs.57

Halifax conversed with German Ambassador Dirksen on the day the Czech note was received at London, but he did not mention the Czech problem. Dirksen was about to return to Germany on leave, and he reminded Halifax that Ribbentrop was more pro-British than ever in his attitude. Halifax responded by assuring Dirksen that England “would be glad to receive Ribbentrop on a visit.”58

The Germans were very frank with the British at this time, and they had little reason to suspect that anything they might do in Czecho-Slovakia would compromise their relations with Great Britain. Dirksen spoke with Chamberlain on February 23, 1939, before departing for Germany. Chamberlain inquired if many Germans had fled from the Sudetenland to Prague, as political refugees from National Socialism. Dirksen conceded that 13,000 German opponents of Hitler had deserted the Sudetenland for the Bohemian interior, before German troops had completed the occupation of Sudeten territory.59

British diplomats in Prague reported on February 25, 1939, that the Czech Government had decided not to permit German and Jewish refugees from the Sudetenland to remain Czech citizens, and they continued to refuse entry permits to the Jews.60 The Czechs were resolved to employ stern measures in dealing with the Slovaks. British diplomats in Bratislava, Slovakia, warned London on February 26, 1939, that Slovak dissatisfaction with the Czechs was approaching a climax, and that German influence in Slovakia was increasing.. They further warned that the climax of the Slovak crisis could be expected in the immediate future. Halifax took this warning seriously, and he informed British Ambassador Lindsay in Washington, D.C., on February 27, 1939, that he had received information “pointing to the possibility of a military occupation of Czechoslovakia.”6t

Hitler served as host at his annual dinner for the Diplomatic Corps in Berlin on March 1, 1939, two days after the Halifax telegram to Lindsay. This was the last occasion on which he appeared in formal evening attire. He spoke to the accredited envoys individually, He declared fervently to Henderson, in the presence of the other envoys, that “he admired the British Empire.” Hitler emphasized the absence of serious points of conflict in Anglo-German relations. He told Henderson that on this occasion he did not consider it necessary to invite the British Ambassador to call afterward for a special talk on the problems of Anglo-German relations. Henderson had no instructions to discuss the Czech question with Hitler.62
[245]
The Czech and Slovak leaders were deadlocked in important negotiations on financial questions throughout the first week of March 1939. The Czech Government moved to strengthen its military hold in Ruthenia on March 6, 1939, and the Ruthenian autonomous Government was summarily dismissed by the Prague authorities. Newton warned London again on that day that “relations between the Czechs and the Slovaks seem to be heading for a crisis.”63

The Polish leaders discussed the ‘Slovakian “movement for independence” with British diplomats at Warsaw. Kennard reported to Halifax on March 7, 1939, that a member of the Slovak Government was due to arrive in Warsaw the same day on a special mission. The Poles were aware that Germany was becoming the dominant foreign force in Slovakia, and the Polish attitude toward Slovak independence was more reserved than in the past. Kennard learned that, nevertheless, the Poles intended to tell the Slovak emissary that “whatever they do Poland would still regard Slovakia with sympathy.” The Poles were willing to give the Slovaks the encouraging assurance that Poland would guarantee the new frontier with independent Slovakia. The Slovaks were to be assured that the Polish leaders did not believe Hungary would object to Slovak independence.

Kennard believed that the continuing Polish policy of encouraging Slovak independence resulted from Polish impatience to settle the Ruthenian question. The Poles were still disappointed that Italy had failed them at Vienna, and they were complaining that Ciano “has clearly not the courage to do anything which might displease the Reich.” Kennard concluded that the Poles remained opposed to the preservation of the Czecho-Slovak state.64

Chvalkovsky asserted to British diplomats at Prague on March 8th that Hitler had used a clever formula to eliminate the possibility of further negotiation about a separate German territorial guarantee to Czecho-Slovakia. He recalled that the German Chancellor had said the Poles and Hungarians should be willing to accept the present territorial status quo as a condition for the guarantee. Chvaikovsky complained bitterly that Poland and Hungary would never agree to this.65


The Climax of the Slovak Crisis

The climax of the Slovak crisis arrived on March 9, 1939, when the Prague Government dismissed the four principal Slovak ministers from the local Government at Bratislava.66 Henderson reported from Berlin with conclusive evidence that Germany was supporting the Slovakian independence movement. The London Times responded by assuring its readers that the European situation was calm.67 Geoffrey Dawson, the editor of the Times, noted in his private diary on March 12, 1939, that the Czechs and Slovaks were fighting in the streets of Bratislava. On the following day, the Times repeated that the European situation was calm, and it assured its readers that Germany had no demands upon her neighbors. Dawson wrote in his diary on the same day that Hitler was taking Chargé of the trouble in Slovakia “in his usual bullying way.” This friend of Halifax had matched in journalism the duplicity which characterized the diplomacy of the British Foreign Secretary.68
[    246]    

Henderson was puzzled by the failure of the leading British newspapers to refer to the crisis in Slovakia. He reported to Halifax on March 11th that the German press was devoting much attention to the Czech-Slovak controversy, and that it was carrying the announcement that Tiso had appealed to the German Government for aid. Halifax learned from Warsaw on the same day that the Polish leaders expressed no concern about the future of Bohemia-Moravia, but they were bitter that Germany, and not Poland, was in a position to secure the dominant influence in Slovakia. The Polish leaders still hoped that some alternative to an independent Slovakia under German protection would emerge, but the prospects were distinctly unfavorable. The Poles were concentrating on their own campaign in support of the Hungarian acquisition of Ruthenia at Czech expense. Halifax was warned on March 12th that agitators in Bohemia-Moravia were blaming the Slovakian crisis on the Germans, and that fanatical groups of Czechs were marching through the streets of Bruenn singing Hrom a Peklo (Thunder and Hell, i.e. to the Germans).

Joseph Kirschbaum, at the time a prominent Slovak politician and later a professor at the University of Montreal in Canada, has refuted the claim of the American journalist, William Shirer, that the Germans intimidated the Slovaks and thus forced them to break once and for all with the Czechs. Karol Sidor had agreed on March 10th to head an interim administration in Slovakia. A mission of German notables from Vienna, including State Secretary Wilhelm Keppler, Austrian Governor Arthur Seyss-Inquart, and Gauleiter Joseph Buerckel, arrived in Bratislava late on the same day to discuss the situation with Sidor. There was a friendly exchange of views, and the German leaders departed with the satisfaction of knowing that Sidor had no intention of conducting a policy in opposition to Tiso and the other Slovakian leaders. Tiso continued to hold the initiative as the recognized leader in Slovakian politics, and all of his decisions during the crisis were made with the full approval of his principal confederates.

Hitler agreed on March 13, 1939, not to oppose a Hungarian invasion of Ruthenia, and he received a special message of thanks from Regent Horthy of Hungary on the same day. Josef Tiso, the Slovakian leader, arrived in Berlin by way of Vienna on March 13th, and he met Hitler in a hurried conference. Hitler explained that the German press had been criticizing Czech policies for several days because he had granted permission to do so. He had decided that Germany should not tolerate the permanent unrest and uncertainty which existed in Czecho-Slovakia. Hitler admitted that until recently he had been unaware of the strength of the independence movement in Slovakia. He promised Tiso that he would support Slovakia if she continued to demonstrate her will to independence. Tiso replied that Hitler could rely on Slovakia.69

Halifax prepared a curious analysis of this situation for Henderson in Berlin, which was obviously designed to occupy a prominent place in the future official record of events. This analysis culminated in the following statement: “During the last few weeks there had certainly been a negative improvement in the situation, in that rumors and scares have died down, and it is not plain that the German Government are planning mischief in any particular quarter. (I hope they may not be taking, even as I write, an unhealthy interest in the Slovak situation).”70

This is an extraordinary performance from the man who two weeks earlier predicted the likelihood of a German military occupation of Czecho-Slovakia in the immediate future. Fortunately, it is possible to compare this analysis with a memorandum written by F.N. Roberts and possibly dictated by Halifax on March 13, 1939. This memorandum, in contrast to the message to Henderson, contained a shrewd and accurate estimate of the Slovak crisis. It ended with the statement that “the position in Slovakia seems to have been thoroughly unsatisfactory since Munich,” and that Hitler may “come off the fence, and march on Prague.” The march on Prague was considered to be a logical move on the part of Hitler to meet the exigencies of the current crisis. One almost has the feeling that the author was saying that, if he were Hitler, he would march on Prague. It is important to note that the memorandum was prepared before there was the slightest indication of what Hitler would do beyond encouraging the Slovaks.7l

German Ambassador Moltke at Warsaw, who had failed to interpret correctly the policy of Poland during the Czech crisis in 1938, was puzzled by the Polish attitude in March 1939. He wondered why Poland continued to advocate the dissolution of Czecho-Slovakia when it was obvious that Germany would benefit from this development far more than Poland. He knew that the Polish leaders were interested in Ruthenia, and that Slovakian independence would solve the Ukrainian problem by cutting off Ruthenia from Prague.

Moltke reported on March 13th that Poland was “quite obviously adverse” to an independent Slovakia under German influence, because this would increase the potential military danger from Germany. It seemed to Moltke that Poland would lose much more in Slovakia than she would gain by having Hungary in Ruthenia. Moltke concluded that the Poles might be playing a double game. There was a rumor in Warsaw that the Czechs had appealed for Polish help against the Slovaks, offering Ruthenia in exchange. Moltke considered it improbable that the Czechs had proposed this, but he believed that the Poles were capable of making this proposition to the Czechs.

Moltke did not deny that the Polish attitude toward Germany was currently friendly on the surface, but he argued that the stakes were high in Slovakia, and that Poland “has to fear that now the independence of Slovakia would only mean alignment with Germany.” Moltke was again mistaken in his analysis of an important situation, and at Berlin the possibility of a Polish-Czech deal was ignored. The German diplomat had failed to weigh the factor of the Polish desire to witness the final elimination of their Czech rivals.72


The Hitler-Hacha Pact

Tiso had the support of Ferdinand Durcansky, who had formerly advocated the experiment of Slovak autonomy under Czech rule, in his bid for Slovak independence. Tiso and Durcansky together could count on the unanimous support of the Slovakian Diet. They decided at 3:00 a.m. on March 14th to convene the Diet later the same morning, and to request the Slovakian deputies to vote a declaration of independence. This strategy was successful, and March 14th became Slovakian independence day. When Hitler received word of the [248] Slovakian independence vote, he instructed Weizsäcker that Germany had decided to recognize Slovakia, and he ordered him to inform the foreign diplomats in Berlin of this fact. Weizsäcker discussed the situation with Henderson. The British Ambassador complained that the Vienna radio had encouraged the Slovakian independence bid. Weizsäcker replied by repeating what many foreign diplomats had reported during the months since the Anschluss. He commented to Henderson that in many respects “Austria was largely independent of Berlin.”

Henderson had no instructions from Halifax to deal with the crisis, but he took a serious step on his own initiative. He contacted Czech Minister Mastny on March 14th and urged him to suggest that Chva1kovsky should come to Berlin to discuss the situation with Hitler. The Czechs responded favorably to Henderson’s suggestion. Newton was working closely with Henderson, and he reported from Prague a few hours later that President Hacha and Chvalkovsky had received permission from the Germans to come to Berlin. The Czech leaders left Prague by special train at 4:00 pm. on March 14, 1939. The subsequent conference with the Germans proved to be a decisive event in Czech history. It began and ended on the early morning of March 15th. A Czech-German agreement was concluded which provided for an autonomous Bohemian Moravian regime under German protection.73

The Czech President was correctly received at Berlin with the full military honors due to a visiting chief of state. Hitler met his train and presented flowers and chocolates to Hacha’s daughter, who accompanied the Czech statesmen. Hacha’s daughter denied to Allied investigators, after World War II, that her father had been subjected to any unusual pressure during his visit to Berlin. The meeting with the German leaders lasted from 1:15 a.m. to 2:15 a.m. on March 15th; Hacha described the full details to his daughter after returning to his hotel. Hitler, Hacha, Chvalkovsky, Ribbentrop, Marshal Göring, and General Keitel had attended the meeting. Hacha made a plea for the continuation of full Czech independence, and he offered to reduce the Czech army. Hitler rejected this plea, and he announced that German troops would enter Bohemia-Moravia the same day. The Germans made it quite clear that they were prepared to crush any Czech resistance.

Hacha, who was bothered by heart trouble, had a mild heart attack during his session with the German leaders. He agreed to accept German medical assistance, and he quickly recovered. This was a great relief to everyone, for the Germans dreaded to think of what sensational foreign journalists might have reported had Hacha died in Berlin. Hacha and Chvalkovsky agreed to telephone Prague to advise against resistance. The remaining time was devoted to the negotiation of an outline agreement, and some of the details were arranged between the Czechs and the Germans at Prague on March 15th and 16th. The main German advance into Bohemia-Moravia did not begin until after the conclusion of the Berlin meeting between the Czech and German leaders. An exception was made in one instance. The Germans and Czechs had been concerned since October 1938 lest the Poles seek to seize the key Moravian industrial center of Morava-Ostrava. Hitler had ordered special German units to enter the area late on March 14th to prevent this eventuality. The local Czech population understood the situation, and there was no violence.74

The Hungarian Government presented a twelve hour ultimatum to the Czechs on March 14, 1939. The Czechs submitted, and the Hungarian military occupation of Ruthenia began the same day.75 Henderson had been informed of Germany’s intention to occupy Bohemia-Moravia, before the arrival of Hacha and Chvalkovsky at Berlin. The British Ambassador immediately informed Halifax of this German decision, but he received only ambiguous instructions in reply. Halifax empowered Henderson to say that Great Britain had no desire to interfere in matters where other countries were more directly concerned, but she “would deplore any action in Central Europe which would cause a setback to the growth of this general confidence on which all improvement in the economic situation depends and to which such improvement might in its turn contribute.” This Sphinx-like pronouncement was not easily intelligible, and Henderson could do little more than assure the Germans that Great Britain would not interfere with their Czech policy.76


Halifax’s Challenge to Hitler

Henderson hoped that the British reaction to the crisis would be mild. He wired Halifax that in this situation the best hope was “in the recognition of the fact that the guarantors of the Vienna Award (Germany and Italy) are the parties primarily interested.” It would have been possible for Halifax to follow this sensible suggestion, and to exert a restraining influence on British public reaction to the hurried events of the crisis. Winston Churchill, who had expert knowledge of British public opinion and no knowledge of the current Halifax policy, did not expect the British leaders to change their course because of what had happened at Prague. He knew that it would have been possible for Chamberlain and Halifax to guide British public opinion along the lines of appeasement after March 1939, and he was amazed by the sudden switch in British policy a few days after Hitler arrived at Prague. It was evident that Halifax chose on his own volition to ignore the advice of Henderson, and not because he was responding to an imaginary pressure to do so.77

The story of the British reaction to Prague is the story of the British balance of power policy in 1939. Hitler’s move to Prague was merely the signal for the British to drop the mask of their false appeasement policy. The British leaders had made extensive preparations for this step since the Munich conference, and they would not have been at a loss to find some other pretext to implement it, had the Czech crisis in 1939 taken a different course. The proof of their effort to place more emphasis on an imaginary crisis in Rumania in March 1939 than on the real crisis in Czecho-Slovakia will be analyzed later. British diplomacy in the Czech question since Munich had deprived them of any legitimate grievances relative to Hitler’s solution of the Czech problem. Halifax had evaded British responsibilities in both the Czech-Magyar dispute and in the guarantee question, and he had been the first leading European statesman to advocate abandoning the application of self-determination to Czecho-Slovakia. He encouraged Germany to attempt a unilateral solution of the Czech problem by refraining from showing any interest in the Czech crisis during the final hectic weeks of the Czecho-Slovak regime.

[250]
It is astonishing that as late as 1960 William Shirer, who has received undeserved recognition for an allegedly definitive history of Germany under Hitler, failed completely to understand the Czech situation in March 1939. Shirer claimed no less than four times in his description of the situation that Great Britain and France at Munich “had solemnly guaranteed Czechoslovakia against aggression.” Shirer’s account throughout is characterized by his failure to consult most of the available documents dealing with the events which he describes. His work is a mere caricature of a genuine historical narrative. His scanty and infrequent use of British sources meant that it was impossible for him to understand any important phase of British policy in 1939.

Hitler recognized the British game immediately after Prague, but he hoped to out-maneuver his adversaries on the diplomatic board. He refused to admit that an Anglo-German war was inevitable, because he knew that the British, despite their momentary hostility toward Germany, would never dare to attack alone and unaided. The Anglo-German crisis was in the open after Prague, but war was not inevitable.

Stanley Baldwin, the former Conservative Prime Minister, had planned a series of lectures in January 1939 which he hoped to deliver at the University of Toronto in Canada the following April. The lectures were entitled: “England and the Balance of Power as illustrated. in the fight against Philip of Spain, Louis XIV, and Napoleon, leading up to the fight against tyranny to-day.” The conduct of Halifax in March 1939 in ope9ing the public campaign for the destruction of Germany was so masterful that Baldwin decided any lectures he might give on foreign policy would be an anti-climax. He had been willing to give the original lectures in April as a patriotic duty in preparation for what Halifax had already accomplished in March 1939 without his help. Baldwin recognized that foreign policy had never been his strong point, and he realized that Halifax completely overshadowed him in that field. Baldwin decided in April 1939 to confine his Canadian speeches to the domestic affairs which he knew so well. The foreign policy of the British Empire was in the hands of Lord Halifax. The immediate issue was whether or not there would be another Anglo-German war. It was a contest between Halifax and Hitler, the British aristocrat and the German common man.78


Hitler’s Generous Treatment of the Czechs after March 1939

Hitler believed that his decision to pursue this course was defensible. He attained results without bloodshed, and the danger of a war between the Czechs and the Slovaks was averted. He was willing to grant the Czechs the autonomy which they had persistently refused to give the Sudeten Germans. It was evident within a few weeks after the proclamation of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia on March 16, 1939, that the new regime enjoyed considerable popularity among the Czechs. Baron Konstantin von Neurath, the former German Foreign Minister, was appointed chief representative of the German Government at Prague. The Reichsprotektor was noted for his pro-Czech views. Emil Hacha explained to journalists on March 22, 1939, that he had departed for Germany on March 14th on his own initiative in the hope of finding some solution for a hopeless crisis.
 [251]
The German Minister in Prague never suggested this visit. The treaty which Hacha signed with the Germans on March 15, 1939, had been prepared after negotiation. No German document was presented in advance of the negotiation at Berlin.70

Bohemia-Moravia was constituted a separate customs area on March 24, 1939. It was announced on March 27, 1939, that Czech would continue to be the official language in Bohemia-Moravia. Minister Mastny, who had represented the Czechs at Berlin in the past, accepted a special decoration from Ribbentrop on April 2, 1939. The German military flag was lowered from the Hradschin Castle in Prague on April 16, 1939. The period of direct German military rule lasted only one month. The Commander of the German Army, General Walther von Brauchitsch, ordered that German garrisons should be concentrated in areas populated by the German minority so that friction between Czech civilians and German soldiers might be avoided.

President Hacha appointed a new Czech Govemment on April 27, 1939. The Beran Government had resigned on March 15, 1939. The new Premier, Alois Elias, also administered the Department of Interior. Chvalkovsky succeeded Mastny as Czech Minister at Berlin. The new Czech administration retained the Departments of Transportation, Justice, Interior, Education, Agriculture, National Economy, Public Works, and Social Service. The Departments of Foreign Affairs and Defense were dissolved.80

Neurath was officially introduced to the new Czech Government a few days later. Premier Elias began and concluded his speech in Czech, but he also made a number of comments in German. This was courtesy rather than servility; the German language had been spoken and understood by educated Czechs for many centuries. Neurath replied with a few gracious remarks. He reminded the Czech leaders that Hitler had expressed his esteem for the Czech people in a speech before the German Reichstag on April 28, 1939.

Neurath presented a favorable report to Hitler on conditions in Bohemia-Moravia on June 1, 1939. Hitler replied on June 7, 1939, by declaring an amnesty for all Czechs held as prisoners for political reasons in both the Sudeten and Protectorate regions. The Czech Government at Prague was negotiating a series of trade treaties with delegations from foreign nations. A Norwegian-Czech trade pact was signed on June 23, 1939, and a Dutch-Czech trade pact was concluded on the following day.

The cooperative attitude of the Czech leaders and the Czech population prompted Hitler to make a further concession on July 31, 1939. An agreement was concluded which permitted the Czech Government to have a military force of 7,000 soldiers, which would include 280 officers. The officers were selected from the former Czech army, and it was provided that only persons of Czech nationality could serve in this force. A Czech Military General-Inspector and three subordinate Inspectors were appointed.5l

Hitler allowed the British to know as early as April 1939 that the Protectorate Articles of March 16, 1939, were not necessarily the last word in the Czech question as far as he was concerned. Hitler was willing to negotiate about the Czech question and the Czech future through the channels of conventional diplomacy. He hoped that this attitude would be effective eventually in appeasing the British leaders, and he was willing to make concessions to support it.52 [252]

Hitler was pleased with the Czech response to his policy. Several regions of dangerous instability had been pacified without loss of life, and the strategic position of Germany was greatly improved. The German military frontier was shortened, and close collaboration between the Germans and the Slovaks was achieved. He was disappointed by the hostile British reaction to his policy, but he hoped that the British leaders were impressed by German strength and by his ability to deal with difficult problems without creating a conflict. His greatest disappointment, shortly after the German occupation of Prague, was the revelation of an Anglo-Polish plot to oppose Germany in Eastern Europe. Hitler had counted on German-Polish collaboration against the Soviet Union, and he deplored the decision of the Polish leaders to become the instruments of a British policy of encirclement.83


The Propaganda Against Hitler’s Czech Policy

The policy of Hitler in Bohemia-Moravia was extremely vulnerable to the onslaught of hostile propaganda.84 The argument was raised that German devotion to self-determination was a fraud because Hitler had reduced Czech independence to mere autonomy. This argument was unfair. Hitler had never proclaimed an intention to bring all of the Germans of Europe into the Reich. He recognized that strategic, geographic, political, and economic considerations had to be taken into account when self-determination was applied. There were more Germans living outside the German frontiers in Europe after March 1939 than there were alien peoples in Germany. Furthermore, these outside Germans (Volksdeutsche) at no place enjoyed the autonomy which the Czechs possessed.85

It was astonishing for the British leaders to claim that Germany had hoisted the pirate flag, when Hitler switched his support from the Czechs to the Slovaks in the crisis between the two neighboring Slavic peoples. The British were ruling over millions of alien peoples throughout the world on the strength of naked conquest. It was evident that the British leaders failed to appreciate Hitler’s ability to solve difficult problems without bloodshed. Apparently they preferred their own methods. Halifax told German Ambassador Dirksen on March 15, 1939, that he could understand Hitler’s taste for bloodless victories, but he promised the German diplomat that Hitler would be forced to shed blood the next time.86

It was astonishing to hear the British leaders claim that Hitler had broken promises by taking Prague. Chamberlain explained in the House of Commons on March 15, 1939, that Germany had no obligation to consult Great Britain in dealing with the Czech-Slovak crisis in the period March 14-15, 1939. The British Government had never fulfilled its promise to guarantee the Czech state after Munich, and the Slovak declaration of independence on March 14th had dissolved the state which had not received the guarantee. Chamberlain apparently believed that consistency was the virtue of small minds. He discussed the same situation at Birmingham two days later and he claimed that he would never be able to believe Hitler again. This was mere cant. Chamberlain relied upon British prestige and force rather than honor to hold foreign leaders to their [253] commitments. He had said to his advisers at the time of the Munich conference that he did not actually trust Hitler. The German leader studied Chamberlain’s remarks at Birmingham and remained cool. He knew that Great Britain would never strike a blow against Germany unless she considered that the moment was favorable. He correctly believed that there would be several opportunities ahead for him to deprive the British leaders of that favorable chance to attack Germany.87

Chapter 11


GERMANY AND POLAND IN EARLY 1939


The Need for a German-Polish Understanding

The collapse of the Czecho-Slovak state in March 1939 was preceded by crucial German-Polish negotiations in January 1939. The most significant diplomatic event in December 1938 had been the Franco-German declaration of friendship. This raised the possibility of a durable understanding between National Socialist Germany and the French Third Republic. The British leaders had replied with their visit to Rome in January 1939 and with intensification of their appeasement policy toward Italy. They hoped to make Rome dependent upon London in foreign affairs.

The British visit to Rome was very important, but it was overshadowed that same month by the visits of Beck to Berchtesgaden and Ribbentrop to Warsaw. The future of German-Polish relations had become a matter of supreme importance for the entire European situation. There would either be further progress toward a German-Polish understanding, which would strengthen the German bid for an understanding with France, Of there would be a return to the chaotic situation of German-Polish relations before the Non-Aggression Pact of 1934. This could easily lead to war in Eastern Europe, which, at the very least, would undermine Franco-German relations and prompt the British leaders to intensify their efforts in Italy. The 1934 Pact was a useful basis for the improvement of German-Polish relations, but it was apparent that further steps were required to achieve a more fundamental understanding and to prevent the loss of the many gains which had been made. At the very most, a German failure in Poland might be exploited successfully by the British leaders to unleash another general European conflict like that of 1914. Hence, it would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of German-Polish negotiations in January 1939.1

The 1934 Pact between Germany and Poland was merely a nonaggression treaty in the style condoned by the League of Nations. The problems of Danzig and of Germany’s undefined attitude toward the western border of Poland [256] remained unresolved. Both Germany and Poland were opposed to the Soviet Union and its policies, but no attempt had been made to coordinate permanently the anti-Soviet orientation of the two states along the lines advocated by Göring during his many visits to Poland. The Poles had obtained a promise of German support against Russia during the 1938 Czech crisis, but the question of the more permanent German attitude, in the event of an attack on Poland by the Soviet Union during the months after Munich, had not been resolved. The Poles were concerned about the possibility of a Russian attack. They maintained a permanent military alliance with Rumania directed exclusively against Russia.2

There was nothing exaggerated in Ribbentrop’s contention that no comprehensive settlement of differences between Germany and Poland had been achieved since the defeat of Germany in 1918. The German-Polish treaty of 1934 had merely avoided some very real problems inherited from the Versailles settlement of 1919. The situation would have been an entirely different one had the so-called peacemakers of 1919 established the territorial status quo between the two nations in conformance with point 13 of the 14 Point Peace Program of Woodrow Wilson.3

The tragedy of Europe in 1939, in the larger sense, resulted from the failure of the European states to solve short of war the problems created by the broken allied promises of 1918. The solemn contract concluded between Germany and the Allied and Associated Powers in the armistice agreement of November 1918 included Point 13 of the Wilson program. Germany agreed to accept the results of self-determination in the German-Polish borderlands, and Poland was to obtain access to the sea within this context of self-determination. The promise to Poland provided the basis for Czechoslovakia’s successful campaign at the peace conference to obtain access to the sea by means of free harbor facilities at Hamburg and Stettin, and free harbors might easily have been granted to Poland at Danzig and Koenigsberg without violating self-determination. The unsatisfactory settlement in Danzig and the Corridor had remained unmodified for twenty years. A peaceful solution in 1939 would have been a major contribution to stability in Europe.4


The Generous German Offer to Poland

Ribbentrop and Hitler suggested a settlement in October 1938 which was far less favorable to Germany than Point 13 of the Wilson program had been. This proposed settlement would not enable Germany to regain the position she would have retained had the Allied Powers not violated the 1918 armistice contract. Poland received at Versailles large slices of territory in regions such as West Prussia and Western Posen which were overwhelmingly German. The census figures indicated that a Polish victory in a plebiscite for the province of West Prussia would have been impossible. Therefore the Allies refused to permit a plebiscite in the area. The bulk of West Prussia was turned over to Poland without further ado, and the protests of the defeated Germans were treated with contempt.

One might argue that the superhighway plan called for the return of at least some Polish territory to Germany. The Germans were aware, when proposing the [257] plan, that they would have to tunnel under, or build over, all existing and future North-South Polish communications. The strip of territory involved in the plan would have been at most 5/8 of a mile wide and 53 1/8 miles in length. The applicable doctrines of international law indicated that the extraterritorial arrangement would constitute merely a servitude rather than an actual transfer of sovereignty. The Germans in this arrangement would receive a special privilege within an area under Polish sovereignty.5

The Hitler plan did not envisage the aggrandizement of Germany through the recovery of former German territory granted to Poland in 1919. His purpose was to encourage the renunciation by Germany of her claims to this territory in the interest of German-Polish cooperation. This concession of Hitler’s was more than adequate to compensate for German requests in the Corridor and at Danzig. The October 1938 Hitler offer was the most modest proposal which Poland had received from Germany since 1918. Georges Bonnet had often reflected on the price in concessions which Bismarck had vainly paid France in an effort to obtain voluntary French recognition of the Franco-German border of 1871.6 The Polish leaders would have recognized that German concessions were an adequate basis for an agreement had they placed any value on cooperation with Germany as a permanent policy. This would not have prevented them from seeking other commitments from Germany, such as a German agreement not to maintain German armed forces in Slovakia. The Poles preferred the unrealistic position that a German offer to guarantee their 1919 frontier was no concession to Poland.7

The German offer of October 24, 1938, was no mere feeler by Germany, to be withdrawn when the Poles failed to respond in October and November 1938. The Germans did not request larger concessions from Poland during the period of more than five months before the definitive Polish refusal of their offer, and it was the impatience of the Polish leaders, rather than of Hitler, which led to the rupture of negotiations in March 1939. The Polish diplomats themselves believed that the Germans were sincere in offering their proposals as the basis for a permanent agreement. Hitler was also willing to retreat somewhat from the original proposals and to abandon the German suggestion for a railway to accompany the superhighway to East Prussia. The issue of the definitive Polish response to the German offer remained in doubt after Ribbentrop’s first conversations with Lipski. The Poles said nothing to indicate that there was no chance of reaching an agreement on the basis proposed.8


The Reasons for Polish Procrastination

The Poles had good reasons to wait more than five months, while the British increased their armaments, before categorically rejecting the German offer. They experienced little difficulty in keeping the negotiations open as long as they pleased and until they chose their own moment to disrupt them. They kept their own counsel, and they refused to confide the details of the negotiation to the French, who were their allies, and to the British, who were eager to support them. Beck maintained this attitude despite the fact that consultation on important questions was a basic feature of the Franco-Polish alliance. He also [258] knew that the British were exhibiting great curiosity and impatience about the situation.9 Beck treated the truly Great Powers of Europe with disdain during these months. He was aware of the importance of his ow0 position while Great Britain and Germany were both courting Poland.10

The Poles were also secretive because they did not wish their problems with Germany to come before an international conference. They suspected, with good reason, that their French ally would conclude, in such an eventuality, that Germany had a more reasonable case. Poland was fundamentally hostile toward the mutual discussions which conference diplomacy implied. She preferred bilateral negotiation, and she did not care to have states which were not directly concerned pass judgment on Polish interests.11

Beck’s tactics of secrecy and delay are easily intelligible under these circumstances. The situation would have been entirely different had Beck not counted upon the British intention to attack Germany. It cannot be said with certainty that the Poles would have settled their differences with the Germans had there been a friendly, or at least peaceable, British attitude toward Germany, but this was exceedingly likely. It is absolutely certain that the Poles would not have abruptly disrupted their negotiation with the Germans in March 1939 without an assurance of British support.

The recent experience of Czechoslovakia raised serious doubts in Polish minds about France. This was particularly true of Jdzef Beck and Juliusz Lukasiewicz, the leading Polish experts on France. The Poles were gambling on the ability of Great Britain to dominate and decide French policy in a crisis.12

Beck knew that Great Britain was not ready to intervene against Germany, when Ribbentrop presented the German offer in October 1938. Beck had observed with disdain that Great Britain purchased peace in 1938 at Czech expense. He had British assurances dating from September 1938 that Poland would not be treated like Czechoslovakia. This encouraged Beck to take a bold stand, and to proclaim that the Poles, unlike the Czechs, were prepared to fight with or without assurances from other Powers. Beck was not bothered by the fact that the British would never be in a position to offer Poland immediately effective military support. He was less interested in preventing the momentary defeat of Poland than in promoting the ruin of both Germany and the Soviet Union.13 Beck’s foreign policy was based on the World War I mystique. A new defeat of Russia by Germany, and of Germany by the Western Powers, would permit the Great Poland of pre-partition days to arise from the ashes of a momentary new Polish defeat.

The Poles also attached great importance to the role of the United States. They knew that American intervention had been decisive in World War I. They knew that the American President, Franklin Roosevelt, was an ardent interventionist. Roosevelt differed markedly from his predecessor, Herbert Hoover, after whom many streets were named in Poland in gratitude for his post-World War I relief program. Hoover had been favorably impressed by a conversation with Adolf Hitler on March 8, 1938, and he was a leader in the struggle against current American interventionism. The Poles knew that Hoover, who was wrongly accused of being the father of the American economic depression, that began in 1929, had little influence on American policy in 1938. They knew that President Roosevelt was eager to involve the United States in the struggles of [259] distant states in Europe and Asia. American opponents of Roosevelt who opposed his foreign policy were disdainfully labelled isolationists.

The Poles did not trouble themselves about the reasons for President Roosevelt’s interventionism. They were too realistic to assume that he necessarily had any legitimate reasons. They were content to accept the convenient explanation of Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish Ambassador to the United States. Potocki claimed that President Roosevelt’s foreign policy was the product of Jewish influence. This was untrue, but there was little interest in Poland for an elaborate analysis of American policy. The surveys sent by the Polish Foreign Office to missions abroad rarely mentioned the American scene. The Poles recognized the importance of the American position, but they were content to leave the problem of promoting American intervention in Europe to their British friends. 14


Hitler’s Refusal to Exert Pressure on Poland

The friendly German attitude made it easy for Beck to defer his decision on the October 1938 offer without arousing German wrath. The German approach to Poland was very different from their earlier attitudes toward Austria or Czechoslovakia. Rump-Austria existed in 1938 merely because she had been refused the right to join Germany by self-determination in 1919. Hitler, as an Austrian German, could scarcely sympathize with Austrian leaders who hoped to establish an unpopular Habsburg monarchy in that tiny area. Hitler shared the attitude of Pilsudski toward Czechoslovakia. He believed that the nationalities state under Czech rule, which had been recognized at Versailles, was an unnatural phenomenon without any traditional position in the historical experience of Central Europe.15

There were some Germans who regarded the resurrection of Poland in the 20th century as a mistake, but Hitler did not share their views. He opposed the advocates of collaboration with Russia, who wished to cement Russo-German relations by partitioning Poland with the Soviet Union. Hitler recognized in Mein Kampf that a case could be made for an anti-Polish policy, and he observed that German policy in World War I had been unsuccessful in Poland because it was neither distinctly pro-Polish nor anti-Polish. Hitler believed that the issue had to be met squarely, and he had decided for a pro-Polish policy. It was for this reason that he was extremely patient in dealing with the Poles. 16

There were many strong arguments in favor of a pro-Polish policy, once the attitude of Hitler was accepted that Germany should renounce the territories lost to Poland in World War I. France, Italy, and Poland were the three most important immediate neighbors of Germany in Europe. It was wiser from the standpoint of German defense and security to establish friendly ties with these three neighbors than to alienate any of them. The most valuable achievement of diplomatic statecraft is to achieve good relations with one’s immediate neighbors. It was possible in terms of power politics to substitute Russia for Poland as a neighbor, but Hitler recognized that there was virtually no chance for permanent friendly relations with the Communist state under Stalin. The Soviet Union was pledged to the destruction of its capitalist neighbors.17
[260]


Beck’s Deception Toward Germany

Beck deliberately misled the Germans about his intentions during the months after October 1938. He succeeded in convincing them that he favored a pro-German policy for Poland. He merely insisted that such a policy be consistent with vital Polish interests, and acceptable to Polish public opinion to some degree. Beck was so successful in this approach that most German experts concluded that he was acting almost against his will, and certainly against his preferences, when he finally came into the open with a vigorously anti-German policy.18

Beck used many devices to create the desired impression with the Germans. He constantly emphasized his alleged esteem for German-Polish cooperation. He was usually charming and attentive while discussing German proposals, and this was especially true of his conversations with Hitler, for whom he undoubtedly had a great personal liking. His opinion of the leading personalities in England and France was less favorable, but he shared Pilsudski’s conviction that personalities should not be permitted to play a decisive role in Polish policy. Beck was adept at exploiting Polish public opinion, which undoubtedly was hostile to Germany, and in labelling it an important obstacle to a quick and easy settlement with the Germans. Beck, at the same time, was careful not to build up this public opinion factor to a point where the Germans might conclude that he was unable to cope with it. Beck was skillful at leaving the door open, and at conveying hints that a settlement might eventually be achieved on approximately the terms offered by the Germans. Beck’s game with the Germans is a fascinating episode in diplomatic history, but unfortunately it ended in tragedy.19


The Confiscation of German Property in Poland

The situation was complicated by the increasing harshness with which the Polish authorities handled the German minority. The important German-Polish conferences of January 1939 were held under the shadow of the approaching annual Polish agrarian reform decree, which was scheduled to be announced on February 15, 1939. Mieczlaw Zaleski, a prominent Polish spokesman, claimed in a speech at Katowice (Kattowitz) that the 1934 Pact with Germany was concluded solely for tactical reasons, because it was a convenient screen behind which the Polish Government could eliminate the German minority. The speaker declared that this Polish policy was necessary in “preparing the ground for a future conflict.” The alleged purpose of the Polish Government was to rid itself of the German element in Poland before going to war with Germany.20

The German Government hoped to persuade the Poles to be more fair to the German landowners in 1939 than they had been in 1938. A larger area of German land had been expropriated in 1938 than in 1937, despite the conclusion of the November 1937 Minorities Pact with Poland. The current agrarian law dated from 1925, and 66% of the land expropriated under the law since that time in Polish West Prussia and Poznan (Posen) had been taken from the Germans. This was true despite the fact that a much larger proportion of the [261] larger farms belonged to Poles rather than Germans in 1925. The principal German complaint was not so much against the breaking up of the large farms, but against the redistribution policy. Less than 1% of the confiscated German farm land was redistributed among the German minority. This was the primary reason for the flight of the German peasants from Poland to Germany. The total amount of land under cultivation in Polish West Prussia and Poznari had decreased during these years, whereas it had increased everywhere else in Poland.

The German Government resented the fact that the German owners of expropriated land received only 1/8 of the value of their holdings. It was difficult to sell the land in advance of expropriation, because the Polish public was aware of the German situation and desired to exploit it. Furthermore, the Frontier Zone La~ forbade altogether the private sale of land by the Germans in a large area. The main aim of the Polish Government was to prevent private sale and to gain the land through public expropriation.

Beck assumed a nonchalant attitude when discussing this question with Moltke. He claimed that it was not important if the German holdings were confiscated first, because the Polish holding would be broken down under the law in just a few years. Moltke doubted that Minister of Agriculture Poniatowski, who pursued a generally conservative policy, intended to proceed vigorously against the Polish holdings. He was aware that organized pressure-group resistance would hinder in large measure the application of the law to the Poles. It seemed exceedingly unlikely to Moltke that the current Government would fully implement a reform law which had been passed before the Pilsudski coup d’Etat in 1926. It was more likely that the law would merely serve as a convenient instrument to produce impoverishment among the Germans.21

Weizsäcker instructed Moltke to insist that the provision of the November 1937 Pact for equal treatment of German and Polish landowners be observed in 1939. Count Michal Lubienski, at the Polish Foreign Office, assured Moltke that current expropriation lists were being prepared with complete objectivity and without regard for the ethnic character of the landowners. Moltke was lulled into a sense of false security by this promise. He telephoned Berlin in a voice choked with indignation of February 15, 1939, to report the results of the new law. In Poznan 12,142 hectares of 20,275 hectares to be confiscated were German owned. In Polish West Prussia 12,538 hectares of 17,437 hectares were German owned. In East Upper Silesia all but 100 of the 7,438 hectares to be confiscated land was German. It virtually completed the elimination of German holdings under the law at a time when most of the larger Polish holdings were still intact. This was the Polish “complete objectivity” which had been promised by Lubienski.

Weizsäcker instructed Moltke on February 16, 1939, to present a sharp protest about this “incredible discrimination against German landowners in Western Poland. He was to inform the Poles that their action was contrary to the November 1937 Pact, and to more recent assurances. The Polish Foreign Office responded on February 17th by disclaiming responsibility for the situation. They appeared in the guise of seeking to protect German interests, and they claimed to have sought in vain a 50-50 ratio for the Germans in Poznan. They also used the remarkable argument that the rate of confiscation in the Western provinces had been influenced by factors in other Polish areas.
[262]
Their reaction was negative to Moltke’s suggestion that there should be joint discussions between the two countries on minority questions. It was evident that nothing could be done to help the Germans in Poland by diplomatic means.22

The problem of the annual agrarian decree had been discussed for several months by the provincial press on the German side of the frontier. The German Government had decided to follow the advice of Moltke, and to take the first cautious step toward relaxing the complete censorship in Germany on the German minority grievances in Poland. A new censorship directive in December 1938 permitted the border area newspapers to report new excesses as they occurred, and to speculate on their consequences. It was forbidden to discuss earlier incidents, and the press in the German interior was ordered to continue with the complete suppression of German minority news. Ribbentrop had personally warned Lipski about the possible consequences of the intensified campaign against the German minority on December 15, 1938. He complained about Polish arrogance at Danzig, and he protested a recent series of Danzig stamps issued by the Poles which commemorated the Polish victories over the German knights in the Middle Ages. Lipski promised that the Polish Government would withdraw the offensive postal stamps.23

Kennard at Warsaw believed that tension increased between Germany and Poland in November and December 1938, and he was pleased by this development. This compensated for his worry about the attitude of France. French Ambassador Leon Noël returned from leave at Paris in late November 1938. He had warned Kennard that the French leaders were inclined to modify their alliance obligation to Poland. The French Ambassador confided that there was a strong movement in France to liquidate all French military obligations in Eastern Europe. The French had concluded a special subsidy agreement with Poland another 95 million francs according to the terms of the Rambouillet loan. It seemed to Noël that France made this payment with more than customary reluctance. These comments alarmed Kennard, who reported to Halifax that a marked relaxation of French interest in Poland might aid the Germans in arriving at a definitive German-Polish understanding. 24


German-Polish Conversations at the End of 1938

Lipski and Ribbentrop had discussed the problem of a general settlement on December 15, 1938. The Polish Ambassador invited the German Foreign Minister to come to Warsaw to speak with the Polish leaders, and Ribbentrop accepted. Ribbentrop hinted that he hoped to complete the negotiation of an agreement with Poland at Warsaw. He said that the visit should constitute a serious effort to reach a “general settlement” rather than be a mere formality. Lipski at once agreed with this view, and he mentioned again that Poland was prepared to discuss a German superhighway and railway to East Prussia. He failed to mention Danzig.

Ribbentrop told Lipski that he hoped Poland would always follow a policy based on “the tradition of Pilsudski and his breadth of vision.” He added that additional discussion of minorities was needed to remove current friction. He assured Lipski that his aim was cooperation between Germany and a strong [263] Poland against the Soviet Union.

Lipski mentioned the improvement of Polish relations with Lithuania, and he casually added that Poland was taking an increased interest in the maritime facilities at Memel. Ribbentrop replied that he hoped Polish interest in Memel was exclusively commercial and not political, “for Memel was entirely German and had always been so.” Ribbentrop stated franldy that Germany stood for self-determination at Memel. Lipski raised no objection to Ribbentrop’s comments, and he stated that Poland was interested in the city solely for economic reasons. Ribbentrop noted that German representations to the signatory Powers of the 1920 Memel statute always had been fruitless. He confided that Germany would not consult these Powers when she solved the Memel question.25

Moltke returned to Berlin from Warsaw to report, on December 16, 1938. Hans Frank, Hitler’s ardently Catholic Minister of Justice, had been honorary guest the previous evening at a German Embassy dinner at Warsaw. Frank had discussed German-Polish relations with Jozef Beck at the dinner. Beck claimed to place great value on the 1934 Pact with Germany, and he stressed his readiness to continue the policy of Pilsudski in German affairs. His German hosts interpreted this to mean that Beck was dedicated to an outspokenly pro-German policy. Beck complained that “a certain tension” now existed in German-Polish relations, but he described this as absurd. He believed that the attitude of the Polish public toward Germany had deteriorated, but he suggested that this was the result of the many crises in Europe during recent months.26

Moltke also discussed the situation with Beck. He insisted to Beck that the Polish policy in the Teschen area, and toward the German minority generally, was responsible for the unfavorable development in German-Polish relations. Moltke complained bitterly that affairs in Teschen were desperate, and that the local Germans had come to regard the twenty years under the Czechs as a paradise by comparison. Beck insisted in reply that this was merely a local phenomenon. He promised that the Polish Government at Warsaw desired to restrain the local East Upper Silesian authorities, and to provide “good living conditions” in Teschen. He said that the Polish Premier, General Slawoj-Skladkowski, had ordered the local authorities to improve their policy, and he promised that he would intervene personally whenever he was informed of incidents. Moltke was often inclined to believe the best about the intentions of the Polish leaders, and he was extremely pleased with the results of the dinner. He construed Beck’s remarks to imply a standing invitation to discuss minority problems. This conclusion was altogether too optimistic. Moltke admitted to Ribbentrop that he had sought to contribute to the friendly atmosphere at the dinner by expressing his sympathy with the Polish viewpoint in the Ruthenian question.27

Moltke had a conversation with Beck on December 20, 1938, after his return to Warsaw. The Polish Foreign Minister was aware of Ribbentrop’s plan to negotiate a general settlement at Warsaw. He knew that this negotiation would fail, and he wisely concluded that it would be expedient to ingratiate himself with Hitler before the visit took place. He informed Moltke that he intended to spend the Christmas and New Year holidays at Monte Carlo, and he suggested that his return trip to Poland would offer him an opportunity to stop off in [264] Berlin” or some other place.” Moltke correctly interpreted “some other place” to mean Berchtesgaden, and another visit with Hitler.28

Beck said smoothly that he planned to leave Monte Carlo on January 5th or 6th, and that he would understand perfectly if this date was not agreeable. Moltke assumed charitably that Beck was trying to pave the way for Ribbentrop’s visit to Warsaw later in January, but it was obvious that a Beck visit to Hitler would cause Ribbentrop’s stay in Warsaw to appear as an anti-climax. In the upshot, Beck said that it would suffice for his plans if he were notified by January 1, 1939, either through the Polish embassy in Berlin, or through Moltke from Warsaw.29

The importance of Danzig in the approaching negotiations with Poland was emphasized for the Germans by a report of December 22, 1938, from Danzig Senate President Artur Greiser. He had discussed the future of Danzig with Polish High Commissioner Marjan Chodacki. The Polish High Commissioner called on Greiser, after a long interval, with the surprising announcement that “the fundamental Danzig-Poland question” had to be discussed. Chodacki Chargéd bluntly that “a psychosis was being created in Danzig, the purpose of which was to convince the population of Danzig that the city would be returned to the German Reich within the foreseeable future.” The arrogant Polish High Commissioner made a number of insulting remarks, and he claimed contemptuously that it would be easy for Poland to protest current developments on the basis of “international law.”

Chodacki threatened that the Polish Government might seek to crush the rising spirit of freedom in Danzig by means of punitive political and economic measures. He claimed that this would have been done earlier had he not advised the Polish Government against it. He said that future Polish concessions to Danzig would depend upon respect for the “Polish element” and for “vital Polish rights in Danzig.” Greiser was seeking to interpret the storm of abuse which Chodacki had unleashed, and he observed casually that it was his impression that many discussions on Danzig had taken place recently between Warsaw and Berlin. He also knew that Chodacki had conferred with both Beck and Lipski while on sick leave recently in Warsaw. Greiser asked bluntly “whether in the opinion of the Polish Government the Danzig question was a national question for Poland, and whether to Poland a solution of the question in line with the wishes of the Danzig population would mean war.” Anyone who knew Chodacki, and who was familiar with the nervous intensity of this temperament, could easily imagine how the Polish diplomat received this fundamental question. He drew a deep breath prior to confronting the mild-mannered Greiser with a reply which could leave no possible room for misunderstanding.

Chodacki instructed Greiser that Poland had only two national questions in the proper sense of the word. The first was the Polish Army and the second was the Baltic Sea. Chodacki extended his arm toward the South and described for Greiser in glowing terms the “natural protection” of the distant Carpathian mountains. He believed that other frontiers were still more formidable, and that “in the east and in the west there were two ideological walls (Soviet and National Socialist) with fixed boundaries which by treaty could not be altered.” This could be interpreted as a Freudian slip which implied a suppressed Polish desire to expand in both directions. Chodacki then exclaimed triumphantly that [265] “to the north was the open sea, toward which Poland and the entire Polish people were striving.” He concluded that Danzig and her present unsatisfactory status quo were a necessary feature of this part of the Polish national question. Chodacki was satisfied that Greiser had understood his non possumus reply to German aspirations at Danzig. When he had finished making his point, he proceeded to discuss a lengthy series of specific Polish protests to recent enactments of the Danzig Senate.30

It might had made a difference had Beck been equally frank at this time and spoken his mind to Hitler about Danzig. Hitler would have known where he stood before he was confronted with a Polish mobilization and a British encirclement policy. He might have modified his Danzig policy before the British had a chance to intervene. The Ruthenian question was still unsettled at this time, and the Slovakian independence movement had not reached a climax. Hitler might have had more success had he forced the pace for a Danzig settlement immediately after the Munich conference. It is pointless to pursue this speculation at great length, because Beck was completely successful in deceiving Hitler about his policy. Hitler was counting on a friendly agreement with Poland. He never exerted pressure on the Poles until they disrupted the negotiations and confronted Germany with a number of hostile measures.

League High Commissioner Burckhardt had confided to the Germans that the outlook was favorable at Warsaw for a settlement of the Danzig question. Chodacki was merely the Polish High Commissioner at Danzig. He was noted in Berlin for his extreme chauvinism and eccentricity. The fact that he was an intimate friend of Beck was not generally known. This friendship, even had it been recognized by the Germans, would not have justified the conclusion that Chodacki was an authoritative spokesman in the highest sphere of Polish foreign policy. The Poles were noted for their extreme individualism, and they were accustomed to express themselves freely on the most controversial topics. Chodacki had actually expressed Beck’s own ideas, but anyone who had preconceptions about Beck’s policies would scarcely have accepted these remarks as a true formulation of Beck’s position. Of course, Chodacki’s remarks had some effect at Berlin. Ribbentrop could see that it was important to retain the moderate influence of Burckhardt at Danzig until a settlement was reached. Ribbentrop approved an appeal from Greiser to the League Committee of Three. This appeal suggested that Danzig was prepared to make further concessions, if Burckhardt was retained at his post. The German Foreign Minister could understand that the Danzigers did not care to be left alone with Chodacki.31


The Beck-Hitler Conference of January 5, 1939

It was announced publicly at Warsaw and Berlin before the end of December 1938 that Beck would visit Germany in a few days. The British hoped that Poland and Germany would fail to settle their differences, and they were eager to discover the significance of this visit. William Strang at the British Foreign Office made a determined but unsuccessful effort to obtain information from Polish Ambassador Raczynski on December 31, 1938. The Polish aristocrat parried Strang’s questions with ease, and it was [266] impossible to obtain any news at that source.32

The task of obtaining information was entrusted again to Kennard, but thi, time the British Ambassador was unable to turn up any leads. He attempte4 to compensate by reporting on such developments as he could from Warsaw. He wired Halifax on January 1, 1939, that to Burckhardt the Danzig situation was “paradoxical in that the Poles, the Danzigers and Germans all apparently wish him to remain at present.” This was true, but it was no longer news in London.

Kennard also reported a fantastic claim from Chodacki that Albert Forster feared a new Danzig election because the German Catholics might vote the Polish ticket. The Polish High Commissioner was indulging in some typical wishful thinking, and, in any case, Danzig was overwhelmingly Protestant. The National Socialists emphasized earlier that both German Catholics and German Protestants abroad voted for them. The overwhelmingly Catholic Saar had voted for union with Germany in 1935, and Danzig had elected a National Socialist majority in 1933, before the National Socialists had been about to gain an absolute majority in a German election. The Danzig National Socialists were the uncontested representative of the Danzig community in 1939. Chodacki should have known that even in the days of the Hohenzollern Empire, when there was close cooperation between the Catholic Center Party and the Polish Fraction in the Reichstag, the German Catholic voters never voted the Polish ticket. 33

Kennard admitted that he had nothing to report about Beck’s visit to Hitler. He predicted that a successful negotiation between the Poles and the Germans would not take place, because “I feel M. Beck can hardly make any concession.” No one in Warsaw was willing to tell Kennard how or why the mysterious project of Beck’s sudden visit to Germany had been arranged. Kennard hoped that nothing would result from the visit, but he was uneasy about it.

The visit for Beck at Berchtesgaden took place on January 5, 1939. Hjalmar Schacht, the President of the German Reichsbank, received Montagu Norman, from the Bank of England, at Berlin on the same day. Schacht and Norman were close personal friends, and they were probing the possibility of reviving the declining trade between Great Britain and Germany. Hitler had delivered a public message to the German people on January 1, 1939, expressing his satisfaction with the events of 1938 and his confidence in the future. He emphasized the work of the National Socialist Party for the recovery and rehabilitation of Germany. He was optimistic about prospects for peace, and he expressed his gratitude that it had been possible to solve the principal foreign policy problems of Germany by peaceful means during the preceding twelve months. The new Reichskanzlei (chancellery building) at Berlin had just been completed. It was an imposing achievement of modern architectural construction and style. The official inauguration of the Reichskanzlei was scheduled for January 9, 1934. Hitler’s New Year’s message revealed that he was in high spirits, and his satisfaction was no doubt increased by the magnificent new architectural triumph in Berlin, and by the auspicious Schacht-Norman negotiations. This impression is confirmed by the tone of his personal negotiations with Beck.34

Beck was accompanied to Berchtesgaden by Count Michal Lubienski and Jozef Lipski, although only Lipski was present with Beck at the decisive January 5th discussion with Hitler. Ribbentrop and Moltke were also present at the [267] conference. The meeting took place in an atmosphere of cordiality, courtesy, and friendship.35

Beck began his remarks by deploring the deterioration of relations between Germany and Poland after the high point of cooperation which had been achieved during the Czech crisis in September 1938. He warned Hitler that Danzig was a question in which third parties might intervene. This was obviously an allusion to the possible support of Great Britain and France for the Polish position at Danzig. Beck emphasized that he was primarily interested at the moment in the further diminution of the Czech state and in the acquisition of Ruthenia by Hungary. He hoped that Hitler would not extend a guarantee to Czecho-Slovakia until the Ruthenian question was solved. He also doubted the wisdom of any guarantee for Czecho-Slovakia.

Hitler did not commit himself on the Czech question, but he went to considerable effort to convince Beck that Germany did not intend to slight Polish wishes on the Ruthenian question. Hitler denied emphatically that Germany was interested in Ukrainian nationalism, or that Germany had any interests beyond the Carpathians, where most of the Ukrainians lived. Hitler argued that German policy and the Vienna Award were the products of the Hungarian attitude during the September 1938 crisis. He repeated the remark of the Hungarian leaders that a war, even if lost, “would perhaps not be fatal to Germany, (but) it would definitely mean the end of Hungary.” Hitler added that the Hungarians had refused to demand the entire Carpatho-Ukraine when Mussolini arranged for the inclusion of Polish and Hungarian claims at Munich.

The German Chancellor told Beck that the Czechs would probably have refused to surrender all of Ruthenia in November 1938. He was convinced that the Hungarians would have failed to take Ruthenia by force had they dared to attempt it. He predicted that the Czechs would have marched to Budapest in any war following a breakdown of Hungarian-Czech negotiations after Munich. He intimated that Germany would have been unwilling to do anything for Hungary under these circumstances. Hitler reminded Beck that Germany had greatly reduced her armed forces by November 1938, and he claimed that she would have been unprepared for the crisis which might have resulted had an attempt been made at Vienna to extend the Hungarian claims beyond ethnic limits. Hitler hoped to convince Beck with this elaborate and plausible explanation that Germany had not deliberately ignored Polish wishes at Vienna.

Hitler frankly admitted that the intervention of Chamberlain and Daladier had deflected him from his purely political solution of the Czech problem. This solution “would have been tantamount to a liquidation of Czechoslovakia.” Hitler would have preferred a settlement in which only Poland, Germany, and Hungary had participated. This would have produced a solution different from the Munich agreement. Unfortunately, it gradually became evident in September 1938 that an attempt to exclude Great Britain, France, and Italy would have meant war. Hitler emphasized that he sympathized with the Polish attitude toward Czechoslovakia, but he refrained from encouraging the Poles to believe that he was prepared to support their Ruthenian policy. Beck concluded that Hitler was momentarily undecided about his future Czech policy.

Hitler told Beck that he favored a strong Poland under all circumstances. His attitude was not influenced solely by the Bolshevist threat and the system of [268] Government in Russia. The German Chancellor believed that each Polish division on the frontier against Russia was worth a German division. He declared with enthusiasm that Polish strength in the East would save Germany much military expenditure in the future. He conceded that Soviet Russia, because of her recent purges, might be weaker momentarily in the military sense than would be the case with some other Russian system. He also claimed that the Bolshevist regime easily compensated with effective propaganda for any momentary loss in the military sphere. He refused to agree with those who belittled the Soviet menace, and he believed that Europe would have to be strong and prosperous to cope with this danger. He painted a glowing picture of Poland as the prosperous economic partner of Germany. Hitler explained to Beck that Germany needed economic partners. The United States was not suitable in this respect, because the Americans produced the types of industrial, products with which Germany herself paid for raw material and food imports. It seemed to Hitler that Germany and Poland were ideally suited for complementary economic relations. Hitler believed that heavier Polish exports to Germany would build Polish prosperity and enable the Poles to consume an increasing proportion of German goods.

Hitler stressed the great importance of achieving a general understanding between the two nations, and he complained that the 1934 German-Polish Pact was a rather negative agreement.” He insisted with enthusiasm that Poland and Germany required a positive understanding. He was glad to inform Beck confidentially that Germany would soon recover Memel from Lithuania, and he indicated that the attitude at Kaunas promised a peaceful negotiation without disagreeable incidents. Beck did not oppose Hitler’s challenging remark that the political union of Danzig with Germany did not seem inconsistent with Polish interests, provided, of course, that the Polish economic position at Danzig was fully respected. Hitler told Beck that Danzig would return to Germany sooner or later. He was careful to add that he did not plan to confront Poland with a fait accompli, although Hitler had momentarily considered just such a plan in November 1938.

Hitler concentrated on the crucial Danzig issue He devoted scant attention to the question of Corridor transit, because the Poles had conveyed the impression that they were prepared to accept a settlement on this point. The German Chancellor was obviously seeking to prepare the ground for successful negotiations between Ribbentrop and the Poles at Warsaw. He hoped to convince Beck that the concessions offered by Germany were adequate compensation for Danzig. He reminded Beck that no other German could both advocate and achieve a German guarantee of the Polish Corridor, and he hoped that Beck appreciated the importance of this fact. Hitler conceded that it might be difficult for anyone outside of Germany to understand the psychological problem involved in this renunciation. He asked Beck to believe him in this and he added that heavy criticism of his Corridor policy in Germany was a certainty. He predicted that a German-Polish agreement would eventually cause this criticism to diminish and then disappear. He assured Beck that in the future one would hear as little about the Polish Corridor in Germany as one now heard about South Tirol and Alsace-Lorraine.

Hitler continued to stress the benefits to be gained from German-Polish [269] cooperation. He anticipated greater Polish maritime activity, and he observed that it would be absurd for Germany to seek to deprive Poland of her access to the sea. Hitler discussed common German and Polish aims in the Jewish question, and he assured Beck that he “was firmly resolved to get the Jews out of Germany.” He knew that Poland was worried by the allegedly insufficient speed of her own program to expel the Jews, and he hoped to interest Beck in a plan for German-Polish cooperation to solve this question. He suggested that it might be possible to establish a refuge for both German and Polish Jews within the area of the former German colonies in Africa.

Beck greeted Hitler’s many suggestions with cordiality, but he also maintained considerable reserve. He reassured Hitler that Polish policy toward Russia was dependable. He had improved Polish relations with Russia in November 1938 in an effort to cope with the dangerously tense situation resulting from the Czech crisis. However, he promised that Poland would never, under any circumstances, accept a relationship of dependence on Russia. Beck emphasized repeatedly that he appreciated Germany’s friendly attitude toward Poland. He displayed no awareness that he also appreciated the value of a comprehensive agreement on outstanding problems, and he went no further than to say that Poland would adhere to her old policy toward Germany. Beck insisted that the Danzig question was extraordinarily difficult, but he did not betray the defiance he felt when Hitler discussed the inevitable German annexation of Danzig. Beck stressed the problem of Polish opinion toward Danzig, and he emphasized that he meant the public opinion which counted, and not mere “coffee-house opinion.” He intimated that the Polish public was unprepared for a German success at Danzig. He gave Hitler the misleading assurance that he was quite prepared to think about the matter, and to orient his thoughts toward a solution. He warned Hitler that “some day” he might intervene militarily in Ruthenia. He belittled Ukrainian aspirations for nationhood, and he claimed that the word “Ukraine,” which was of obscure and controversial origin, meant “eastern march,” and had been coined by the Poles. But he gave no indication that Poland intended to resume her march to the East.36

Hitler was perfectly satisfied about this conversation with Beck, and this is ample proof that he was in no great hurry to achieve his program at Danzig. The conversation had produced no positive result. Beck had nevertheless achieved his purpose of increasing Hitler’s confidence in Polish foreign policy. Hitler had personally joined Ribbentrop in the negotiation on Danzig, and this had not prevented a friendly exchange of views. Hitler was willing to concede that Beck might require considerable time to prepare Polish public opinion for a Danzig agreement. The OZON (Camp of National Unity) forces, and hence the Polish Government, had suffered a reversal in the Polish municipal elections of December 1938. This did not represent a new trend, since many opposition voters had turned out to vote against the Government instead of boycotting the elections, but the result was impressive in a negative sense. Hitler was prepared to wait for the consummation of the agreement with Poland, but he hoped that Ribbentrop would obtain at least some confidential commitment from the Polish Government at Warsaw later in January 1939.37

Beck reacted quite differently. He had never entertained the idea of permitting Germany to have Danzig, and he was determined to oppose this [270] development with every resource available. He had deliberately and successfully concealed this fact from Hitler for reasons of policy, and he had increased Hitler’s confidence in Poland. This was no small achievement when one considers how strongly Beck felt about Danzig.

The discussion between Hitler and Beck at Berchtesgaden was an important event. Beck claimed that he was convinced from this conversation that a war between Germany and Poland was virtually inevitable in the immediate future He hastened to inform President Moscicki and Marshal Smigly-Rydz after his return to Poland, that it was necessary to assume that Poland could do nothing to avoid this eventuality. He claimed that if Poland made concessions in the issues at stake, questions “so secondary for them (i.e. the Germans) as those of Danzig and the superhighway,” it would mean the loss of Polish independence and the demotion of Poland to a German vassal state. He did not explain why these questions were unimportant tb the Germans and a matter of life and death to Poland. 38


The Beck-Ribbentrop Conference of January 6, 1939

It is not surprising that Beck showed some signs of frayed nerves the next day in his conversation with Ribbentrop at Munich. It is significant that Beck had not even mentioned the earlier Polish counterproposal about Danzig in his conversation with Hitler.

Ribbentrop’s objective in the conversation at Munich on January 6,1939, was to elaborate on the German arguments on the Danzig question, and prepare the ground for his later negotiations at Warsaw. Beck was irritated by Ribbentrop’s careful persistence, which made it difficult for the Polish Foreign Minister to conceal his true intentions as to Danzig. Beck warned Ribbentrop that the Danzig question might seriously disturb German-Polish relations He urged that plans be completed for a provisional arrangement at Danzig in case the League of Nations withdrew the League High Commissioner He expressed concern about new developments which might produce energetic Polish steps in the Danzig question. Beck described the Danzig problem as a dilemma in which “he had cudgelled his brains for a solution, but without result so far.” He confided to Ribbentrop that his concern about Danzig made him pessimistic. He attempted to convince Ribbentrop that Polish public Opinion toward Danzig was a primary factor, and he asserted that a great effort would be required to alter this opinion

Ribbentrop endeavored to put Beck at ease by assuring him that Germany was not interested in a violent solution of the Danzig question. Ribbentrop hoped to negotiate on the question peaceably until the matter was settled. He urged Beck to give the German offer for an agreement further consideration. He advised Beck to keep Germany informed of any possible Polish steps in the Ruthenian question, because a sudden change in the Czech status quo might carry with it the risk of a conflict.

The German Foreign Minister announced that he had several blunt things to say about recent Danzig events, which he had not cared to mention in Hitler’s presence. Ribbentrop then presented a number of specific grievances about [271] recent Polish interference in Danzig’s internal affairs. He stressed Germany’s need to establish contact with East Prussia and to acquire Danzig to satisfy vital German interests, and to make Hitler’s pro-Polish policy acceptable in Germany. Beck was told that Germany would support Poland’s policy toward Ruthenia, and toward the Ukrainians generally, if Poland would adopt an increasingly anti-Soviet attitude. The Polish Foreign Minister replied that at present” it would not be possible for Poland to adhere to the anti-Comintern pact. Ribbentrop then bluntly asked if the Poles still had aspirations beyond their present eastern frontier. Beck declared with feeling that the Poles had been in Kiev, and that “Pilsudski’s aspirations were doubtless still alive to-day.”

Ribbentrop’s question reflected German preoccupation with the attitude of Poland toward the Soviet Union. Hermann Göring, who constantly stressed the importance of this aspect of Polish policy, had visisted Poland briefly for talks with Polish leaders in December 1938. Heinrich Himmler, the Chief of the German Secret State Police, had also visited Poland again the same month. These German leaders, on their visits to Poland, stressed the need of a German-Polish agreement as a bulwark against Communism, and they hoped to discover how the Polish leaders envisaged the role of Germany in relation to future Polish plans against the Soviet Union.39 It was obvious on every occasion that important Polish spokesmen hoped for the dismemberment of the Soviet Union. Ribbentrop was informed by German diplomats in Warsaw, later in January 1939, that the Mayor of Warsaw, the editor of the official Gazeta Polska, and the Under-Secretary in Chargé of the Western Division at the Polish Foreign Office, favored the partition of the Soviet Union and the establishment of an independent Ukraine under Polish influence. These men made no secret of their views in conversations with German spokesmen.40 Beck was not equally frank about this question in his conversation with Ribbentrop at Munich, but his attitude confirmed the general response. It was clear beyond every doubt that Poland was dissatisfied with the status quo in the East, and that she wished to change it at Russian expense. Kazimierz Smogorzewski, of the Gazet Polska had the reputation with the Germans of reflecting accurately the secret views of the Polish Government. He emphasized more precisely the dynamic Polish eastern policy to which Beck alluded in generalities. It was evident that Polish policy toward the Soviet Union was more concretely hostile than the policy toward Russia of any other country, including Germany. Poland alone had a blueprint for the reduction of Russian power in the East.

The German Government, unlike Poland, did not advocate an independent Ukraine nor the use of Ukrainian nationalism to dismember Russia. They were less interested in Polish Ukrainian plans than in the obvious fact that the Polish policy toward the Soviet Union was aggressively hostile. The Germans could not imagine how the Poles, under these circumstances, could be indifferent about the opportunity of settling German-Polish differences and reaching a permanent agreement with Germany.

The German leaders knew that Poland would have no chance of survival in a conflict with the Soviet Union unless she had the support of a friendly Germany. Polish hostility toward Russia seemed to be the best possible inducement for a German-Polish agreement. Poland had nearly gone down under the Russian invasion of 1920 when the Soviet Union was weak. The Soviet [272] Union had experienced a gigantic growth of military power since 1920. Greater Germany could hope to match this growth to some extent, but it was an impossibility for Poland with her tiny industrial resources. An agreement with Germany was the sole means by which Poland could pursue her own dreams of expansion, or hope to establish her national security in the face of the Soviet policy of expansion toward the West. The Polish leaders were aware of Russian territorial aspirations, and in 1938 the Soviet leaders had begun to discuss the revision of the Russo-Finnish frontier with the leaders of Finland. The Polish leaders underestimated the Soviet Union, but it seemed inconceivable to the Germans, or to the British and French for that matter, that the Poles would simultaneously challenge both Russia and Germany. This would be the case of the canary seeking to devour the two cats.41

Ribbentrop was momentarily satisfied with Beck's assurances about the anti-Russian policy of Poland. He returned to the problem of the German minority in Poland, and he expressed his concern about this question. He told Beck that he hoped to negotiate with Lipski in Berlin on this problem, so that some progress might be made toward an easing of tension before his arrival in Warsaw later in January.42

Weizsäcker summarized the importance of Beck's visit in a circular addressed to German diplomatic missions abroad. He emphasized that the conversations had taken place in a friendly atmosphere. They had been motivated by Beck's desire to discuss the new European situation with Hitler. The 1934 Pact with Poland had proved its worth as far as Germany was concerned, and it was still the basis for German-Polish relations. The Danzig question had been discussed, but it "did not reach a practical stage." There had been no attempt to conclude agreements of any kind, and the next step in Germany's effort to achieve a comprehensive settlement with Poland would be the visit of Ribbentrop to Warsaw.43

German Optimism and Polish Pessimism
 
Beck discussed the European situation after his return to Warsaw with American Ambassador Anthony Biddle. Biddle reported to the American State p'epart~ ment on January 10, 1939, that Beck was not enthusiastic about his recent trip to Germany. The most he was willing to say about his conversation with Hitler was that it had been "fairly satisfactory," and that Hitler had promised him that there would be no "surprises." Beck confided to Biddle that Hitler was disappointed about President Roosevelt's address to Congress on January 4, 1939, which had been bitterly hostile toward Germany. Biddle noted that Beck was complacent about Anglo-French relations and concerned about current Polish relations with France. Biddle reported that "Beck emphasized that Poland and France must meet at an early date to clarify their joint and respective positions vis-a-vis Germany. They were now both in the same boat and must face realities." It was evident from the general nature of Beck's remarks that the official Polish attitude was incompatible with the successful negotiation of an agreement with Germany.44

The German attitude toward Poland was entirely different, and there was [273] an official atmosphere of optimism about the future of German-Polish relations. Swedish Minister Richert discussed the European situation with Weizsäcker on January 13, 1939. He told Weizsäcker that he regarded the approaching Ribbentrop visit to Warsaw as a further indication of increasing intimacy in German-Polish relations. Weizsäcker confirmed this impression. He assured the Swedish diplomat that the Russo-Polish declaration of November 1938 was inconsequential and did not imply any new orientation of Polish policy. He declared to Richert that the fundamental basis of Polish policy was friendship with Germany.45

Ribbentrop conferred on the same day with Albert Forster, the Danzig Party Leaders. Forster was advised to take no major steps in Danzig domestic politics until after the return of Ribbentrop from Warsaw. The German Foreign Minister did not wish unexpected incidents at Danzig to trouble the atmosphere. Ribbentrop knew that Forster was planning to introduce the German salute and the displaying of German flags on official occasions, and to increase the local Danzig S.S. (security corps) unit. He told Forster that he would be willing to discuss these measures after his trip. He added that the negotiation of a general settlement with Poland at Warsaw would resolve all existing problems. It was obvious that Ribbentrop was optimistic about the prospects for a successful negotiation.46

Lipski had accompanied Beck to Warsaw for a series of policy conferences following the visit to Hitler. The Poles were evidently flattered by Hitler’s comment that each Polish Army Division was worth one German Army Division. Hitler’s statement that a strong Poland was “simply a necessity” had also pleased the Poles.47 This did not prevent Beck from being “furious with the Germans and inclined to further consolidate our relations with England and France.” The conferences attended by Lipski began on January 8th and lasted for several days. Beck reiterated on January 10th that Poland would not accept the restoration of Danzig to Germany. His subordinates were told that Ribbentrop had raised the subject of his approaching visit to Warsaw, and that “Beck did not reply nicely to him, because he was furious against the Germans.” Beck discussed his impressions about Hitler’s general attitudes. He claimed that Hitler seemed to have little resentment against the Jews, but “much bad feeling toward Roosevelt and America.” The latter reaction was not surprising, on the day after Roosevelt’s provocative speech of January 4, 1939. The Poles at home were interested in Hitler’s alleged opinions. What Hitler had to say about the Jews sounded mild to Polish ears, which were accustomed to a strong local brand of anti-Jewish sentiment. Beck promised that he would do everything possible when he visited London to gain maximum support from the West.48

Kennard attempted to discover, after Beck returned to Warsaw, what had transpired in Germany. He informed Halifax on January 11, 1939, that Beck was regrettably evasive. The Polish Foreign Minister insisted that no detailed discussion had taken place, when Kennard pressed him hard for information about Danzig. Beck said that “a prolongation of the pact between Germany and Poland was possible, but he himself gave no indication that it was likely.” Kennard concluded that Beck did not care to confide his problems to the British at this point.49

French Ambassador Léon Noël also sought to divine the consequences of [274] Beck’s latest move. He reported to Bonnet on January 12th that Beck was reticent, and that he refused to reveal the true nature of his negotiations with Hitler. Noël complained that Beck attempted to pass off the visit as a routine clarification of views. The Danzig question came up for discussion at the League of Nations in Geneva a few days later. Burckhardt was not called upon to resign, and the situation at Danzig remained unchanged.50


The Ribbentrop Visit to Warsaw

The first definite information from Polish sources, which the British received about Beck’s visit to Germany. was provided by Raczynski in London on January 25, 1939, the date that Ribbentrop arrived in Warsaw. The Polish Ambassador was instructed by Beck to admit that Danzig had been the principal subject of discussion at Berchtesgaden. Raczynski promised Halifax that Beck had made no concession to Hitler on Danzig, and he emphasized that Hitler had promised there would be no German fait accompli. Halifax recognized the importance of the Danzig question, and he assured Raczynski that he was looking forward to personal conversations with Beck about this vital issue.51

German State Secretary Weizsäcker was increasingly pessimistic about the prospects for successful negotiation with Poland. He predicted in a memorandum of January 23, 1939, that Ribbentrop’s proposals for a settlement would fall on barren ground at Warsaw. Weizsäcker took the liberty to differ with Hitler and Ribbentrop, and it seemed to him that “after the exhaustive discussions with Polish Foreign Minister Beck during the first days of January, any more fruitful discussion of certain questions with him will hardly be possible.” Weizsäcker conceded that Beck did not constitute the entire Polish leadership, and that it might “be worthwhile to feel out their attitude on some of the more important questions.” He believed that it would be necessary at Warsaw to cover the entire complex of problems discussed at Berchtesgaden, except for Memel and the Polish Jews. The former had been settled between Beck and Hitler, and it did not seem that any satisfaction could be obtained about the Polish Jews stranded in Germany. Weizsäcker believed that Hitler’s final solution of the Jewish question, by means of establishing a Jewish haven in a former German colony, was still a remote possibility.52

Beck complained vehemently about the alleged misfortune of playing host to the “obstinate” German Foreign Minister at Warsaw. Ribbentrop was not worried about Beck’s attitude, and he was eagerly anticipating conversations with the leading Polish military men. He hoped to make a favorable impression which would be useful to Beck in negotiating an agreement with Germany. He arrived in Warsaw on January 25th, and he proposed the following encouraging toast at a state banquet the same evening: “That Poland and Germany can look forward to the future with full confidence in the solid basis of their mutual relations! “53

Beck in reply delivered an elegant speech in Polish. He insisted that Frau von Ribbentrop, through the magic of her presence, increased the importance of this official visit. He noted that the visit occurred on the eve of the 5th anniversary of the “peace declaration” between Germany and Poland on [275] January 26, 1934. Beck praised Hitler and Pilsudski in lavish terms. He said that their mutual courage, prophetic insight, and power of will had been necessary ingredients in the conclusion of the pact. Beck expressed the hope that the two nations would concentrate on creative work, and that they would not lose the value of the Pact in neighborly friction or misunderstandings. He ended his speech with a glowing toast to Adolf Hitler.54 Frau von Ribbentrop later recalled that Beck had intended to deliver a similar speech on the following day, but that he cancelled it with the explanation that a freshiy contracted cold prevented him from speaking at length.

Beck had instructed Lipski on January 24, 1939, to protest the appearance in the Berlin Voelkischer Beobachter (People’s Observer) of a map which showed that the northern section of the Polish Corridor was traditionally ethnic German territory. Beck did not like this reminder that Hitler was generous in his offer to leave this region in Polish hands. Beck had granted an interview to the English Daily Telegraph, on the previous day, which was ominously negative on the subject of German-Polish relations. Beck insisted that he intended to maintain an absolutely impartial policy toward Germany and the Soviet Union. He declared that it was a major aim of Polish policy to acquire colonies overseas for settlement and raw materials, and that it was logical for Poland to cooperate with nations which had overseas colonies at their disposal. It was known in London that Poland hoped to inherit the colonies lost by Germany in 1918.55

The Illustrowany Kurjer (illustrated Courier) at Krakow on January 25, 1939, did what it could to spoil the atmosphere for Ribbentrop’s visit. It claimed to have reliable information that Germany and the Soviet Union were negotiating a comprehensive agreement on political and economic questions. The Germans were allegedly promising that they had no territorial ambitions in Russia, and they were reported to be asking for Russian neutrality in the event of a war with Poland or with some other third state. There was not the slightest truth in this report, but it was effective in arousing the indignation of the Polish public.56

Ribbentrop conducted his principal discussions with the Polish military leaders on January 26, 1939. He assured Marshal Smigly-Rydz that there were no differences between Germany and Poland which could not be settled between Beck and himself. Ribbentrop spoke optimistically of the future, and he predicted that the Soviet Union would continue to be weakened by military purges and internal upheaval. The Polish Marshal was attentive, but he spoke in vague generalities and carefully concealed the Polish attitude toward a settlement with Germany.57

Ribbentrop was soon aware that there would be no fruitful negotiations during his visit at Warsaw. He had lengthy talks with Beck on each of the three days of his visit, but the principal conversation took place on January 26th. Ribbentrop “reverted to the old subject of the German proposal concerning the reunion of Danzig with the Reich in return for a guarantee of Poland’s economic interests there, and the building of an extra-territorial motor road and railway connection between Germany and her province of East Prussia.” He urged Beck to give more thought to German moderation in renouncing the valuable eastern territories lost to Poland after World War I. The German public still regarded these cessions as a great injustice, and “ninety-nine out of a hundred Englishmen [276] or Frenchmen would say at once, if asked, that at least the return of Danzig and the Corridor, was a natural demand on the part of Germany.” Hitler responded to this situation by offering to guarantee permanent Polish possession of the entire Corridor. Beck at first “seemed impressed ... (and) again pointed out that internal opposition was to be expected. Nevertheless, he would carefully consider our suggestion.”58

Beck shifted to the superhighway question and proceeded to blast Ribbentrop’s assumption that this problem had been virtually settled. Beck cast doubts on the possibility that the Polish leaders would accept the German superhighway. He made it difficult for Ribbentrop to argue the point in detail, because he carefully avoided giving the impression that either he or Lipski had the slightest objection to the superhighway plan. Beck returned to the Danzig question, and he requested a new assurance from Ribbentrop that there would be no German fait accompli at Danzig. He wished Ribbentrop to agree that Germany and Poland would cooperate to maintain the status of Danzig as Free City until a German-Polish agreement was reached, regardless of the position taken by the League of Nations. Ribbentrop gave Beck his personal assurance that Germany would adopt this policy.59

Ribbentrop discussed Polish adherence to the anti-Comintern Pact, but he made no progress. Beck “made no secret of the fact that Poland had aspirations directed toward the Soviet Ukraine and a connection with the Black Sea- but at the same time he called attention to the supposed dangers to Poland that in the Polish view would arise from a treaty with Germany directed against the Soviet Union.” Ribbentrop asked Beck for a prognosis of future events in the Soviet Union. Beck predicted that the Soviet system “would either disintegrate as a result of internal decay, or, in order to avoid this fate, would first gather all its strength and then attack.”

Ribbentrop was seeking to Orient his arguments to Beck’s assumptions about the Russian question. It seemed that the analysis he had just heard made all the more regrettable “the passivity of M. Beck’s attitude.” Ribbentrop urged the need to “take action against the Soviet Union by propaganda.” It would be a major propaganda move for Poland to join the anti-Comintern pact and Poland “could only gain added security.” This cogent argument fell on deaf ears. Beck merely promised to give the matter “further careful consideration. “60

Ribbentrop made no pretence, at the German Embassy reception on the evening of January 26, 1939, of achieving important results at Warsaw. He told Kennard that “he was very satisfied with the results of his visit but that we need not expect anything sensational from it.” Ribbentrop’s only conspicuous success at Warsaw was with Polish high society. Noël reported to Paris that Ribbentrop was fashionable and poised, and that his clear and imperious mien greatly pleased the Polish ladies. The French Ambassador concluded that Ribbentrop had been exceedingly effective in conducting his mission. Unfortunately, Ribbentrop’s mission was doomed to failure from the outset. The Poles were determined to resist German efforts to settle German-Polish differences.61

[271]
Hitler’s Reichstag Speech of January 30, 1939

Poland issued an optimistic communiqu6 on January 28, 1939, which had been agreed upon with Ribbentrop before the German Foreign Minister departed from Warsaw. This announcement contained no hint of the actual nature of the German-Polish negotiation. Ribbentrop had sent a cheerful telegram to Beck when he arrived at the German frontier on January 27th: “I am convinced that the friendly relations between our two countries have been considerably improved by the conversations we have had in Warsaw.” Hitler paid hearty tribute to successful German-Polish relations in his annual January 30th speech to the German Reichstag, although Ribbentrop’s report indicated that the latest conversations with the Poles were far from satisfactory.

Hitler spoke to the 855 deputies of the new Reichstag elected in April 1938, which also included the Sudetenland deputies elected in December 1938. Marshal Göring, who had been the president of the German Reichstag since 1932, was re-elected. The enabling law of March 23, 1933, which gave Hitler special powers to deal with the crisis in German internal and foreign affairs, was extended for the second time. It was agreed that the emergency law was to remain in effect until May 10, 1943. It was this law which enabled Hitler to employ dictatorial powers without scrapping the traditional democratic Weimar constitution of 1919. The constitution of Hugo Preuss was not designed for the one Party state of Hitler, but the continuity provided by the constitution satisfied the popular demand for legality in German affairs.

Hitler reminded the Reichstag that he had scarcely more than 1/3 of the votes of Germany when he was appointed Chancellor on January 30, 1933. He noted that all of the other German political parties had been hostile toward National Socialism and its program. He regarded his appointment as a 12th hour decision to help Germany. He reviewed the foreign policy achievements of 1938, and he reminded his listeners that he was determined to unite the Austrian Germans with Germany in January 1938, but that he had no plan to accomplish this. He mentioned the Czech mobilization as the motive for his own military order of May 28, 1938, and for the decision to liberate the Sudeten Germans in 1938. He promised the world that Germany had not solved Central European problems in order to threaten outside Powers, but to secure her interests and to defend herself from outside intervention. He declared that everyone in Germany had been happy about the Munich agreement, and he praised Mussolini, Daladier, and Chamberlain for their efforts to secure a peaceful solution of the Czech crisis. He told the Reichstag that the assistance of Göring and Ribbentrop had been especially important in solving foreign policy problems. He contrasted the peaceful re-unification of the Germans in 1938 with the forceful methods employed by Bismarck to achieve the partial German unification of 1871.

Hitler was scornful about the prophecies in the foreign press of approaching German doom, which merely indicated that numerous foreign journalists desired the destruction of Germany. He admitted that Germany was a dictatorship, but he argued that the nation was essentially democratic because 99% of the people were behind the Government. There was much talk abroad about whether democracies and dictatorships could live together. This was not considered an international question in Germany, because the Germans were indifferent about [278] the forms of government possessed by other nations. Hitler promised that Germany had neither a desire nor an interest in exporting National Socialism. He declared that rumors abut German aspirations in North or South America, in Australia or in China, or in Holland, merely because these nations had different governmental systems, were as fantastic as accusing Germany of seeking to annex the moon.

Hitler knew that the negative English attitude toward the trade of Germany before 1914 had been an important factor in poisoning the international atmosphere. He believed that Germany contributed to the outbreak of World War I because she misunderstood the requirements of alliance loyalty toward her Austro-Hungarian ally. He emphasized that no state had really profited from World War I, and he noted that the Englishmen who had imagined that the destruction of Germany would improve the English economic position were proved wrong. Hitler was aware that in recent months the old anti-German arguments had been revived by British political leaders and journalists. German naval power had been wrecked in World War I, but the United States and Japan had superseded the old German naval position. German trade had been destroyed, but this had harmed Great Britain as much as Germany. If the British fought World War I to spread democracy, it was evident that the earlier edition of this ideology was less prevalent than before. Hitler concluded that any possible advantage of World War I to Great Britain had long since disappeared.

Hitler noted that the British fought World War I to eliminate German foreign trade, but it would have been necessary for Germany to double her former world trade to meet the astronomical reparations demands of 1919 or 1920. It was no excuse to claim that popular feelings were too excited to permit a reasonable peace, because, this would imply a sweeping condemnation of British democracy. Hitler denied the claims of Eden and other British politicians that Germany had been seeking to withdraw from the world economy through her Four Year plans. German competition in the foreign markets was reduced by the effort to satisfy more needs at home, but Hitler promised that Germany would always recognize the necessity of foreign trade. The German capacity to produce food was limited, and German trade competition in foreign markets would be further reduced if Germany had her former colonies, which were rich in food production. Hitler said he knew that the victors of 1918 did not favor the return of the German colonies, but he believed that it would be reasonable for them to recognize the German need of trade.

Hitler complained that his disarmament offers after 1933 had met with an “icy reception.” He regretted that some of the increased German production to satisfy German needs had to find expression in the intrinsically unproductive form of armaments. It was recognized in Germany that present conditions required strong German defensive military forces to protect the German economy, and it was not necessary to secure this objective by instilling an artificial hatred toward foreign nations. Hitler concluded that it was apparently the prerogative of democracies to permit their political leaders to use distortions and inventions to create popular hatreds against peoples who had done nothing against them. Hitler considered that Duff Cooper, Eden, Churchill, and Ickes, the American Secretary of the Interior, were typical examples of war apostles. He was accused of interfering with the sacred rights of democracies when he [279] replied to their accusations. He promised that he would not forbid Germans to reply to such attacks as long as Germany was a sovereign nation, and he added that “one single laugh” was an adequate answer to the Chargé that Germany intended to assault the United States.

Hitler regretted that it was necessary to reply to the English apostles of war, but the German people, who had no hatred for Great Britain, France, and the United States, would be psychologically unprepared if the war policy triumphed and if Germany was assaulted by the Western Powers. Hitler claimed that he could convince foreign peoples, in a debate with foreign critics, that Germany had no hostile intentions toward them. American soldiers came to Europe in World War I to help strangle Germany, and the Nye committee of the American Congress had proved in 1934 that American participation in World War I was unjustifiable. Hitler noted that there was a tremendous expression of sympathy abroad for the Jews, but that little was done to help them find an adequate place for settlement. He was determined to eliminate the Jewish influence from German life. Hitler did not wish to hear the foreign nations raise the question of humanitarianism in this connection, because he remembered that more than 800,000 German children died in the Allied Hunger Blockade of World War I, and that the 1919 peace treaty took one million dairy cows from Germany.

He charged that the Jews had monopolized the leading positions in German life, but he wanted his own people in those positions. He desired German civilization to remain German and not to become Jewish. Foreign spokesmen often claimed that Germany was driving away her most valuable cultural asset, and Hitler hoped that they were sufficiently grateful that Germany was making this asset available to them. He knew that there was ample room in the world for Jewish settlement, but he believed that it was time to discard the idea that the Jews had the right to exploit every other nation in the world. He urged the Jewish people to form a balanced community of their own, or to face an unpredictable crisis. He predicted that a new World War would not lead to the Bolshevization of the world and to the victory of the Jews, but that it would produce the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe. He based this prediction on the belief that the period of propaganda helplessness before Jewish influence over the non-Jewish peoples of Europe was at an end. He predicted that in a new World War, the same things would happen to the Jews in other European countries that had already happened to them in Germany.

Hitler heard foreign critics claim that Germany was hostile toward organized religion. This was a remarkable claim when one considered that no one in Germany was persecuted because of his religious affiliation. German public tax revenues to the Catholic and Protestant churches had increased from 130 million RM (42.5 million dollars) in 1934 to 500 million RM (125 million dollars) in 1938. These churches also received 92 million RM (23 million dollars) each year from units of local German Government. The churches were the largest property owners after the state, and their properties of 10 billion RM (2.5 billion dollars) produced an annual income of 300 million RM (75 million dollars). These figures of ecclesiastical wealth did not include the donations, collections, and tax exemptions. Hitler reminded his listeners that the National Socialist state had never closed a church nor prevented a religious service. He admitted that priests and pastors who committed moral crimes, or who tried to challenge and [280] overthrow the state, were treated like any other citizens. Hitler also admitted that he had intervened in church affairs once, in 1933, in an effort to foster one united evangelical Protestant church. This effort had failed because of the resistance of certain bishops, and Hitler had recognized that it was not the function of the state to strengthen the church against its own will. Hitler wondered why democratic politicians intervened for certain punished priests or pastors in Germany, and were silent about the butchery of priests in Russia or Spain. Hitler noted that there had been no sympathy abroad in the old days for National Socialists who were punished by the Weimar German state.

Hitler admitted that he was worried about the many foreign dangers which threatened Germany, but he was pleased that Germany enjoyed the friendship of Italy and Japan. He declared that the purpose of Italo-German solidarity was salvation against Bolshevism, and he predicted that a collapse of Japan in the Far East would produce the triumph of Bolshevism in Asia. Hitler again praised Daladier and Chamberlain for their Munich policy in 1938. He noted that the atmosphere had changed since Munich, and that official British radio facilities were in use for propaganda broadcasts to Germany. Hitler promised that Germany would reply if the hostile broadcasts were continued. Hollywood was apparently interested in a big campaign of anti-German films, but Germany could reply by producing anti-Jewish films, and Hitler predicted that many states and peoples would be interested in seeing them. Hitler insisted that current tension would end quickly if this senseless agitation ceased.

Hitler expressed his conviction that there would be a long period of peace rather than another war. He could not imagine any concrete cause of conflict between Germany and Great Britain. He had often said that none of the German National Socialists wished to harm the British Empire in any way. He knew that confidence and collaboration between Germany and Great Britain would be a gain for the entire world, and the same would be true of cooperation between Germany and France. Hitler declared that there was no difference of opinion among the friends of peace about the value of the German-Polish Pact of 1934. He added that he was encouraged by the positive record of German-Polish friendship during the past year. Hitler welcomed a return to the old German friendship with Hungary. He stressed his admiration for Yugoslavia, the country of the brave Serbian soldiers of World War I. He counted Rumania, Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey among the nations friendly to Germany, and he noted that German economic cooperation with these countries was increasing. He mentioned good German relations with the other smaller nations of Europe.

Hitler knew that German-American relations were suffering from the claims of American agitators that Germany was a threat to the independence of the United States. He was confident that the great majority of the American people did not believe that there was truth in this gigantic propaganda campaign. Hitler believed that German economic relations with Latin America were the private concern of Germany and the Latin American states. He ended his speech on an optimistic note, and he thanked God for allowing him to experience the completion of German unity.62

Hitler had stressed with unerring aim the importance of the British attitude toward Germany. His optimism about avoiding an Anglo-German war would have been justified to a greater extent had German-Polish relations been as solid [281] and friendly as Hitler had indicated. Hitler was not aware of the extent to which Great Britain had fostered an anti-German policy in Poland, and he had been misled by the friendly attitude of Beck at Berchtesgaden. Hitler was disappointed by the failure of the Ribbentrop mission to Warsaw, but he remained confident that the Poles could be induced to cooperate, if they were handled with tact and patience. Hitler had made a formidable attempt to convince the foreign groups hostile toward Germany that another World War would be a disaster. It is surprising that it was necessary, after the experience of World War I, to expend so much eloquence to make such an obvious point, and it is depressing to note that the war enthusiasts of Great Britain were impervious to every such eloquent argument.

Hitler’s speech of January 30, 1939, momentarily exerted a calming influence on Beck. The Polish Foreign Minister knew that the Ribbentrop mission had been a failure, and he was concerned lest the German leaders become impatient before Poland and Great Britain were prepared to challenge them. He wrote a highly colored report about his conversations with Ribbentrop shortly before Hitler addressed the Reichstag. He observed with satisfaction that Ribbentrop had at last discovered the impossibility of persuading Poland to join the anti-Comintern Pact. Beck noted that Ribbentrop had said Germany was painfully affected by the loss of Danzig after World War I. Beck claimed to have replied, “we also remembered that for hundreds of years Danzig was part of the Republic of Poland.” Ribbentrop was well aware that Danzig had never been part of Poland. Beck would have enjoyed twisting the historical record to torment the German Foreign Minister, had he dared. He was correct in assuming that such a statement would have produced a great effect. His report was a pitiful example of a diplomat writing what consideration for high policy prevented him from saying in an actual situation.63

Beck was pleased by Hitler’s plea for peace on January 30, 1939. Beck emphasized Hitler’s sympathetic references to Poland at the Polish Foreign Office on February 1st. He concluded that this was “proof that this (Ribben. trop) visit had been a happy event.” He declared proudly that Poland was showing the Germans that she did not intend to be treated like Czecho-Slovakia. Beck created some confusion at the Polish Foreign Office by incorrectly assuring Lipski, Szembek, and Lubienski that he had “categorically rejected” the superhighway plan. There was satisfaction among some of the Poles that Ribbentrop had been generous in praising the Polish Army to Marshal Smigly-Rydz.64


Polish Concern About French Policy

American Ambassador Bullitt in Paris reported on January 30, 1939, that he discussed recent German-Polish negotiations with Juliusz Lukasiewicz, the Polish Ambassador. Lukasiewicz admitted that Danzig and the Corridor transit problems had been discussed. He informed Bullitt that Beck had warned Hitler that Poland might act in Ruthenia. Bullitt also discussed general German policy with Lukasiewicz, French Foreign Minister Bonnet, and British Ambassador Sir Eric Phipps. The three men agreed that Hitler would not deliberately make war on any country in 1939. These views were an interesting contrast to the alarmist [282] reports which Halifax had sent to President Roosevelt a few days earlier.65

American Chargé d’Affaires Gilbert reported from Berlin on February 3rd that Hitler’s basic policy in the East was friendship with Poland. It seemed certain to Gilbert that Beck would be willing to allow the return of Danzig to Germany in exchange for a 25-year Pact, and for a German guarantee of the Polish Corridor. Gilbert noted that official German circles were quite open in announcing that the reunion of Memel with East Prussia was planned for the Spring of 1939. The Germans believed that the Lithuanians, British, and French would agree to this development without any ill-feeling.66

Beck told Kennard at the time of Ribbentrop’s visit that he would be willing to come to London at any time after mid-March 1939. Kennard was still unable to give Halifax detailed information about the recent German-Polish negotiations.67

Kenulard and Noël were instructed to discover what they could about the Ribbentrop-Beck discussions at Warsaw. Beck told Kennard on February 1, 1939, that a new agreement with Germany in the foreseeable future was unlikely. He was unwilling to reveal the details of the Warsaw talks, and he insisted that current German policy toward Poland was friendly. Beck was willing to confide more to Noël. He told the French Ambassador that he had adopted a negative attitude in the superhighway question, and that Poland would not allow “a corridor through the Corridor.” Beck mentioned that Ribbentrop raised no difficulty about Polish engagements toward France. Beck obviously hoped to discourage the French tendency to reduce her commitments to Poland. The French Ambassador concluded that there was considerable friction between Poland and Germany.68

Polish Ambassador Lukasiewicz warned Beck, from Paris on February 1st, that the French attitude toward Poland had become increasingly negative since the Munich conference. He suggested that this trend would continue unless there was some new tension or crisis in Eastern Europe. He believed that a severe jolt would be required in the near future to prevent France from adopting an attitude of indifference toward Poland.69

Bonnet adopted an attitude of ironical surprise toward Polish attempts to conceal the differences between Germany and Poland. Lipski had endeavored to give Coulondre the most favorable impression possible about the Berchtesgaden conversations. Bonnet also noted the friendly public exchange of views between Germany and Poland at Warsaw. He believed that serious efforts by Beck to disguise the fact that Danzig was under discussion were doomed to failure. Bonnet, unlike Halifax, was uninterested in exploiting a German-Polish disagreement over Danzig for his own purposes. Bonnet was willing to concede that Poland had conformed to the letter of the Franco-Polish alliance during the 1938 Czech crisis, he was convinced that Polish policy had violated the spirit of the alliance. He intended to repay the Poles in kind in 1939. France would observe the letter of the Franco-Polish alliance, but Bonnet believed that she had ample justification to interpret its spirit according to her own interests. France was not obliged to support Poland in a Danzig conflict, and Bonnet did not intend that she should do so.70

Beck counted on the United States to help Great Britain prod the French into a conflict with Germany. Potocki claimed in a report of January 12, 1939, [283] from Washington, D.C., that the New Deal was making progress in stirring up hatred toward Germany in the United States. He observed that “American propaganda is somewhat rough-shod, and paints Germany as black as possilbe— they certainly know how to exploit religious persecutions and concentration camps—yet, when bearing public ignorance in America in mind, their propaganda is so effective that people here have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe.” Potocki noted that in America little attention was devoted to the terrible events taking place in Russia during the purges.71

Potocki emphasized that the United States was launching a gigantic armament program, and that the Munich pact, which created an exaggerated impression of German power in Europe, was a “great aid (wielka pomoca)” to this program. Potocki continued to exaggerate the importance of the Jews in American policy, and he ridiculed prominent American Jews, who claimed that they were “desirous of being representative of ‘true Americanism’,” but were, “in point of fact, linked with international Jewry by ties incapable of being torn asunder.” He complained that the Jews hid their Jewish internationalism in a false nationalism, and “succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike camps.”

Potocki reported on January 16, 1939, that Bullitt was returning to France from leave, on January 21st, with the avowed intention of encouraging French resistance to Germany, which he hoped to accomplish by distributing statistics on American preparation for war. Bullitt told Potocki that President Roosevelt had empowered him to tell the French leaders that the United States was abandoning isolationism, and placing her entire resources at the disposal of Great Britain and France. Bullitt praised the Polish policy of self-interest during the Czech crisis, but he predicted that the Western Powers would soon be prepared to resist German policies in Eastern Europe. Bullitt promised that this would mean the repudiation of “mere formal intervention.”72

Kennard received confirmation at the Polish Foreign Office on February 6, 1939, of Beck’s statement to Noël about the superhighway question. Kennard was flatly told “that of course there could never be any question of a corridor across the Corridor, or any extraterritorial arrangement.” This stubborn Polish attitude was very pleasing to Kennard. He was told that Poland would be unwilling to modify any of the current restrictions placed on German traffic between Berlin and Koenigsberg.73


The German-Polish Pact Scare at London

Kennard noted with satisfaction that the exchange of German and Polish visits had produced no improvement in the situation of the German minority in Poland. Beck had merely made the token gesture of agreeing to send some experts to Berlin to discuss the problem. The Poles sent a team to Berlin on February 25, 1939, but nothing was accomplished. The Poles rejected a German suggestion for a public communiqué with the concluding statement: “The discussions will be continued as soon as possible.” The Poles insisted on the formula: “The discussions will be resumed.” They made it clear that they would not consider another meeting for at least four months.

Halifax was informed by Kennard that the Poles responded to German [284] Kennard admitted, "there can be little doubt that the Polish authorities are no less active than they ever have been in whittling away and undermining the position of the German minority." Kennard did not condemn the Poles for these tactics, and he speculated that Polish measures could always be justified by complaints about conditions in Germany. He noted coolly that this source of discord could easily become a major issue of dispute.74

Halifax was nervous about a misunderstanding which had occurred in a conversation with Polish Ambassador Raczynski in mid-February 1939. He hastily wired Kennard on February l5th that the Polish envoy had casually observed that "Beek wished to come to London, preferably after he had agreed with the German Government upon 'some solution for settling the Danzig problem for the time being'." Halifax was counting on Danzig as the pretext for an Anglo-German conflict, and he was upset by the possibility that the Poles and Germans might settle the Danzig issue. He was soon reassured that Raczynski's remark had no special significance, and that the Danzig question would not have been settled, when Beek came to London.75

The Germans were curious about Beck's projected trip to London. Moltke discussed the matter with Kennard on February 24, 1939. He confided that the German Government would never reduce its minimum offer of a settlement with Poland in exchange for Danzig and the superhighway, without the railway connection. Kennard replied with serene assurance that "the Poles would never agree to such proposals." This remark worried Moltke, but he replied that Germany had no intention of using force to obtain Polish compliance. Moltke was keenly inquisitive about Beck's visit to London, but Kennard refused to comment about it. He asked Moltke what Poland had thus far offered Germany. Moltke replied wryly that Poland had offered the current status quo at Danzig, to be guaranteed by Germany and Poland. It was obvious to Kennard, and, of course, to Halifax, when he read Kennard's report, that no progress had been made by the Germans in their efforts to reach a settlement with Poland.76


Anti-German Demonstrations During Ciano's Warsaw Visit

Beek, at the time of his own visit to Rome in March 1938, had invited Italian Foreign Minister Ciano to visit Poland. Ciano arrived at Warsaw on February 25, 1939, to find Poland in an uproar. The pretext for Polish excitement was a minor Danzig incident of January 29, 1939, which the Poles magnified to concoct an affair of honor. A fight had occurred between German and Polish students of the Danzig Institute of Technology at the Cafe Langfuhr. British Consul-General Shepherd investigated the incident, and he reported to Halifax that the Polish students were guilty of fomenting disorder in the restaurant. The proprietor feared new violence. He wrote a courteous letter to the Bratnia Parnac (Brothers in Aid), a Polish student organization, and he requested that the Polish students avoid the restaurant in the future. The Polish students professed to be outraged by this alleged discrimination, and they organized a protest meeting for February 22, 1939. They passed an irrelevant resolution at [285] this meeting that Poland alone had the right to control the mouth of the Vistula and the City of Danzig. They resolved to enter any Danzig establishment they pleased. The Polish students claimed that they returned afterward to Cafe Langfuhr and encountered the following sign: "No Admittance to Dogs and Poles." British Consul-General Shepherd investigated the new incident, and he reported to Halifax that the notice had not been posted by the proprietor. The most plausible hypothesis was that the sign was a deliberate Polish provocation. The expression prohibiting dogs and certain undesirables was common in Polish university towns, but it was unknown in Germany.77

A new meeting of protest was attended by Captain Krukierck, a Polish official at Danzig. It was charged at the meeting that German students had driven Polish students out of the Danzig Institute of Technology. Foreign journalists immediately seized upon this Chargé and repeated it abroad. The Chargé was wildly exaggerated, and the French radio at Strassburg claimed that 100 Polish students had been attacked in a lecture hall by German students and units of the Danzig S.S. British Consul-General Shepherd conducted an investigation, and he reported to Halifax that Polish claims were exaggerated. It seemed that German students, who had learned of the resolutions of the Polish student organization, had shouted for the Polish students to leave the lecture hall. The Polish students had responded to this suggestion, and there had been no violence of any kind. 78

Polish High Commissioner Chodacki called on Greiser and demanded an immediate and formal apology. The Danzig Senate leader stood his ground, and he refused to accede to the Polish demand until the circumstances of the case had been clarified to the mutual satisfaction of both parties. The defiance of Greiser infuriated Chodacki. He threatened to resign, and he warned Greiser that he would have to face the consequences.
 
The Polish press went into action, and for two months the leading newspapers carried stories almost daily about the alleged mistreatment of Polish students at Danzig, under such captions as "Prosecution of the Struggle for Student Rights." Anti-German student meetings took place in the major towns of Poland. The German Embassy at Warsaw was warned that one more spark might suffice to produce Polish military action against Danzig. A demonstration against the Germans by students of the University of Poznan led to the destruction of German property and the injury of many Germans. There was a major demonstration before the German Embassy at Warsaw on February 24, 1939, which Moltke described as the worst since the conclusion of the 1934 Pact. Thousands of Poles chanted the horrible Rota song about receiving rewards from God for hanging Germans, and there were loud screams of "Down with Hitler! ," "Down with the pro-German policy!," "Away with the German dogs!," and "Long live Polish Danzig!" The demonstration was not restricted to songs and slogans. The German Embassy was bombarded with stones. The place might have been stormed had not a police guard been placed before the entrance. This guard provided dubious protection, because it consisted solely of two Polish policemen.79

Many Poles were ashamed of these outrageous provocations. The Duke of Coburg, who represented the leading German veteran organizations, was in Krakow on February 24, 1939. He was accompanied by German veterans, [286] and the group proceeded to Wawel Castle, where a wreath of honor was placed on the grave of Pilsudski. General Gorecki, the chief of the Polish federation of frontline veterans, gave a luncheon for Coburg and the German group. At this luncheon a number of comradely toasts were exchanged by the Polish and German veterans, and it was evident that the Polish group was ashamed of the excesses which were taking place throughout Poland.80

The presence of Foreign Minister Ciano in Warsaw did not prevent a second demonstration against the German Embassy on February 25, 1939. The Polish police were present in force, but the demonstration was allowed to proceed for fifteen minutes before they intervened. The Embassy was bombarded with heavy stones, and two large windows were broken. There were forty police present, and only three hundred demonstrators.

The scene was clearly illuminated, and Moltke and his assistants had an opportunity to make a careful survey of the demonstrators. Moltke reported that the German staff did not see any Jews, and that it was possible to identify the majority of the demonstrators as university students. Moltke suspected that these students represented rightist groups and organizations.81

The Danzig situation was the major topic of discussion when Ciano arrived at Warsaw. The English Daily Herald had carried a sensational story on February 24, 1939, that Albert Forster, the Danzig National Socialist leader, was planning to visit England in a desperate effort to prevent an Anglo-Polish agreement in defense of the status quo at Danzig. Forster was contacted by journalists at Danzig, and he vigorously denied the English rumors.

Ciano was met with a very hostile reception when he arrived at Warsaw. The crowd which gathered to welcome the Italian Foreign Minister shouted coarse anti-German slogans. The few cries ef sympathy for Italy, a sister Catholic state for which the Poles had a traditional sentimental attachment, could scarcely be heard. The Poles were in a combative mood. The Polish band insisted on playing the Marseillaise instead of the Italian Giovannezza on one occasion during Ciano’s visit. This discourteous gesture produced pandemonium, and a fight broke out between protesting Italian journalists and the Poles.82

The Germans did what they could to relieve Ciano of this embarrassment. They kept him directly informed from Berlin about the nature and scope of the anti-German demonstrations, and they agreed to publish nothing about the incidents in the German press during his visit. It was natural under these circumstances that the Germans were indignant when the Italian newspaper, Popolo d‘Italia (People of Italy), published a pro-Polish and anti-German statement about the unpleasantness in Poland on February 27, 1939.

Ciano’s questions to Beck about the future of German-Polish relations were very pertinent. The Polish Foreign Minister said nonchalantly that it might be possible to continue the good neighbor policy with Germany, but that difficulties were being encountered. Beck discussed the Berchtesgaden conversation of the previous month, and Ciano noted: “Beck frequently emphasizes with satisfaction, though without conviction, the assurances given him by Hitler.” The visit of Ciano to Poland was a lengthy one, and he did not leave the country until March 3, 1939. He spent the last few days on a hunting expedition in the lonely Bialowieza forest region of north-eastern Poland. He was pleased to exchange the hectic Polish urban scene for this pleasant diversion.84
[287]
Ciano discussed the situation with Moltke before he departed for Bialowieza. He said that it was perfectly obvious that the Poles did not really wish a close connection with the Axis Powers. He concluded that Polish action during the Czech crisis had merely served Polish policy, and that it was valueless as an indication of the future Polish official attitude. He had been unable to obtain any encouraging statements about Danzig from Beck. Ciano noted that the French press and radio had been extremely active in stirring up the anti-German mood in Poland during his visit. He concluded that this was a vindictive French effort to obtain revenge for the demonstrations in the Italian Chamber on November 30, 1938, on the eve of the Ribbentrop visit to Paris. The Germans could not help but note that they had to bear the brunt of this Franco-Italian feud.85

Ciano admitted that his own visit had produced no great enthusiasm in Poland. He modified his analysis about Polish policy somewhat, by concluding, after his return to Italy, that it would be foolish to imagine that Poland had been won over to the Axis, but perhaps too pessimistic to conclude that she was altogether hostile. Mussolini was disgusted with the Poles for their behavior during Ciano’s visit. He admitted that the situation of Germany and Italy in Poland did not look favorable, but he concluded philosophically that Poland, after all, was merely an “empty nut.”86

The demonstrations against the Germans died down after Ciano left Warsaw for the Polish forests. An attempt to organize a demonstration before the German Embassy on February28, 1939, was quickly broken up by the Polish police. The official Gazeta Polska on the same day had called for the restoration of order and discipline in Poland. A boycott against German firms in Poland had been launched before this happened. The occasion had been a Polish annexationist meeting on February 27, 1939, which had been sanctioned by Polish Premier Slawoj-Skladkowski. The meeting was attended by the principal Polish military commanders. The principal speaker was Colonel Kazimierz Tomaszewski.

Tomaszewski deliberately misrepresented the German position by claiming that Germany was demanding territory from Poland. He exclaimed that Poland had no reason to return any territory to Germany, but that she had several territorial demands of her own. The audience responded to this cue, and lively shouts of “Polish Danzig!” and “Polish East Prussia!” filled the air. The speaker said grimly that Danzig was a festering sore on the body of Poland which had to be lanced. The crowd cheered this talk, and the meeting ended with a resolution for a boycott of Germans, and for the institution of a special “No-Germans Day” in Poland. The presence of official spokesmen indicated that the meeting was a deliberate provocation against Germany by the Polish Government.87


Beck’s Announcement of His Visit to London

The action of the Polish Government in terminating excesses at Warsaw on February 28, 1939, was not effective immediately in the provinces. The German consulate in Pozmin was damaged by a demonstration on March 1st. Ribbentrop and Moltke busily presented protests during these days, but they produced no [288] effect. Moltke despairingly told Beck on March 8, 1939, that there were probably not more than six Poles in Poland who were sincerely interested in promoting cooperation and conciliation between Poland and Germany.

Beck on February 25, 1939, proposed to visit Halifax in England either during the last week of March or the first week of April. The British response to this suggestion was favorable, and Beck announced publicly on February 26th that this trip would take place around the end of March. Moltke was filled with foreboding by this prospect. It seemed obvious that Beck would seek to consolidate Polish relations with England. Moltke was aware of the deadly British enmity toward Germany. He deplored the fact that “in general, it is becoming increasingly apparent that Poland desires to get into closer touch with the Western democracies.”

Moltke saw that the Danzig dispute was a link between Poland and the West. He speculated that Beck might visit Paris after London, despite his refusal to do so “in a rather unfriendly manner on the occasion of his Christmas sojourn on the Riviera.”88

Ribbentrop adopted a more indulgent view toward the Polish situation. He assured Lipski in Berlin of his conviction that Beck regretted the excesses which were occurring in Poland. Ribbentrop blamed this agitation on the Polish press, and he warned that a serious situation would result if the German press was allowed the freedom to reply. He believed that a general settlement between Germany and Poland “could be rendered very difficult by such deplorable occurrences, and at the very least would be greatly delayed.” He did not betray any impatience for a rapid conclusion of an agreement with Poland.89

League High Commissioner Burckhardt was under strong pressure to remain in Switzerland until a League investigation of Danzig conditions had been completed. He reported to the German consulate at Geneva on March 1, 1939, that he hoped to return to Danzig as soon as possible. He warned the Germans that the Poles had fomented recent incidents in Danzig to stir up trouble, and he suggested that it would be wise for the Danzig Government to remain calm despite Polish provocations. He offered to sound out Halifax about Danzig in London, and then to report to Ribbentrop at Berlin. Ribbentrop replied several days later that he was prepared to receive Burckhardt at any time. The Slovak crisis had reached a climax when Burckhardt arrived in Berlin on March 13th. He had been unable to arrange a meeting with Halifax. The Germans advised Burckhardt not to return to Danzig during the Slovak crisis. Burckhardt predicted that difficult days were coming for Danzig, and that the Poles would seek to misuse his authority, and to play him off against Germany. The visit of Burckhardt to Berlin produced the usual spate of fantastic rumors in the Western press. Weizsäcker wrote to Burckhardt at Geneva advising him to ignore these stories.90

The Germans received a report on Ciano’s impressions of Poland on March 4, 1939. Ciano observed that “Poland is living under the dictatorship of a dead man.” Everywhere the disciples of Pilsudski were the supreme authorities. Ciano found it difficult to interpret Polish policy, because “everyone regards himself as the appointed guardian of the Pilsudski heritage, but there is no one with really new ideas.” Ciano misjudged the Poles when he predicted that in a general war they would delay their own decision and “then hurry to the aid of the [289] victor. This was contrary to Polish strategy during the war between Denikin and the Russian Reds in 1920. The analysis of Ciano on this point would apply more aptly to Italy than to Poland.91

The Ciano visit revealed a contemptuous Polish attitude toward Italy. Kennard was told at the Polish Foreign Office that Ciano “clearly has not the courage to do anything which might displease the Reich.” Kennard incorporated this in what he hoped was a clever report to Halifax. Grigorie Gafencu, the new Rumanian Foreign Minister, had recently been to Poland on a first brief visit. He had made a very favorable impression on Beck, who regarded him as a delightful contrast to his predecessor. Kennard summarized the recent state visits to Warsaw with the remark that “Ribbentrop was regarded with dislike, Ciano with contempt and Gafencu with distinct sympathy.” It was perhaps natural for the exuberant and reckless Poles to have contempt for a cautious and experienced people like the Italians, but Poland could have profited from a closer study of Italian policy.92

German-Polish relations in March 1939 stood under the sign of Beck’s approaching visit to London. Ribbentrop was complacent about this development, but Moltke continued to address solemn warnings to the German Foreign Office. It was announced on March 9, 1939, that Beck would arrive at London on April 3rd. Moltke reported on the same date that a top Polish military man had described recent excesses in Poland as “completely justified,” and the provocative Polish press attacks against Germany showed no sign of abating.93

Moltke recalled three weeks of minor demonstrations in August 1938, because a Polish railway man on the Gdynia-Danzig run had lost his legs through his own carelessness. The demonstrations of August 1938 were mild compared to what he had experienced since January 1939. The Langfuhr incident was “the most incredible case of incitation that had ever come to my attention.” He was suspicious about Beck’s oft-repeated statement that the situation should not be regarded too pessimistically. Such an attitude was either completely unrealistic or deliberately evasive. It seemed too easy to claim that countries officially hostile to Germany, such as the United States, were responsible for much of the agitation. Equally unconvincing was Beck’s argument that the trouble resulted from the failure to settle the Ruthenian question. Moltke noted that Polish agitators were spreading the impression “that with the problems of Austria and the Sudetenland solved, it was now Poland’s turn.” Beck, and not the Polish people, had received from Hitler “the very plain statements at Berchtesgaden.” Beck was expending no effort to influence the attitude of the Polish people.94

Moltke discussed the situation with Beck on March 10, 1939, and he endeavored to discover why the Polish Foreign Minister was going to London. Beck truthfully asserted that the initiative for his visit came from England, but Moltke did not believe him. Beck observed casually that, in response to English initiative, he had requested an unofficial visit in order to have a maximum amount of time for political discussions. He claimed genially that he had no “special problems” in mind, but sought a “general tour d’horizon.” Beck admitted that “of course” he intended to discuss Danzig with the British, who were on the special Committee of Three to supervise League affairs in the Free City.
[290]
Beck hoped that the British Government would help “to prevent a vacuum” by maintaining the League position at Danzig until Germany and Poland arrived at some sort of agreement. He mentioned a report just received from Lipskl, and noted to his “great joy” that Hitler did not intend to permit the Danzig question to disturb German-Polish relations. Beck was extraordinarily successful in reassuring Moltke with these pleasant generalities. The attitude of Moltke after this conversation was not dissimilar to that of Ribbentrop.95

Beck was not under the slightest pressure from Germany in March 1939 to negotiate a hasty settlement of German-Polish differences. The Germans were willing to accept at face value the claims of Beck that a settlement was difficult, and they displayed persistent serenity despite many Polish provocations. Nearly five months had passed since the launching of the German-Polish negotiation on October 24, 1938. There had not been one occasion during the ensuing period when the Germans had adopted a threatening attitude toward Poland. It was obvious that they placed a great value on cooperation with Poland, and that they hoped for an agreement on a basis of fairness and equality.

The Germans had much to offer Poland, including great economic advantages and real protection from any foreign invasion. The British were not inclined to offer Poland economic advantages, and they could not protect her by military means. They had condemned the role of Poland during the 1938 Czech crisis, and in 1939 they merely hoped to use the Poles as an instrument against Germany. It was ironical that Beck was about to embark for London to conclude a general settlement with England instead of with Germany.

Halifax had three great advantages over Hitler in this situation. Pilsudski was dead, and the Polish leadership was operating on his obsolete directives from 1934 and 1935. Great Britain was far away, and her immediate aspirations could not threaten Polish ambitions. Great Britain enjoyed a position of world influence in her Empire, in her dependent territories, and in France and the United States. The Poles were dazzled by the fame and grandeur of the British position. The British were about to present an open challenge to Germany, and Beck was aware of their intention. Beck planned to join the British in challenging Germany rather than to grasp the hand of friendship which Hitler had extended to him for such a long time. The policy of Beck in 1939 was incompatible with the survival of the new Polish state.

[291]
Chapter 12


THE REVERSAL OF BRITISH POLICY


Dropping the Veil of an Insincere Appeasement Policy

The German program in 1938 and 1939 to revise the territorial provisions of the Paris peace treaties was of direct concern to Austria, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, and Poland. The Germans did not wish for changes at the expense of such neighbors as France, Italy, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, and Luxemburg. Rump-Austria was absorbed by the German Reich in March 1938, and the Czecho-Slovak state disappeared in March 1939, with the establishment of the Bohemia-Moravia Protectorate and the independence of Slovakia. Lithuanian Foreign Minister Urbsys agreed at Berlin on March 20, 1939, to return Memel to Germany, and this decision was approved by the Lithuanian Cabinet on March 22nd.l

Germany did not ask for territory from Poland, but she had requested Polish approval for special German transit facilities through the Polish Corridor and the return of Danzig to the Reich. German objectives in Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Lithuania had been achieved without bloodshed, and Hitler hoped to negotiate a settlement with Poland. The Germans exerted no pressure and betrayed no impatience in discussing their proposals with the Poles. Hitler was willing to wait an indefinite period for a favorable Polish response. Germany had virtually completed her program of territorial revision, and she would soon enjoy a period of security which would enable her to consolidate her gains and to continue her program of internal reconstruction. Her security would be based on the strong foundation of satisfactory relations with all of her immediate neighbors. Italy was friendly to the German program, the Soviet Union was isolated from Central Europe by a hostile Poland, and France was not inclined to intervene in the Danzig question.2

The official British policy toward Germany, during the year from March 1938 to March 1939, while Hitler was realizing most of his objectives, was based on appeasement. The British had accepted the German annexation of both Austria [292] and the Sudetenland. An Anglo-German declaration of friendship had been signed on September 30, 1938, at the special invitation of Prime Minister Chamberlain. The size of the German Navy was carefully restricted by the Anglo-German Naval Treaty of 1935, and the British public was assured by their Conservative leaders that Germany was scrupulously abiding by the terms of this agreement. Hitler had made it clear to the British leaders on numerous that he would never attempt to force the British to return the overseas colonies of Germany, which had been seized in the 1914-1919 period. British trade in overseas markets was gaining  steadily at the expense of German trade during 1938-1939.3

The German program of territorial revision on the European continent was modest in its dimensions. Hitler had no intention of attempting to regain control over the remaining European territories which had been held by Germany and Austria in 1914. He had renounced Alsace-Lorraine, Eupen-Malmedy, North Schleswig, South Tirol, Austrian Slovenia, Poznari, East Upper Silesia, and Polish West Prussia. His program was based on a careful compromise between what the Germans of the Reich and allied Austria, excluding Hungary, had held in 1914, and what they had lost in 1919. His program was restricted to the return of approximately one-half of the lost German territories. Hitler, in Mein Kampf, had suggested for some distant future the importance of larger German aspirations in Eastern Europe at the expense of Bolshevism, but this program, which was in the interest of all enemies of Bolshevism, has found no official expression in German policy during the period 1933-1939. It was obvious in early 1939 that Hitler envisaged an Eastern European policy based exclusively on German-Polish cooperation.4

The British had no territorial commitments in Eastern Europe. The Czechs had been promised a territorial guarantee by the Four Munich Powers, but British Foreign Minister Halifax had carefully evaded the fulfillment of this promise. The assertion of  Gilbert and Richard Gott in their recent study, The Appeasers, that the Czech state had been guaranteed is manifestly untrue. Chamberlain explained to the British House of Commons on March 15, 1939, that the dissolution of the Czech state, which Great Britain had merely proposed to guarantee, put an end to this question. He added that Germany was under no obligation to consult with Great Britain during the final phase of the March 1939 Czech crisis. Geoffrey Dawson, the influential editor of the London Times, noted that the remarks of Chamberlain were “well-received” by the British Parliament. Furthermore, Gilbert and Gott are quite wrong in describing the Czech state of 1939 as “an old ally” of Britain. There had been no Anglo-Czech alliance.5

The British leaders had no unilateral obligation to intervene on behalf of Poland or any other state of Eastern Europe. The British leaders in March 1939 were much less concerned about the German rearmament campaign than had been the case at the time of the signing of the Anglo-German friendship declaration. The British leaders knew that they were gaining on Germany in the air, although nearly one half of the total German arms expenditure went to the German Air Force. It was evident that the German armament program was extremely limited to scope. 6

The favorable outlook for European peace and prosperity in March 1939 was [293] threatened by a British plan for preventive war. The British leaders took a series of steps which they hoped would make war inevitable. They worked for war against Germany despite the fact that there was no German challenge to British interests, and that the German leadership was entirely pro-British in both outlook and policy. The British leaders in March 1939 deliberately seized upon war as an instrument of national policy despite the British commitment to the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928. The British policy was especially objectionable because it condoned an effort to draw as many nations as possible into the horrors of a new World War. Halifax and his colleagues were also determined to foist the entire blame for their conspiracy on Adolf Hitler.7

The British leaders recognized no strictures of conscience in seeking to achieve their objective of destroying Germany. They perpetrated a gigantic hoax about German designs on Rumania, which were purely imaginary, to incite a misinformed Anglo-Saxon public against Hitler. They begged the Soviet Union to sign an alliance against Germany, although this was a fateful and dangerous step which could lead to Bolshevist hegemony in Europe. They told the Poles that they would give them full military support if Poland refused to conclude an agreement with Germany, and they informed the entire world about this new diplomatic strategy in a series of public announcements. These steps, from an appeasement policy to a war policy, were taken in the short period of five days from March 15-March 20, 1939, and there was not the slightest effort during this period to negotiate about the situation with Germany. This British policy was without moral scruples, and, what was much worse from the viewpoint of successful statecraft, was based on a distorted appraisal of British interests. Adolf Hitler naturally deplored the apparent determination of the British leaders to undermine their own position in the world.8

It is instructive to consider the comments of the British leaders about what they believed was the opening of a righteous campaign to destroy Germany, and, in view of the British bombing strategy adopted in 1936, to destroy the German women and children. Alan Campbell Johnson, an enthusiastic admirer of Lord Halifax, referred to the “Halifax Diplomatic Revolution” of March 1939, “which culminated in the ‘unprecedented’ guarantees to Poland, Rumania and Greece.” He believed that “the essence of his (Halifax’s) achievement … was an attempt to revive Britain’s historic and traditional role, the Balance of Power.” Halifax rejoiced in what he considered a favorable opportunity to bring his inveterate hostility toward Germany into the open. He recalled an incident with a spokesman from a group of politically disaffected Italians at Rome in January 1939. Halifax was told that this group considered Germany to be “the only enemy we have got.” Halifax replied “We also feel that.” Halifax had to wait impatiently for another two months before it was opportune to announce this to the entire world. He was convinced in March 1939 that the British public could be persuaded that Hitler had an “evil mind.” He was willing to tell anyone who cared to listen that Hitler was seeking “world domination.”9

Sir John Simon believed that the speech which Halifax prepared for Chamberlain to deliver at Birmingham on March 17, 1939, was effective in uniting Great Britain for war. The theme of this speech was the insidious suggestion that Hitler was seeking to conquer the world. Simon observed with unparalleled cynicism [294] that Chamberlain was an effective spokesman for this propaganda, because his Munich policy in 1938 had given him the reputation of being pro-German.10

Sir Samuel Hoare believed that the increase in British armament since the Munich conference justified the challenge to Germany in March 1939. He was convinced that the Danzig issue could be utilized to produce a conflict. He was quite candid about this situation after World War II, when he admitted that a military alliance with Poland was an absolute necessity in producing an Anglo-German war. Hoare was considering the British choice in concluding an immediate agreement with Poland rather than the Soviet Union. He conceded that the need to find a pretext to oppose Germany influenced this decision, rather than the mere military factor. This meant that Great Britain was more interested in fighting Germany than in accumulating a maximum amount of strength for the so-called defensive front.11

It is important to consider the attitude of Prime Minister Chamberlain, the fourth member of the British parliamentary group primarily concerned with the formulation of foreign policy. Chamberlain, unlike Halifax, was inhibited in his enthusiasm for a crusade against Germany by a “most profound distrust of Russia.” This realistic alarm about playing Stalin’s game in Europe emerged periodically in Chamberlain’s thinking, but he did not contest Halifax’s line of policy. He declared on March 19, 1939, that it was “impossible to deal with Hitler.”12

The permanent staff at the British Foreign Office welcomed the shift in British policy in March 1939. The majority of the permanent staff had been strongly anti-German for many years. They considered that the denunciations of Germany by Halifax and Chamberlain in March 1939 were a belated recognition of their own anti-German attitudes. The two principal permanent officials were Sir Robert Vansittart, Diplomatic Adviser to His Majesty’s Government, and Sir Alexander Cadogan, Permanent Under-Secretary at the British Foreign Office. These two men had been in close agreement for a long time. Cadogan took the lead in concerting British commitments in Eastern Europe with Halifax. The British military leaders were excluded from these deliberations, because Halifax and Cadogan did not welcome criticism about the weakness of their policy from a practical military standpoint.13

Sir Hughe Knatchbull-Hugessen, who had Chargé of the new Economic Warfare Department of the British Foreign Office during the months after the Munich agreement, believed that both the propaganda and practical military factors had received adequate attention before March 1939. He accepted the delay in the abandonment of appeasement until March 1939 as clever strategy which enabled Great Britain to hurry her war preparation. He agreed with Simon that the Munich conference strategy had enabled Chamberlain “to show the world beyond all possibility of contradiction the full measure of Nazi villainy.”14

The anti-Munich war enthusiasts led by Winston Churchill were naturally delighted by the unexpected turn of events. Sir Arthur Salter declared that Halifax was worthy of his kinsman, Sir Edward Grey, who had led Great Britain into World War I. His attitude toward Chamberlain was softened by the new course of the Government, and he proclaimed that the Prime Minister was “more than usually resolute, authoritarian, and strong-willed.” Leopold Amery [295] was pleased that Chamberlain was “all for immediate action” after his Birmingham speech on March 17, 1939. Amery was inclined to conceal his misgivings about an unlimited British military commitment to the Poles, which he declared privately had “no conceivable military justification.”15

Winston Churchill was not consulted by the British Government leaders in March 1939. He agreed with Geoffrey Dawson that Chamberlain’s conciliatory remarks toward Germany in Parliament on March 15, 1939, after the German occupation of Prague, were well-received. He did not believe that Chamberlain was under strong public pressure to change his policy. Churchill expected Chamberlain to deliver another conciliatory speech at Birmingham on March 17, 1939, and he awaited the Prime Minister’s remarks “with anticipatory contempt.” He was not prepared for Chamberlain’s bellicose speech, and he admitted that the “Prime Minister’s reaction surprised me.” It was evident that Chamberlain and Halifax were leading British public opinion rather than following it. There was nothing to force the British leaders, as Churchill put it, to do a ”right-about-turn” .16

Thomas Jones, who was in close touch with the British leaders in March 1939, explained the situation in a letter to an American friend in New Jersey. He declared that Great Britain “feels stronger and more united than it would have done had not Munich been tried as a gesture for peace and failed.” He hoped that British preoccupation with distant Eastern Europe was intelligible. He explained that “we are busier on the eastern front of Germany so as to make her have to fight on two fronts.” Jones agreed with Simon and Hoare that the Halifax strategy would make war inevitable.17


British Concern about France

The British were unable to unfold their strategy in Eastern Europe without considering the position of France. Pierre-Etienne Flandin had once been closer than any other political leader in France to Halifax and Chamberlain. Flandin had visited Germany in December 1937 shortly after the conversation at Berchtesgaden between Hitler and Halifax. He had received assurances from the German leaders that the Third Reich was dedicated to a permanent policy of collaboration with Great Britain, France, Italy, and Poland. Flandin was inclined to believe these assurances of the German leaders. He was skeptical about the possible survival of the Czecho-Slovak state after Munich, and he was scornful about the belligerent reaction of the British leaders to the events at Prague in March 1939. Flandin assured the German diplomats at Paris on March 20, 1939, that the events at Prague had not affected his attitude toward the need for lasting cooperation between Germany and France.18

The attitude of Flandin was a matter of great concern to Halifax. Flandin was close to Daladier and Bonnet, and it was clearly possible that the French Government might reject the British thesis that war was inevitable. A meeting of the French Supreme War Council had been held on March 13, 1939. General Maurice Gamelin, the Commander of the French Army, had based his remarks at the meeting on the assumption that the collapse of Czecho-Slovakia within two or three days was a certainty. Gamelin was aware that an effort might be [296] made to involve France in war with Germany. He was inclined to be negative about such a war. He claimed that German defensive fortifications in the West were extremely formidable. He complained that the peace treaties of 1919 had virtually confined the Soviet Union to Asia, and that the attitude of Poland deprived the Franco-Soviet military alliance of appreciable value. He included Poland among the small states of Eastern Europe, which he said were in no position to play a major military role. He believed that the defensive position of France was strong, but he was negative toward any aggressive French military policy. His analysis of the military situation encouraged Georges Bonnet during the following days to adopt a skeptical attitude toward British plans for a military crusade.19

Premier Edouard Daladier was not inclined to be indignant about the Czech situation. His attitude toward the Czecho-Slovak state had always been negative, and he accepted the verdict of French Minister Lacroix at Prague that the Czech leaders had never been able to develop a true national sentiment among the nationalities of their country. He complained that Chamberlain on March 17, 1939, renounced the policy of mediating between Germany and France; he had returned to the policy of collective security and mutual assistance without consulting the French leaders.20

Foreign Minister Bonnet had hoped to head off a violent British reaction to the events at Prague by taking the initiative on March 16, 1939, for a mild Anglo-French formal protest to Germany. Bonnet believed that this step was necessary for the record, because Czecho-Slovakia had been formally the ally of France (not of Britain) when Hitler induced President Hacha to accept the German-Czech agreement of March 15, 1939. Bonnet had received a friendly personal letter from German Foreign Minister Ribbentrop on March 15, 1939. Ribbentrop justified German policy at Prague as a necessary step to preserve order and prevent bloodshed.21

Bonnet had anticipated a new European crisis in January 1939 after he discussed the European situation with Chamberlain and Halifax at Paris. The two British leaders had called on the French leaders before visiting Mussolini at Rome. Bonnet hoped to improve Franco-Italian relations in the interest of continental collaboration for peace. He was pleased when Premier Daladier took the initiative to send Paul Baudouin, the General-Director of the Bank of Indochina, on a special mission to Rome. Baudouin, who had enjoyed friendly contacts in Italy for many years, discussed the situation with Mussolini and Ciano, and he reported to Daladier and Bonnet on February 7, 1939. The mission had produced solid results. The Italian leaders agreed that special relations of confidence between France and Italy, based on periodic consultation, were necessary in the interest of European peace. The tension which had been produced by the annexationist demonstration in the Italian Chamber on November 30, 1938, was surmounted. Bonnet could anticipate with confidence that Mussolini would support France in any move for peace in a difficult situation. This new Franco-Italian cooperation, which was based on the concrete desire for peace in both countries, was a serious obstacle to the war policy of Halifax.22

William C. Bullitt, the leading American diplomat in Europe, was pleased by the reversal of British policy in March 1939. He knew that President Roosevelt [297] would welcome any British pretext for a war in Europe. Ambassador Bullitt sent a jubilant report from Paris on March 17, 1939, in which he triumphantly concluded that there was no longer any possibility for a peaceful diplomatic settlement of European differences.23


Hitler Threatened by Halifax

Halifax did not await the speech of Chamberlain at Birmingham on March 17, 1939, before taking a strong stand on the Czech crisis. He admitted in the House of Lords on March 15, 1939, that the events at Prague did not oblige the British Government to take any action, but he dishonestly claimed that he had made a number of serious but unsuccessful efforts to persuade the other Munich Powers to join the British in guaranteeing the Czech state. He also claimed that Great Britain felt no less morally bound than if the guarantee had actually been made. He admitted that the events at Prague had taken place with the approval of the previous Czech Government, but he complained that the spirit of the Munich agreement had been violated.

Halifax was much more frank in expressing his views to German Ambassador Dirksen on March 15th. He claimed that Hitler had unmasked himself as a dishonest person. He insisted that German policy implied a rejection of good relations with Great Britain. He also insisted that Germany was “seeking to establish a position in which they could by force dominate Europe, and, if possible, the world.”24

Halifax believed that he had been in good form during this conversation. He observed afterward that by comparison the German Ambassador had spoken “with little conviction” and with “considerable difficulty.” The reports which Dirksen sent to Berlin during these days prove that he was considerably shaken by the violent British reaction to the latest Czech crisis. Dirksen was the heir of Lichnowsky, the last German Ambassador in London before the outbreak of war in 1914. Both men recognized the importance of an Anglo-German understanding, and they both became almost incoherent with grief, when confronted with the collapse of their respective diplomatic efforts. The entire German Embassy staff was dismayed by the events of March 1939.25

The British had done everything short of leaving their islands to create the impression that the future of Bohemia was a matter of complete indifference to them. They then turned about and declared that the events in Bohemia had convinced them that Hitler was seeking to conquer the world. It is small wonder that the German diplomats exposed to this London atmosphere were in despair.


Halifax’s Dream of a Gigantic Alliance

The principal aim of Halifax after March 15, 1939, was an alliance combination which would fulfill the war requirements of British policy. He wished Great Britain to assume commitments in a dispute which could easily lead to war. He desired to command an alliance combination of preponderant power, which would guarantee victory, or at least make victory highly probable. Halifax [298] believed that these requirements would be met in a combination including Great Britain, France, Poland, and Soviet Russia, provided, of course, that the United States could be relied upon to supply reserve power to cover any unexpected deficiency in the strength of the alliance. The difficulty with this plan was that an alliance combination including both Poland and the Soviet Union was a sheer impossibility.

Halifax was not fully aware of this fact despite the informative reports on the Polish attitude toward Soviet Russia which he had received from Kennard. Halifax regarded Poland as a minor Power, and it was customary for minor Powers to make concessions to the Great Powers which volunteered to protect their interests. He was never able to understand that the Polish leaders would not deviate from their policy toward the Soviet Union merely to please Great Britain. Halifax was compelled to choose between Poland and the Soviet Union, when Poland refused to join a combination which included Russia. He chose Poland, but he retained the mental reservation that he would be able to persuade the Poles to modify their attitude toward Russia. This enabled him to reason that his choice between Russia and Poland was temporary. He hoped to reconcile these two Powers, and to secure the services of both of them for the British balance of power program.26

David Lloyd George believed that Halifax was reckless in choosing Poland instead of Russia for his alliance combination. The point was brought out again and again in the British Parliament that Halifax had picked the weaker Eastern European Power for his encirclement front. It was shown that Great Britain was assuming commitments in Eastern Europe which could not conceivably be defended without the Soviet Union. This ignored the fact that Halifax had made the logical decision for his particular policy. There would have been no likelihood of a war for Danzig had Halifax appeased his critics by doing things the other way around. The Russians would not have fought for Poland when the Poles refused their aid, and France would have been inclined to follow the Russian lead. Halifax feared that the Poles might proceed to an agreement with Germany, if he slighted Poland in favor of Russia. This would have enabled Hitler to complete his program of territorial revision without war. The involvement of Germany in war was the cardinal feature of Halifax’s foreign policy.27

Halifax welcomed the enthusiastic support for a change in British policy which he received from the American Government after March 15, 1939. The collapse of Czecho-Slovakia produced a greater immediate outburst of hostility toward Germany in Washington, D.C., than in any other capital of the world. German Chargé’ d’Affaires Thomsen reported to Berlin that a violent press campaign against Germany had been launched throughout the United States. There was much resentment in American New Deal circles when Sir John Simon delivered a speech in the British House of Commons on March 16, 1939, in support of Chamberlain’s conciliatory message on the previous day. The Simon speech produced a vigorous American protest in London on March 17, 1939. Halifax replied by promising President Roosevelt that the British leaders were “going to start educating public opinion as best they can to the need of action.” This is a different picture from the one presented by Gilbert and Gott to the effect that “for most men the answer was simple” after the events at Prague on March 15, 1939. Roosevelt warned Halifax that there would be “an increase of [299] anti-British sentiment in the United States” unless Great Britain hastened to adopt an outspokenly anti-German policy.28

Roosevelt requested Halifax to withdraw the British Ambassador from Germany permanently. Halifax replied that he was not prepared to go quite that far. British opinion was less ignorant than American opinion about the requirements of diplomacy, and Halifax feared that a rude shock would be produced if the British copied the American practice of permanently withdrawing ambassadors for no adequate reasons. He promised that he would instruct Henderson to return to England for consultation, and he promised that he would prevent the return of the British ambassador to Germany for a considerable time. He also promised that Chamberlain would deliver a challenging speech in Birmingham on the evening of March 17, 1939, which would herald a complete change in British policy. He assured Roosevelt that Great Britain was prepared at last to intervene actively in the affairs of Central Europe.

Halifax requested President Roosevelt to join Great Britain in showing “the extent to which the moral sense of civilization was outraged by the present rulers of Germany.” He knew that this lofty formulation of the issue would appeal to the American President. Roosevelt was satisfied with the response from Halifax. He promised the British Foreign Secretary that he would undermine the American neutrality legislation, which had been adopted by the American Congress, with New Deal approval, in response to pressure from American public opinion. Halifax also received the promise that American Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau would take vigorous new steps in his policy of financial and economic discrimination against Germany. Halifax was greatly encouraged by the support he received from President Roosevelt for his war policy.29


The Tilea Hoax

Halifax had not waited for promptings from the American President before preparing his new policy. For several days, he had been organizing one of the most fantastic intrigues of modern diplomacy. The sole purpose of this activity was to ease the change in British policy by inventing a broader basis than the Czech crisis from which to justify it to the British public.

Halifax intended to claim that Germany was threatening Rumania. Germany had no common frontier with Rumania, but she did have diplomatic and economic relations with that country, and German territory extended to within about three hundred miles of the Rumanian frontier. Great Britain dominated Rumanian finances, and she had large holdings in Rumanian petroleum and other industries. The Rumanians were eager to receive shipments of arms from Great Britain, because their principal source of armament at the Skoda works in Bohemia was now in German hands. A German trade delegation was in Rumania to negotiate a commercial treaty, which was not signed until March 23, 1939. The main purpose of the German mission was to arrange for German aid in the modernization of Rumanian agriculture and to increase Rumanian agricultural exports to Germany. The presence of a German delegation at Bucharest was useful in claiming the existence of a German plot. The visit of King Carol to [300] London in November 1938 had enabled Halifax to confirm the fact that British influence was still dominant in Rumania. Virgil Tilea, the Rumanian Minister to Great Britain, was a pliable person and a willing accessory to the false Chargés which Halifax planned to present against the Germans. The British knew that Grigorie Gafencu, the new Rumanian Foreign Minister, was a man of honor who would not consent to participate in such a conspiracy, and they did not inform him of their scheme. They counted on British influence at Bucharest to prevent an effective protest to their action. Halifax intended to claim that the Germans were seeking to seize control of the entire Rumanian economy, and that they had presented an ultimatum at Bucharest which had terrified the Rumanian leaders.30

Tilea was carefully coached for his role by Sir Robert Vansittart, the vehemently anti-German Chief Diplomatic Adviser to His Majesty’s Government. The British confided in Tilea, and they told him before the Germans went to Prague that Great Britain intended to oppose Germany. Tilea knew that King Carol had failed to obtain a British loan for arms in 1938, and he believed that his own prestige would be increased if he obtained such a loan. He had arrived in Great Britain as Rumanian Minister on January 9, 1939, with general instructions to do everything possible to bring the loan question to a successful issue, and he pursued these instructions with a single-mindedness devoid of any moral inhibitions.31

Tilea told Halifax on March 14, 1939, that he would welcome a hostile British reaction to the expected German occupation of Prague. He was pleased that the British had secretly decided before the culmination of the Czecho-Slovak crisis to abandon a projected mission for trade talks in Germany. He promised Halifax that a further increase of British influence in Rumania would be welcome. He suggested that the British could make an effective appeal to the vanity of King Carol if they elevated the British Legation in Bucharest to an Embassy. He believed that it would avoid suspicion and soothe easily ruffled Balkan feelings if they took the same step at Belgrade and Athens. Tilea made it clear that he was especially pleased by British interest in an armament loan which would be a source of personal profit for himself.32

The British assured Tilea that they were inclined to grant the loan and to elevate the British Legation at Bucharest, which of course meant that the Rumanian Legation in London would also become an Embassy. They were pleased that Tilea was prepared to pay the price by offering to cooperate unreservedly with their anti-German scheme. There were daily conferences between Tilea and British Foreign Office spokesmen during the interval between this personal agreement and the public hatching of the plot on March 17, 1939. Halifax was anxious to avoid the possibilities that Tilea might change his mind or misunderstand his role. Gilbert and Gott begin their effort to protect the reputation of Halifax in this unsavory situation by wrongly claiming that Bonnet expected a German move into Rumania, and that the first discussions with Tilea at the British Foreign Office did not take place until March 16, 1939, after the German occupation of Prague.

The crucial day arrived at last. Tilea issued a carefully prepared public statement on March 17th which charged that Germany had presented an ultimatum to Rumania. Sir Robert Vansittart hastened to release this “big story” to the

London Times and the Daily Telegraph before the Prime Minister spoke at Birmingham. Millions of British newspaper readers were aghast at the apparently unlimited appetite of Hitler and the alleged rapidity and rapacity of his various moves. The “big story” shook British complacency, and it produced bewilderment, anxiety, and outspoken hostility toward Germany. Chamberlain was presented by Halifax with the text of a speech on foreign policy, and he was persuaded to scrap his own speech on British domestic affairs. This development was explained with the quaint statement that Chamberlain had received “fuller knowledge” of recent events.33

The Tilea episode was crucial to the development of the Halifax policy, and the British Foreign Secretary was not bothered by the repercussions of the affair at Bucharest. The British Minister to Rumania, Reginald Hoare, appealed to Halifax on March 18, 1939, to stop British radio broadcasting of irresponsible statements from Tilea, and to desist from referring to them in official dispatches. This urgent appeal produced no effect at London. Hoare proceeded to explain in detail the ridiculous nature of Tilea’s charges. He feared that what he regarded as London’s astonishing credulity would seriously damage British prestige.34

Hoare considered it “so utterly improbable that the Minister of Foreign Affairs would not have informed me that an immediate (italics his) threatening situation had developed here that I called on him as soon as your telegrams to Warsaw and Moscow had been decyphered. He told me that he was being inundated with enquiries regarding the report of a German ultimatum which had appeared in ‘The Times’ and ‘Daily Telegraph’ today. There was not a word of truth in it.” Hoare assured Halifax that he had been very inquisitive about Dr. Helmuth Wohlthat’s German economic mission to Rumania, but Gafencu “expressed bewilderment,” and maintained “under close cross-examination” that negotiations “on completely normal lines as between equals” were being conducted.35

Hoare naturally assumed that his detailed report would induce Halifax to disavow the Tilea hoax. Nothing of the sort occurred. Hoare had been surprised when Halifax accepted Tilea’s story without consulting the British Legation in Bucharest. He was astonished when Halifax continued to express his faith in the authenticity of the story after its falsehood had been exposed.

Wilhelm Fabricius, the German Minister to Rumania, conducted an even more thorough investigation of the Rumanian attitude toward the Tilea hoax. He satisfied himself that King Carol had had no advance knowledge of the plot. He reported to Berlin on March 18, 1939, that Rumanian Foreign Minister Gafencu had presented to him a disavowal of the statements made at London by Tilea. Gafencu insisted that all charges concerning German demands on Rumania were entirely without foundation.36

American Minister Gunther reported from Bucharest on March 20, 1939, that “Tilea, the Anglophile Rumanian Minister,” was guilty of “excessive zeal.” Tilea had nonchalantly informed Gafencu that he was “merely trying to be helpful.” Gafencu had assured the American diplomats in Rumania that economic negotiations with the Germans were proceeding on a normal basis. The Rumanian Foreign Minister complained that Tilea’s false report “had been seized upon by the Jewish controlled sections of the western press.” Gafencu was [302] furious with Tilea, but he did not dare withdraw him from London for fear of offending Halifax.37


Poland Calm about Events at Prague

The British press was soon flooded with stories about the alleged German mistreatment of the Czechs, and about the alleged German ultimatum to Rumania. The attitude of the press in Poland, on the eve of Halifax’s offer of March 20, 1939, to conclude an alliance with the Poles, was entirely different. There was virtually no comment on the Tilea hoax, and the Polish leaders had made it known almost immediately that the alleged German ultimatum to Rumania was a pure invention. The comments about events in Czecho-Slovakia were restrained in contrast to those in the English or American press. The Polish newspapers devoted much space to events in Slovakia after the crisis reached its peak there on March 9, 1939. The press in Poland, with the exception of Robotnik (The Worker) and the other Marxist newspapers, placed major emphasis on Polish sympathy for the Slovakian independence movement. The Marxist newspapers favored the Czechs because of their close ties with the Czech Marxists. Jozef Beck delivered a speech on March 12, 1939, which stressed Polish sympathy for Slovakia, and his remarks were widely featured in the press. Beck in his address also urged the foreign nations to aid Poland to get rid of her Jewish population. He conveyed no anxiety about German intentions in Slovakia.38

On March 14, 1939, after Germany had agreed to support the Slovak bid for independence, the leading Polish newspapers blamed Czech difficulties on the intimate relations between Prague and Moscow. The morning editions on March 15th carried the news that German troops had occupied Morava-Ostrava and that Hungarian troops had entered Ruthenia. These reports showed great detachment toward the German action, which seemed to be eliminating an old adversary of Poland from the Central European scene.39

The Polish newspapers on March 16, 1939, carried the full story of recent events. The feature headlines, such as Swastika Standard on the Prague Hradczyn, were identical with the headlines in the German press. An official Polish Government bulletin was cited, which stated that the Czechs were principally the victims of their own political megalomania. It was hoped that Slovakian independence would be a reality and not a mere fiction, and there was some discussion about the need for Polish military strength in unsettled times. There was little evidence of either the indignation or anxiety, not to mention the hysteria, of much of the Western press. The official Gazeta Polska explained on March 16, 1939, that Hitler’s policy was based on a realistic consideration of important factors, despite the fact that German power had been extended beyond German ethnic limits. The echo of the howling wind of the Western press was not apparent in the leading Polish newspapers until March 18, 1939, and then only faintly.40

The Polish press reaction was different from the British or the American because Poland was not inclined to oppose German policy in such questions as Bohemia-Moravia, which concerned the Poles. The Slovaks had escaped from [303] Czech rule, and the Hungarians had obtained Ruthenia.

The Poles were fully aware that the Czechs were prepared to accept their new relationship with Germany. Hitler had received a warm greeting from Czech Premier General Jan Syrovy at Prague on March 15, 1939. A Czech National Committee had been formed at the Czech Parliament on the same day. It was based on a broad coalition of Czech patriotic organizations, Czech trade unions, farmer organizations, and Government officials. The Committee immediately issued “an appeal to the Czech nation recalling their historic association with the German people in the Holy Roman Empire.” It was recalled that Prague had once been the capital of that Empire. It was evident that German-Czech collaboration could be established on a solid foundation without great difficulty. The Poles found it impossible under these circumstances to become hysterical about the events at Prague, and they did not have to contend with a conspiracy of their leaders to promote such hysteria by artificial means, as Halifax and Vansittart had done in London. The sovereign contempt of the British leaders toward their own public was manifest in the manner by which Halifax manipulated the events of these days.41


Beck Amazed by the Tilea Hoax

The British and French diplomatic representatives at Berlin had confined themselves to an informational démarche on March 15, 1939. They merely requested the German authorities to explain German policy in Czecho-Slovakia. Henderson on his own initiative formally recognized Germany’s preponderant interests in Czecho-Slovak territory. No British protest was presented at Berlin before Chamberlain’s Birmingham speech on March 17, 1939. Bonnet spoke to German Ambassador Welczeck at Paris on March 15, 1939. He mildly suggested that the Germans must have used at least the threat of force to persuade the Czechs to accept their new relationship with Germay. Coulondre had reported from Czech sources in Berlin that the Germans had made such a threat, and Bonnet felt sure of his ground. He noted that Welczeck was embarrassed by the entire affair.42

The first step taken by Halifax after the Tilea announcement on March 17, 1939, was to contact Kennard at Warsaw. This was a consistent move because Poland occupied the crucial position in Halifax’s plans. Kennard was instructed to inform Beck that Halifax and Tilea were discussing the possibility of transforming the Polish-Rumanian anti-Soviet alliance into an anti-German alliance. Halifax wished to have Beck’s reaction to this plan as soon as possible. Kennard was unable to discuss the matter with Beck until the morning of March 18th. In the meantime, a report about the Tilea statement in London had been sent to the British diplomats at Warsaw. This was fortunate for Kennard, because Beck was primarily interested in discussing the Tilea hoax.

Beck informed Kennard that he could not understand what Tilea was doing in London. Miroslaw Arciszewski, the Polish Minister to Rumania, had discussed the current situation with King Carol on the evening of March 17, 1939. The Rumanian monarch had not conveyed the slightest indication that Germany was threatening Rumania. Beck “could hardly believe” that the Rumanian diplomat [304] had made the remarks attributed to him in London, despite the fact that the story had been released by the British Foreign Office. Kennard was somewhat dismayed by Beck’s version of the Rumanian situation, which differed markedly from his own. He introduced Halifax’s suggestion for a Polish-Rumanian alliance against Germany, and he discovered that Beck did not like the proposition43

Poland had guaranteed the Rumanian frontier along the Dniester River against Soviet aggression. Beck believed that it would be nonsense for Poland to guarantee the Rumanian western frontier against Germany. There was no reason to assume that Germany and Rumania would ever have a common frontier. Polish-Rumanian relations had been friendly for years and there was no need to improve them. A Polish guarantee of the western border of Rumania would alienate Hungary. The nations with territorial aspirations in Rumania were the Soviet Union, Hungary, and Bulgaria. Beck did not mind guaranteeing Rumania against the Soviet Union, but he would needlessly injure Polish interests by doing so against Hungary. The Hungarians were interested in the largest and most valuable section of disputed Rumanian territory.

Beck could not imagine what Halifax hoped to gain by a Polish-Rumanian treaty against Germany. He did not regard the suggestion as a sensible idea. He told Kennard that he refused to believe Rumania was under the slightest pressure from Germany. Kennard, with unflagging persistence, asked Beck what he would do in a hypothetical case of German pressure on Rumania. The Polish Foreign Minister curtly replied that he was not in the habit of committing Poland in hypothetical situations.44

Halifax appealed to the Soviet Union to help defend Rumania from “German aggression,” before Chamberlain spoke at Birmingham on March 17, 1939. This appeal was the last thing that Bucharest wanted, because Rumania feared Russian rather than German aggression. This consideration did not bother Halifax, who had carefully avoided all contact with the Rumanian Government since the Slovakian crisis. It is unnecessary to describe at length the reaction of the Soviet Union to the German occupation of Prague. Kliment Voroshilov, the Defense Commissar of the Soviet Union, had delivered a speech on March 13, 1939, which repeated the earlier claim of Stalin that Great Britain and France were seeking to push Germany into war with the Soviet Union. The Russian press responded to the Slovak crisis by condemning the Four Munich Powers for undermining the Czecho-Slovak state.45

Halifax claimed to the Russians that the Germans were seeking control of Rumania, and that their proposals at Bucharest were “in the nature of an ultimatum.” The British Foreign Secretary was not worried about Russian skepticism toward his claims. He could always contend that he had been misled by the Rumanian Minister to London. His proposal for a Soviet guarantee of Rumania was secondary to his main objective of proposing an Anglo-Soviet alliance. The Tilea hoax met his requirements for a pretext to approach the Soviet Union.46

Halifax at last sent instructions to British Ambassador Henderson for a protest about the German occupation of Prague. Henderson was informed in the evening of March 17, 1939, that the Germans were guilty of “a complete repudiation of Munich.” Halifax charged that all changes were “effected in Czecho-Slovakia by German military action,” and that the new regimes at Prague and Bratislava were “devoid of any basis of legality.” He had consulted with [305] Bonnet, and the French were willing to submit a protest of their own in Berlin. Halifax avoided any reference to Rumania in his instructions to Henderson.47


Chamberlain’s Birmingham Speech

The role assigned by Halifax to Prime Minister Chamberlain at Birmingham was one of outraged innocence. Chamberlain agreed to present himself as the victim of German duplicity, who had awakened at last in a great rage to admit that he had been duped. Chamberlain solemnly declared that he would never believe Hitler again. He claimed that Great Britain might have assumed her obligation to guarantee Czecho-Slovakia, but that this had been rendered impossible by the collapse of the Czecho-Slovak state.

Chamberlain warned his listeners at Birmingham that Hitler might be embarking on an attempt to conquer the world. He sought to create an impression of frankness by confiding that he was not absolutely certain this was the case. He then attempted to build up the impression in the minds of his listeners that any further developments in Hitler’s program of territorial revision would be irrevocable proof that Hitler was attempting to conquer the world.

The speech of Halifax, which Chamberlain delivered on March 17, 1939, forced the British Prime Minister to present himself in the role of a naive person. The implication that he had blindly trusted Hitler, until the German occupation of Prague, was at variance with the facts. Chamberlain had never trusted Hitler, and he had always regarded appeasement toward Germany as a conditional policy in which the British could not afford to place their faith. He had always been unwilling to pursue appeasement to a point which, in his opinion, would seriously jeopardize the operation of the balance of power. Indeed, it may be stated as a certainty that Chamberlain never placed blind faith in any foreign leader. He placed his faith in British military power, and in the ability of the British leaders to maneuver successfully on the diplomatic scene. His willingness to appear in the role of dupe at the behest of Halifax was merely what he considered to be a patriotic duty best calculated to serve the aim of arousing the British public against Germany.

One might assume that the Chamberlain speech was too ambitious in attempting to achieve so much with the British public so soon, and that the excessive element of propaganda in the speech would create a dangerous revulsion in British public opinion. It is necessary to recall the historical context of the speech. The British public had received increasingly large doses of anti-German propaganda since the Munich conference, from the British radio, cinema industry, and newspaper press, and many highly respected figures in British public life had denounced both Hitler and Germany with great vehemence. Chamberlain had contributed to this process with his alarmist speech of January 23, 1939.48

There was some jolt to what remained of British public complacency when Hitler went to Prague, but the fraudulent news about Rumania on March 17, 1939, was especially useful in creating an atmosphere of nervousness and anxiety. Chamberlain was able to go surprisingly far in his remarks at Birmingham without seriously compromising the effectiveness of his speech. He assured [306] his audience that Great Britain did not intend to wait until Hitler’s next move, but that she was launching her own counter-measures against him at once.


The Anglo-French Protest at Berlin

Events moved rapidly in London after March 17, 1939, and there was no trace of the dilatory British attitude, which had been encountered by the Czechs during recent weeks when they had raised the question of the territorial guarantee. The British and French Ambassadors in Berlin lodged their formal protests about German policy toward Czecho-Slovakia on March 18, 1939. Halifax had carefully avoided accusing the Germans of not having consulted with Great Britain about their Czech policy. Rab Butler, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had presented a detailed explanation to the British House of Commons that Germany was under no obligation to consult with Great Britain on her Czech policy. The consultation clause in the Anglo-German declaration of September 30, 1938, applied solely to questions of direct interest to both Great Britain and Germany. Butler explained that Great Britain had no direct interest in the Czech situation, because she had not guaranteed the Czecho-Slovak state .49

State Secretary Ernst von Weizsaecker, who received the British and French protests, showed no trace of the embarrassment displayed to Halifax by Dirksen at London, or to Bonnet by Welczeck at Paris. Weizsäcker had accurately explained to German diplomats abroad, on March 16, 1939, that the Munich agreement was superseded by the events of the Slovak crisis rather than violated by Germany. The success of the Slovak independence movement had rendered impossible the continuation of the Czecho-Slovak state, which at one time the Four Munich Powers had planned to guarantee. This interpretation was accepted by the Italian Government without hesitation. German Ambassador Mackensen at Rome forwarded the Italian statement of approval to Berlin on March 17, 1939.50

Weizsäcker had followed closely each step of the Slovakian crisis. He sympathized with Josef Tiso, the principal Slovakian leader, and he admired Adalbert Tuka, who had spent ten years in Czech prisons and had recently been threatened by the Czechs with new imprisonment. He was aware that the Germans had consulted with the Slovaks in Bratislava during the final phase of the crisis, and that Hitler had consistently encouraged the Slovaks since his meeting with Adalbert Tuka on February 12, 1939. He also knew that the movement for independence in Slovakia, since the Munich conference, had developed steadily with popular support, and of course he did not believe that the disruption of the Czecho-Slovak state was the artificial product of German machinations. These convictions of Weizsäcker were no mere rationalization, and they were steadfastly defended by him during and after World War II. He remained convinced that Hacha’s agreement with Hitler on March 15, 1939, regardless of the motives which inspired it on the Czech side, gave to Germany a an adequate legal basis for her Czech policy in March 1939.51

It is not surprising, therefore, that Henderson and Coulondre encountered a spirited defense of German policy at the Wilhelmstrasse. Indeed, Weizsäcker [307] knew that British Ambassador Henderson privately agreed with his analysis of the Czecho-Slovak situation. It had been known in Berlin since March 17th that Halifax intended to recall Henderson to London for an indefinite period. Henderson had called on Weizsäcker on that date for a private discussion of recent events. He told the German State Secretary that he was eager to receive as many effective German arguments as possible to employ in discussions with the foes of appeasement at home.52

Weizsäcker informed Henderson and Coulondre on March 18, 1939, that he refused to accept their notes of protest. This refusal was consistent with the position of the German Government that the Munich agreement had been superseded by events. Weizsäcker told Coulondre that French Foreign Minister Bonnet had expressed the disinterest of France in the Czech question at the time of the Franco-German declaration of December 6, 1938. There was no way of proving what Bonnet had actually said in private conversation with Ribbentrop. It would have been perfectly consistent of Bonnet to make such a statement after the British leaders, on November 24, 1938, had effectively blocked the French plan for the implementation of the Czech guarantee. It was equally clear that Bonnet would not be inclined to admit publicly what he may have said privately. The strategy of Weizsäcker and Ribbentrop in making an issue of this point on March 18, 1939, was perfectly obvious. They hoped to demonstrate to France that the furor about the events at Prague was artificial, and that it was unworthy of France to be unduly indignant about these events merely because this was the reaction at Washington, D.C., or at London.53

Coulondre did not care to cope with this challenging blow, and he referred the matter to Bonnet. The French Foreign Minister elected not to be drawn into a complex discussion of the matter at this point. He merely claimed that Weizsäcker should not have received Coulondre in the first place, if the German State Secretary believed Ribbentrop’s contention about the French assurance of December 1938 concerning the Czechs. The German State Secretary knew in advance that Coulondre intended to protest about the Czecho-Slavak crisis, and he was acknowledging the French right to deliver a protest by receiving him. Weizsäcker disagreed with this view. He recalled that the Four Munich Powers at one time had intended to assume a joint responsibility toward the Czechs, and he did not believe that an alleged unilateral statement from Bonnet altered this fact. He insisted that it was correct to receive the British and French Ambassadors, with the knowledge that they intended to deliver protests, and then to explain why Germany refused to accept their protest notes. Bonnet, on the other hand, believed that Weizsäcker had tacitly accepted the French right to protest when he received Coulondre.54


The Withdrawal of the British and French Ambassadors

Halifax announced publicly, after the presentation of the British protest, that Henderson would be withdrawn from Germany for lengthy consultation in England. This step was taken despite the fact that Henderson had returned to Germany from a long sick leave in England only a few weeks before. Bonnet agreed to take an identical step, and Coulondre was also withdrawn. The Western [308] Ambassadors departed from Germany on March 19, 1939, and they did not return for nearly six weeks. Beck noted the close synchronization of Anglo-French policy in this instance, and he concluded hopefully that the British leaders were still able to dictate French foreign policy. Polish Ambassador Lukasiewicz had warned Beck that France was reluctant to maintain old obligations or assume new commitments toward Poland. Beck hoped that by turning to London he could achieve whatever Poland required from France.55

The German Foreign Office hoped to persuade the British to modify their decision, by retaining Dirksen at London. The German Ambassador called on Halifax to inform him that he had permission to remain in London, if the British would agree to detain Henderson in England for only a short time. Halifax bluntly refused to indicate how long Henderson would remain in England, and Dirksen was forced to request Ribbentrop to recall him. The German Ambassador had come to Great Britain, from his previous post in Japan, in May 1938 with high hopes. He was reluctant to depart from London at a critical stage in the relations between Great Britain and Germany. He was forced to conclude, when he returned to Great Britain in May 1939, that Halifax had been completely successful in persuading the British public that a new Anglo-German war was inevitable.56

Polish Foreign Minister Beck received an assurance from Julius Lukasiewicz and William Bullitt on March 19, 1939, that President Roosevelt was prepared to do everything possible to promote a war between the Anglo-French front and Germany. Bullitt admitted that he was still suspicious about British intentions, and he feared that the British might be tempted to compose their differences with Germany at some later date. He promised that any such deviation from a British war policy would encounter energetic resistance from President Roosevelt. Bullitt had received word from Premier Daladier that the British were proposing an Anglo-French territorial guarantee to Rumania, and the American diplomat welcomed this plan.57

Bullitt informed the Poles that he knew Germany hoped to acquire Danzig, and that he was counting on Polish willingness to go to war over the Danzig question. He urged Lukasiewicz to present demands to the West for supplies and other military assistance. Lukasiewicz told Bullitt that Poland would need all the help the West could possibly offer in the event of war. Bullitt said that he hoped Poland could obtain military supplies from the Soviet Union, but Lukasiewicz displayed no enthusiasm for this possibility. He warned Bullitt that it was too early to predict what position Russia would take in a German-Polish dispute. Bullitt recognized from this remark that Lukasiewicz was assuming that Soviet policy toward Poland would be hostile. It was equally clear that Bullitt recognized the military hopelessness of the Polish position, if the Soviet Union did not aid Poland in a conflict with Germany.58

Halifax and Cadogan noted with satisfaction on March 19, 1939, that Tilea was tenaciously repeating his lie about the alleged German ultimatum to Rumania. They considered this a sufficient mandate to continue to base their policy on the Tilea hoax. They admitted privately that the disavowal of British Minister Hoare could not be entirely ignored. Cadogan cheerfully suggested that “in the circumstances it might be possible that there was some truth in both stories” with the “ultimatum having now disappeared as the basis of [309] negotiation.” Halifax was not troubled in the least by this arrant nonsense. Gilbert and Gott invoke “panic” to defend Halifax for ignoring the disavowal of Tilea: “Such news ought to have stopped the panic. It failed to do so. Tilea’s timely indiscretion was allowed to determine British policy.”59


The Halifax Alliance Offer to Poland and the Soviet Union

Halifax took a major step on March 20, 1939, to implement the new British effort to encircle Germany. He informed Paris, Moscow, and Warsaw that he wished to have an ironclad military pact of Great Britain, France, Russia, and Poland against Germany. He admitted that “doubts” had been raised about the reality of a German ultimatum to Rumania, but he insisted that German policy at Prague showed that the Germans were going beyond the “avowed aim of consolidation of the German race.” It made no difference to Halifax that there were more Germans in Europe beyond the boundaries of Germany than foreign peoples in the Reich, or that Great Britain, France, and Russia ruled over hundreds of millions of foreign peoples. He was not disturbed by the fact that Poland was ruling over far more foreign peoples than Germany. He had created enough feeling against Germany in England to sustain the thesis before an uninformed public opinion that Germany was seeking world conquest.60

Halifax hoped that his plan for an alliance would produce a stunning British foreign policy victory over Germany within a few days. The ground had been carefully prepared, both in England and abroad. Halifax knew that Poland was not inclined to accept the German proposals for an agreement. He also knew that Poland would require an alliance of the type he proposed to prevent the defeat of Poland in a German-Polish war. He knew that Germany had failed to gain military alliances with the Italians or the Japanese, and he was counting on the continuation of a successful British policy to intimidate Italy. Germany would have no allies to aid her in coping with the gigantic combination which Halifax hoped to achieve. Halifax persuaded Chamberlain to write a letter to Mussolini on March 20, 1939, as part of the general plan to detach Italy from the informal Rome-Berlin Axis. The British Prime Minister claimed that his forebodings about Germany at Rome in January 1939 had since been confirmed by events. He also warned the Italian leader that the British policy of appeasement toward Germany had been permanently discarded61

The Halifax alliance offer of March 20. 1939, marked the culmination of the five day shift in Great Britain from appeasement policy to war policy. The formal British alliance offer convinced the Poles that the British were ready for military action against Germany. It was no longer necessary for Beck to conceal his attitude toward Germany, and it was possible to assume in London that he would reveal the true Polish position in a very short time. Halifax had no problem as far as the Polish attitude toward Germany was concerned. He hoped that his bold initiative, in offering to conclude British alliance commitments in Eastern Europe, would be effective in dealing with some of the serious problems with which he still had to contend. The most difficult problem was created by the hostility between the Soviet Union and all of the western neighbors of Russia, which of course included Poland. There was also the problem of the [310] French attitude, and Halifax had good reason to fear that France would never consent to an adventure in Eastern Europe without Russian support. The attitude of President Roosevelt was not a very effective instrument to influence French policy, because Bonnet was keenly aware that the Rooseveltian war policy did not enjoy the support of the United States Congress or of American public opinion.

The problematical position of the Soviet Union in the plans of Halifax received eloquent emphasis in a communiqué released by the Soviet Foreign Office on March 21, 1939. The Russians emphatically denied that they had offered aid or assistance either to Poland or to Rumania. They also announced to the world that the British had been urging them to take steps along such lines since March 18, 1939. There was no comment about the British proposal of March 20, 1939, for the conclusion of an Anglo-Franco-Russo-Polish military alliance. The Soviet leaders merely indicated that they were receiving British proposals with interest. They specifically pointed out that the Soviet Union, unlike Britain, had thus far not offered to extend their existing commitments.62

There was no reason for Hitler or anyone else to conclude that the European war desired by Halifax and Roosevelt was inevitable. The British leaders would never attack Germany without the support of France, and it was unlikely that France would go to war without the support of the Soviet Union. Halifax was counting on Poland to provide the pretext for war, but the hostility between Poland and the Soviet Union rendered unlikely the participation of these two Powers in the same alliance combination. Halifax had taken a great risk in bringing the hostility of the British leaders toward Germany into the open at this stage. The situation had been entirely different when his kinsman, Sir Edward Grey, urged British participation in a conflict in 1914, after hostilities were in progress. There was no problem in sustaining war enthusiasm for a short period once it had been successfully aroused. It was a different matter when there was no war in progress, and it was uncertain if the conditions for successful British action would be fulfilled. It was evident that Halifax was merely gambling on his ability to sustain British enthusiasm for war and to create the conditions necessary for British participation in a conflict. The British response to the events at Prague created a major crisis. It was impossible to predict either the duration or the outcome of this crisis.

Chapter 13


THE POLISH DECISION
TO CHALLENGE GERMANY


The Impetuosity of Beck

The Poles threw down the gauntlet to the Germans during the week which followed the Halifax alliance offer of March 20, 1939. They mobilized hundreds of thousands of Polish Army reservists, and they warned Hitler that Poland would fight to prevent the return of Danzig to Germany. They were amazed to discover that the Germans were not inclined to take this challenge seriously. The Germans did not threaten Poland, and they took no precautionary military measures in response to the Polish partial mobilization. The situation was characterized by a conversation between State Secretary Weizsäcker and Italian Chargé d’Affaires Magistrati on March 30, 1939. Weizsäcker mentioned that Germany had been seeking to settle the differences between the two countries for many months. He remarked with good-natured humor that the Poles appeared to be a bit deaf, but he was convinced that in the future they would learn to hear better. He refused to admit that a dangerous situation existed, and that Germany and Poland might go to war.1

It was the impatience of Beck rather than of Hitler which produced the rupture of German-Polish negotiations in March 1939. The Germans hastened to conclude their agreement with Lithuania for the return of Memel, but the situation at the German port on the mouth of the Niemen River had been ripe for many months. Weizsäcker noted on March 22, 1939, after the Lithuanian Cabinet had consented to the return of Memel to Germany, that Lithuanian Foreign Minister Urbsys “seemed to be relieved and well content.” The Germans continued their talks with the Poles after March 20, 1939, but they betrayed no impatience and gave no indication that the negotiation of an agreement was an urgent matter. Beck was eager to defy Germany as soon as he realized that British hostility toward the Germans was at last in the open, and he could not resist the temptation to do so. There is an obvious parallel between Beck’s response and the rash acts of Schuschnigg on March 9, 1938, and of Benes [312] on May 20, 1938. Schuschnigg had challenged Germany with a fraudulent anti-German plebiscite scheme, and Hitler responded by intervening in Austria. Benes challenged Germany with a Czech mobilization based on the false claim of German troop concentrations on the Czech frontier. Hitler responded with his decision to liberate the Sudetenland from Czech rule in 1938. Beck challenged Germany with a partial mobilization and a threat of war, and Hitler, who deeply desired friendship with Poland, refrained from responding at all. It was not until Beck joined the British encirclement front that Hitler took precautionary military measures against the Polish threat. It would have been incompatible with the security of Germany for him to refrain from doing so, after the formation of a hostile Anglo-Polish combination. The Chargé that Hitler did not know how to wait can be applied more appropriately to the Austrian, Czech, and Polish leaders than to Hitler.2

The Poles had informed the Germans earlier that they did not object to the return of Memel to Germany. This achievement restored the East Prussian frontier, in the Memel region, to the line confirmed by Napoleon and the Russians in their treaty at Tilsit-on-the-Niemen in 1807. This line in turn was recognized by the Congress of Vienna in 1815, and it was the identical boundary established at the Peace of Thorn in 1466 between Poland-Lithuania and the German Order of Knights. It was evident that the March 1939 Memel agreement was a conservative step rather than a radical innovation. The Allied victors at Paris in 1919 had detached Memel from East Prussia. They had seized a city which in the seven centuries of its history had never been separated from its East Prussian homeland.3


Beck’s Rejection of the Halifax Pro-Soviet Alliance Offer

The Poles on March 20, 1939, were momentarily distracted from their challenge to Germany by the need to clarify misconceptions about their relations with the Soviet Union and Rumania. British Ambassador Kennard was informed at the Polish Foreign Office on March 21, 1939, that Poland refused to enter a military alliance which included the Soviet Union. Halifax was very displeased with this news, but it was vital for his plans to please the Poles and to include them in his alliance. They were the only nation likely to furnish a pretext for military intervention against Germany. British support to Rumania was unlikely to produce a conflict with Germany, and the same was true of British support to the Soviet Union, France, or any other European Power. The Poles were absolutely indispensable. Halifax had some time to consider his dilemma carefully, because Beck did not come forward immediately with a formal reply to the British alliance offer.4

The problem of Rumania had produced a quarrel between Polish Ambassador Lukasiewicz and Alexis Léger, the Secretary-General at the French Foreign Office. Lukasiewicz was exasperated by the attempts of Bullitt to convince him that Poland and Rumania should agree to permit Soviet troops to operate on their territory during a war against Germany. Lukasiewicz told Léger early on March 21, 1939, that Poland would definitely refuse to associate herself with a British declaration to oppose any or all attacks on Rumania. The Polish [313] Ambassador insisted that his country would continue to guarantee Rumania against the Soviet Union, but she would assume no additional commitment. Léger, who was critical of the policy of Bonnet, was seeking to promote as many new Anglo. French commitments as possible, and the independent attitude of the Polish envoy in the Rumanian question caused him to lose his temper. He produced a disgraceful scene, and Lukasiewicz denounced him to his face as a “malevolent” person. The Polish diplomat admitted afterward to Bullitt that a fist fight between Léger and himself had been narrowly averted. Bullitt hastened to call on Léger in a fruitless effort to mediate. He found Léger in a bitter mood, and more critical of Poland, if possible, than was Bonnet. Léger predicted that Poland would prove to be a very bad ally for Great Britain, as she had been for France.5

Halifax discussed his alliance project with American Ambassador Kennedy on March 22, 1939, and he complained at great length about the negative attitude of Beck toward an alliance front to include both Poland and the Soviet Union. He intimated that he was resolved to continue his anti-German policy, and that hostilities in Europe might be expected fairly soon. He was convinced that the British Navy was more than adequate to cope with German naval forces. He urged Kennedy to request President Roosevelt to concentrate the American fleet at Pearl Harbor, as an appropriate gesture to protect Australia and Singapore from a possible Japanese attack, after the outbreak of war in Europe. Halifax admitted at last that the story of a German threat to Rumania could not be substantiated, but he assured Kennedy that Tilea’s statements at London had served a useful purpose.6

Jozef Beck hoped that by this time he had clarified the attitude of Poland toward the Soviet Union and Rumania. He wanted to challenge the Germans before a specific Anglo-Polish agreement had been signed, because he wished to avoid the impression that Halifax had incited him to defy Germany. He loathed the prospect that he might be considered a mere puppet of the British Foreign Secretary. It is evident that he would not have contemplated this step but for the British policy of the past five days.7


Lipski Converted to a Pro-German Policy by Ribbentrop

Ribbentrop and Lipski met in Berlin at noon on March 21, 1939, to discuss the German proposals for a settlement with Poland. Ribbentrop apologized to Lipski for not having kept foreign diplomats fully informed during the hectic days of the recent Slovakian crisis. He declared that events had moved too quickly for him to meet ordinary requirements in this respect. He explained that he had recalled Moltke to Berlin at the time of the crisis for the express purpose of giving him detailed information to communicate to Beck. Ribbentrop then proceeded to recapitulate the events of the Slovakian crisis in painstaking detail.

Lipski indicated at the conclusion of Ribbentrop’s remarks that Poland was primarily interested in the present situation of Slovakia. He hoped that German arrangements with the Slovaks would not include a German plan for the military occupation of the entire Slovakian area. He emphasized that recent events in Slovakia “had created a strong impression in Poland, for the man in the street [314] could not help regarding such a step as one directed primarily against Poland. The Slovaks were a people linguistically related to the Poles. Polish interests in that area were also historically justified, and, from a purely realistic point of view, it had to be admitted that the proclamation of the Protectorate could be regarded only as a blow at Poland.” Lipski’s presentation of the matter conveyed an accurate impression of the seriousness with which the Poles regarded the Slovakian situation.8

Ribbentrop explained that the Slovak Government had appealed to Germany, and to Poland, for protection. He denied that the Slovak-German agreement was directed against Poland. He described it as the chance product of an immediate crisis rather than of a preconceived policy. Ribbentrop did not regard as permanent the present state of affairs in Slovakia, in which Germany enjoyed the principal foreign influence. He promised that Germany would be willing to discuss the means of establishing Poland’s influence in Slovakia on a level at least equal with Germany’s. He doubted that this discussion would be fruitful without first concluding a general German-Polish agreement.

It has been erroneously asserted that Beck would have preferred a more pro-German foreign policy, but that he was restrained by the Polish military men. If this had been true, the Slovakian situation would have presented Beck with a golden opportunity. He might have argued that it was necessary to negotiate and agreement with the Germans, at this point, to establish Polish influence in Slovakia and to remove the dangerous German striking arm from the South. Unfortunately, Beck had no such interest in negotiating a settlement of Polish differences with Germany.9

Ribbentrop proceeded to emphasize the need for an agreement between Germany and Poland. He deplored the failure of Poland to cooperate with Germany in coordinating the minority policies of the two countries. He expressed his regret for the commotion in Poland over the Langfuhr Cafe incident at Danzig, and he assured Lipski that Hitler believed the placard about ‘Dogs and Poles’ had been posted by the Polish students themselves. Lipski denied that the Polish students in Danzig had done anything wrong, or that they were in any way responsible for the trouble resulting from the incident.

Ribbentrop displayed his usual skill at avoiding an argument by carefully refraining from stating his own feelings in the matter. He attempted to focus Lipski’s attention on the demonstrations which had followed in Poland. He assured Lipski that the temperature in official German-Polish relations would drop rapidly to the zero point, if the German press retaliated against the anti-German agitation in the Polish press. The German Foreign Minister confided to Lipski that his own visit to Warsaw had discouraged Hitler’s hope for a settlement of German-Polish differences, because he had been unable to report any progress in Warsaw. He insisted that the existing situation was tense and dangerous, and that it would be advisable to plan a new effort to settle the matter by personal discussions. Ribbentrop extended an invitation for Foreign Minister Beck to visit Germany again in the near future.l0

Ribbentrop offered a number of carefully prepared arguments in favor of a German-Polish agreement. He reminded Lipski that Germany’s policy toward Poland during World War I had been characterized by the German decision of 1916 to recognize and help to establish an independent Polish state. Germany, [315] but not Austria-Hungary or Russia, had taken the initiative in this question. The most disturbing factor in the subsequent relations between the two countries was that Poland owed much of her “present territorial expanse to Germany’s greatest misfortune: namely, the fact that Germany had lost the World War.”

Ribbentrop assured Lipski that it was beyond the shadow of doubt that the establishment of the Polish Corridor was the greatest single burden imposed upon Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. He asserted without fear of valid contradiction that “no former government could have dared to renounce German claims to revision without finding themselves swept away by the Reichstag within the space of forty-eight hours.” Hitler thought otherwise about the Corridor problem, and he was prepared to place his entire prestige in Germany behind his idea for a solution. This called for German recognition of Polish possession of the Corridor within the exact limits established at Versailles. Ribbentrop reminded Lipski that Hitler sympathized with Poland’s desire to play a greater maritime role, and that this was an important factor in his attitude. He concluded with pride that only Hitler, among all the German leaders, could venture to renounce German possession of the Corridor “once and for all.”’11

Lipski himself was convinced that only the Hitler dictatorship in Germany could propose a settlement with Poland on these terms. He argued later that Hitler was sincere in limiting his aims to Danzig and the superhighway in the interest of achieving German-Polish cooperation. He was skeptical, however, of the future should an agreement result from the terms proposed by Hitler. He doubted if Hitler could prevent the influential East German groups from insisting on further German demands against Poland, if Germany and Poland at some later date scored important successes against the Soviet Union. In other words, he accepted the sincerity of Hitler’s attitude toward Poland, but he remained doubtful about the lasting value of a German-Polish agreement. This attitude was perfectly reasonable in itself, but it was unrealistic to allow such considerations to detract from the advantages of concluding an agreement. The prospect of a quarrel over some sort of Soviet booty was remote. The Germans for years had stressed the importance of a German-Polish front against Soviet Russia, but they had never suggested an actual plan to attack Russia, nor had they invited Poland to join them in a war against the Russians. A more important factor was the small price which Hitler was asking for an agreement. The remote possibility that such an agreement might fail did not justify the refusal to pay that price. This was self-evident, because Germany was willing to pay a much greater price. She was prepared to accept the territorial status quo of Poland.12

Ribbentrop repeated to Lipski the terms of the October 24, 1938, offer to Poland. He reminded the Polish diplomat that Germany had no desire to change the terms of that offer. He discussed the advantages of an agreement, and he repeated that Germany was requesting on2y the political union of National Socialist Danzig with National Socialist Germany, and the transit connection with East Prussia. He explained neatly that the Corridor problem required Polish acceptance of these two points because the situation as it stood “was a thorn in the flesh of the German people of which the sting could only be removed in this way.” [316] Lipski promised to inform Beck of everything that Ribbentrop had said. Ribbentrop knew that he could rely on Lipski to do this. He realized with great satisfaction that in this conversation he had at last succeeded in making a strong impression on the Polish Ambassador. He sensed correctly that Lipski personally had been won over to the German plan, and that he would return to Warsaw as the advocate of the German-Polish agreement. He emphasized that it would be advantageous for Lipski to return to the Polish capital for a personal conversation with Beck. Ribbentrop repeated that the recent stress and strain in German-Polish relations was eloquent testimony of the need for an agreement on all outstanding problems. He confided that Hitler had been troubled by the attitude adopted by Poland on a number of specific questions. He warned Lipski that it would be unfortunate if Hitler were to “gain the impression that Poland simply did not want to reach a settlement.”13

Ribbentrop had been informed of the Halifax offer to Poland of March 20, 1939, for Polish participation with the Soviet Union in an alliance directed exclusively against Germany. He warned the Polish Ambassador that Poland would expose herself to grave dangers if she became the ally of the Soviet Union. Lipski replied firmly and categorically that “no Polish patriot would allow himself to be drawn toward Bolshevism.” Ribbentrop was convinced of the obvious sincerity of this statement, and the conversation between the two diplomats ended on a friendly note of mutual confidence. Ribbentrop hoped that German Ambassador Moltke at Warsaw might also be of some use in promoting a settlement at this stage. He wired Moltke on March 21st that Lipski was returning to Warsaw, and he instructed him to warn the Poles that Hitler might be inclined to withdraw his offer if no progress was made toward a settlement.14


Lipski’s Failure to Convert Beck

The Polish Ambassador followed Ribbentrop’s suggestion, and he returned to Warsaw immediately. He knew by this time that Kennard had presented to Beck the formal Halifax offer for an Anglo-Russo-Franco-Polish alliance. Lipski participated in the conferences at the Polish Foreign Office which began on March 22, 1939, and dealt with the British and German offers. He delivered a personal report in which he praised Ribbentrop for courtesy and consideration during the latest negotiation. He admitted to his listeners that he disagreed with Ribbentrop’s interpretation of the German role in the restoration of Poland during World War I. He then proceeded to recapitulate the other points which Ribbentrop had made, and they culminated in the renewed German offer for an agreement with Poland.15

Beck’s attitude toward the German offer remained hostile. Ribbentrop’s invitation for a new visit to Germany was disposed of in short order. Even Lipski rejected it as “absolutely impossible.” Germany was accused of encircling Poland, and Lipski conceded that the latest proposals of Ribbentrop might be the prelude to an ultimatum. Beck decided that Lipski would remain at Warsaw until a detailed reply to the Germans had been prepared. It was obvious that Lipski favored an agreement with Germany, and there was doubt about his [317] reliability as a negotiator with the Germans. Beck resolved that Lipski should never be allowed again to participate in a discussion with Ribbentrop about an agreement. 16

Count Michal Lubienski complained insultingly that Ribbentrop had succeeded in demoralizing Lipski. The Polish Ambassador knew that his plea for an agreement had been rejected, and that he no longer enjoyed the favor of confidence of Beck. It was not surprising that his foremost wish was to resign from his post.

The deliberations at the Polish Foreign Office were resumed with a discussion of the general situation of Poland. The usual charges were still heard in Poland that the country was committed to a pro-German foreign policy. Nevertheless, the country was quite calm, and there was no challenge to the free conduct of Polish diplomacy. It was emphatically decided that the pro-Soviet alliance proposed by Halifax was completely out of the question for Poland. Beck realized that he could reject this offer and conclude a bilateral alliance with Great Britain. The project of an Anglo-Polish alliance met with Beck’s definite approval. The wording of the reply to Halifax on the pro-Soviet alliance plan was discussed. It was decided that it would be effective to claim that realization of the pro-Soviet alliance plan would provoke an immediate German attack on Poland. This claim simply ignored the fact that Germany was by no means prepared for such a venture. It was possible to do this because of the irresponsible propaganda which insisted that the Germans were prepared at all times to fight a major war. 17


Beck’s Decision for Polish Partial Mobilization

Beck was satisfied by March 23, 1939, that he had worked out the solutions for his immediate problems. The German offer and the pro-Soviet Halifax offer would be rejected categorically. The next steps toward Germany and Great Britain would present a complete contrast. Beck intended to create an atmosphere of crisis by following the May 1938 Czech precedent and persuading the Polish military leaders to declare the partial mobilization of the Polish armed forces against Germany. He did not believe that Poland could afford to maintain a full mobilization for an indefinite period. He intended to follow this step with an Anglo-Polish alliance, and with the coordination of Polish and British policy against Germany.

Beck conferred with the Polish military leaders on March 23, 1939. They agreed without hesitation to issue the necessary mobilization order the same day. The trained reservists born in the 1911-1914 period would be called to the colors, and additional reservists would be called from other years back to 1906. It was decided to mobilize the reserve officers of the technical troop units. The mobilization order immediately brought 334,000 additional soldiers into the ranks, and it more than doubled the strength of the standing Polish Army.18

The current Polish plan for fighting a war with Germany was distributed among the principal Army commands the same day. The Polish plan had been prepared by three of the principal Polish military leaders and their assistants. This group included Marshal Smigly-Rydz, the Commander-in-Chief of the [318] Army, General Kasprzycki, the Minister of War, and General Stachiewicz, the Chief of Staff. The plan had received strong criticism from Inspector-General Kazimierz Sosnkowski, the principal military collaborator of Jozef Pilsudski in World War I. Sosnkowski, who was popular in Poland and affectionately known as the “gray general,” condemned the plan on two counts. It called for a major military offensive against Germany, and for the simultaneous defense of all Polish territory. Sosnkowski argued that it was military nonsense to defend Polish West Prussia and the adjacent districts of Northwestern Poland from the Germans. An attempt to do so would needlessly extend the Polish military front by several hundred miles, and it would reduce available Polish strength for the defense of the vital areas. Sosnkowski doubted the wisdom of starting the war with a Polish drive on Berlin.

Sosnkowski was a close friend of Colonel Walery Slawek, the architect of the Polish 1935 Constitution. Both men were in the prime of life, and they possessed talents in the military and political spheres which were sorely needed by the new Polish state. They had been excluded from influential positions by Marshall Smigly-Rydz and his friends, and they were unable to decide the destiny of Poland during the turbulent days of March 1939. Sosnkowski remained an isolated figure after Walery Slawek committed suicide in April 1939. He was not given an active command in September 1939 until the battle of Poland was nearly over.19

The plan issued to the Polish armed forces on March 23, 1939, was never modified. The authors of the plan insisted that full mobilization of the Polish armed forces would have to be delayed until several days before the outbreak of a German-Polish war. They realized that it would be too great an economic drain on Poland to maintain this mobilization for a period of months without a conflict. It was decided that full mobilization would not be ordered unless war was considered inevitable in the immediate future. This was the reason why the later full mobilization of the Polish armed forces on August 30, 1939, was tantamount to a declaration of war against Germany. In the case of Poland in 1939, the old axiom of pre-1914 days that mobilization means war was still applicable. Beck was entrusted with the task of concocting the diplomatic justification for such a step.

The Poles planned to launch a drive against Berlin immediately upon the outbreak of hostilities. The Versailles Treaty had placed the Polish frontier within one hundred miles of the German capital. The Poles hoped to capture Berlin by surprise, as the Russians had done in 1760 in their operations against Frederick the Great. They intended to use horse cavalry in this operation, and the Polish Cavalry School at Bromberg trained young Polish officers to execute this plan. The Poles undoubtedly had the finest cavalry in Europe, but horse cavalry was no longer the effective instrument of war which it had been in the past.

The Polish failure to recognize that cavalry was obsolete is not so surprising when it is recalled that in World War I cavalry was extremely effective on the Eastern Front. The World War I operations in the East were different from those in the West. The distances in Eastern Europe are vast, and the mobile warfare in that theatre contrasted with the war of position in Belgium and France. Cavalry was an effective weapon against light-armed infantry and smaller [319] artillery units. Cavalry also played a decisive role in the Russo-Polish War of 1920-1921. Poland’s defeat in the Ukraine in 1920 was accomplished primarily by a successful Soviet cavalry operation. The Poles also knew that horse transportation in 1939 continued to play a major role in both the Polish and German Armies. They knew that the Germans continued to maintain horse cavalry units. The Poles gave insufficient attention to the possible impact of German panzer units on a Polish horse cavalry offensive.

The Poles intended to defend their frontiers against possible German attacks at all points, but they reckoned with the possibility that these efforts might fail. They intended to withdraw the Polish armies to a line running approximately through the middle of Poland from North to South, if they lost the battles along the frontier. It was regarded as absolutely necessary to hold the Germans at the border in South-Eastern East Prussia to prevent the flanking of this line. It was decided to commit the Polish mechanized units to this sector. This later produced an ironical situation. The Germans ultimately decided to employ their horse cavalry in this sector. In the upshot, German horsemen in September 1939 fought Polish tanks while Polish horsemen were engaged by German tanks in the Western sectors.

The Poles decided to make their last stand on the line in Central Poland which followed the Narew, Vistula, and Dunajec rivers. It seemed pointless to plan operations for the eventuality that this line might also be smashed. The Polish military leaders were prepared to concede that the loss of this line would mean the total defeat of Poland.

In their recent study, The Appeasers, Martin Gilbert and Richard Gott offer an elaborate defense of Halifax’s policy toward Poland during the weeks which followed the Polish partial mobilization of March 23, 1939. Their thesis depends entirely upon the unwarranted assumption that the British leaders were unaware of any friction in German-Polish relations during this period. The Polish partial mobilization, which was directed exclusively against Germany, to the knowledge of the entire world, refutes the interpretation of Gilbert and Gott. However, they do not permit themselves to be troubled by this obvious fact. In a special chronology of their own, which is not to be found elsewhere, they place this Polish partial mobilization five months later, on August 23, 1939. The result of this maneuver is to deprive their subsequent narrative of the element of historical reality.20


Hitler’s Refusal to Take Military Measures

Hitler conferred with General Walther von Brauchitsch, the Commander-in-Chief of the German Army, after he learned of the surprising Polish partial mobilization. He explained to Brauchitsch that important negotiations were in progress with Poland for a settlement of German-Polish differences. He emphatically declared that he had no desire to see Germany involved in a conflict with Poland. He emphasized that Germany was not interested in supporting Ukrainian nationalism, or in doing anything else which would be contrary to the interests of Poland. He told Brauchitsch that he had no intention of asking for the return of any of the former German West Prussian or Silesian territory held by Poland, [320] and he assured him that there were still favorable prospects for the settlement of German differences with Poland by peaceful negotiation. Hitler did not believe that the Polish partial mobilization was a formidable threat, and he did not request any special German military measures. He merely requested that normal precautions be taken in guarding Germany’s eastern frontier.21

German Ambassador Moltke at Warsaw was much alarmed by the situation in Poland. He attached special significance to the arrest of the prominent Polish journalist, Stanislaw Mackiewicz, the editor of Slowo (The Word), Wilna’s leading newspaper. Beck had insisted upon the arrest, because Mackiewicz for a long time had publicly advocated a German-Polish agreement. He had claimed that much valuable time and many good opportunities had been lost to achieve a profitable agreement with Germany. Moltke recognized the initiative of Beck in this outrageous arrest, but he continued to insist that Beck was modifying Polish foreign policy in response to pressure from the Polish military men. He failed to realize that the partial mobilization took place in response to Beck’s initiative.

Moltke argued that Beck might adopt a more extreme course under pressure from Polish public opinion. He had been instructed to ascertain the Polish response to the pro-Soviet alliance offer of Halifax, but he was only able to report that Kennard had been calling repeatedly at the Polish Foreign Office. Moltke had been told at the Polish Foreign Office that Poland would be reluctant to serve the interests of other Powers, but he did not attach much significance to this statement. He was inclined to believe that Poland would accept the pro-Soviet alliance offer proposed by Halifax if it contained a possibility “of obtaining firm promises from Great Britain, which would augment her security.”22

Moltke’s report contained more than the usual element of confusion about the Polish position, and there can be no doubt that the German Ambassador was sincerely alarmed and distressed by the amazing Polish partial mobilization order. It was significant that Moltke, on this occasion, regarded it as futile to urge Ribbentrop to abandon his proposals for a settlement with Poland. The German diplomat obviously had concluded that the situation had deteriorated to a point where advice of this sort would no longer help matters.

The dramatic Polish partial mobilization was overshadowed in the West by speculation about the response to the Halifax pro-Soviet alliance plan. American Ambassador Kennedy reported from London on March 23, 1939, that the Soviet Union had made its acceptance of the Pact conditional on favorable responses from both France and Poland. Halifax had an assurance from Bonnet that France would accept the project, and the main attention of the Western diplomats was directed toward Poland. American Ambassador Biddle at Warsaw was unable to indicate Beck’s intentions on March 23rd. He reported on the Polish response to the German annexation of Memel, which was visited by Hitler that same day. He claimed that the Memel agreement was a clever move by Hitler to discredit British and French diplomacy in Eastern Europe. Biddle’s speculation was based on the fact that Hitler had solved a difficult Eastern European question without the participation of Great Britain or France.23

Beck decided to inform Halifax on March 24, 1939, of his refusal of the pro-Soviet alliance offer. Halifax was disappointed by Beck’s response. He was [321] unaffected by Beck’s argument that an alliance with the Soviet Union would produce an immediate war. He knew that the Germans were not prepared for such a venture, and war was in any case the immediate objective of his policy. American Ambassador Kennedy reported the discouraging news to President Roosevelt at 8:00 p.m. on March 24, 1939. Poland would not consent to enter an alliance combination with the Soviet Union.24


Beck’s War Threat to Hitler

Beck was mainly concerned on March 24th with the finishing touches on the reply he intended Lipski to give Ribbentrop. He insisted to Jan Szembek that decisive Polish interests dictated the non possumus reply he was about to hurl at Hitler. He described a Danzig politically dependent on Poland as the essential symbol of Polish power, and he claimed that it was “more reasonable to go forward to the enemy than wait for him to march on us.” This was a reckless statement unsupported by any indication that Hitler intended to march on Poland. Beck was in a defiant mood, and he was completely under the exhilirating influence of the military measures which had been adopted by Poland. He now claimed that Hitler “seems to have lost all measure in thought and action.” He cast aspersions on the submission of Schuschnigg and Benes to Hitler, and he declared proudly that “our settlement of the political score with the Germans would not resemble the others.”

Moltke called at the Polish Foreign Office on March 24, 1939, and his obvious nervousness excited a reaction of contempt among the Poles. Szembek noted that the German Ambassador seemed to be more interested in conveying his personal views than in representing his own Government. Moltke exclaimed in despair that he had always realized that Poland would never accept the German superhighway plan. This was an interesting statement in view of the fact that Moltke had been one of the principal originators of the same plan. Moltke explained that he disapproved of Albert Forster, the National Socialist District Leader at Danzig. He added that he regretted the establishment of the National Socialist regime at Danzig. Szembek noted that Moltke was contradictory in his remarks and that he talked at times as if Germany had never requested the return of Danzig. Moltke sought to emphasize the value to Poland of Hitler’s offer to guarantee her western frontier, but Szembek observed that Poland had not requested either a German guarantee or German recognition. The deportment of Moltke in this interview was inadequate and he compromised his mission to Poland by this display of incompetence.25

Moltke attempted to conceal his fiasco by sending a soothing report to the German Foreign Office. He mentioned that the Poles had assured him on March 24th that Poland would not assume new obligations toward Rumania which could be directed against Germany. He added that the official Polish attitude toward the incorporation of Memel by Germany left nothing to be desired.

The German Foreign Office responded by ordering the unfortunate Ambassador to exert real pressure on the Poles for a settlement. He was advised to take the line that the time had come to discover whether Germany and Poland were to be friends or foes. Moltke was relieved when Hitler intervened [322] to prevent him from attempting to take this brutal line with the Poles. Hitler was displeased with the instructions to Moltke as soon as he heard of them. He ordered Weizsäcker to cancel the instructions at once. The German State Secretary was forced to obey this command with alacrity. He apologized to Moltke for the confusion which resulted from his disagreement over policy with Hitler. 26

The tendency of the German Foreign Office to “get tough” with Poland bothered Hitler, and he was worried about Italy. German Ambassador Mackensen reported from Rome on March 24, 1939, that there was much discontent beneath the surface in Italy because of the latest German success at Prague. Italian Ambassador Attolico, who had returned to Rome from Berlin to report, believed that the time had come for Italy to “get something” from the Axis. Italy had achieved her success in Ethiopia in the pre-Axis period, and she had also launched her policy to support the Conservatives in the Spanish Civil War before that time. It was unlikely that Italy would obtain concrete advantages from the Spanish Civil War. German support to the Spanish Conservatives had been on a very small scale, whereas Italy had expended a major effort to aid Franco. The Germans had scored a resounding series of successes since the beginning of the Axis in late 1936. Mackensen feared that the latest German success would shatter the current moderate Italian policy and cause Italy to do something foolish. He feared the possibility of new Italian pressure on France, and he believed that Germany should reinforce her previous declaration that she would not support Italian demands on France. It was evident to Hitler that the situation was dangerous, and he was uncertain to what extent he could exert a moderating influence on Italian policy.27

Hitler hoped that Lipski would return to Berlin with assurances which would improve German-Polish relations. When he heard that the Polish Ambassador was scheduled to return on Sunday, March 26th, Hitler declared that he would leave Berlin in order not disturb Ribbentrop in his conduct of negotiations with Lipski. Hitler believed that the German Foreign Minister had done an able job with the Poles, and he feared that his own presence in Berlin might complicate matters. He reckoned with the possibility that Beck might instruct Lipski to see him if he was in Berlin, and he believed that his own intervention in the negotiation at this point might do more harm than good. It would be impossible for him to talk to Lipski without protesting about the recent Polish partial mobilization. Hitler informed General von Brauchitsch on March 25, 1939, that he had no desire to threaten Poland, because this might drive the Poles into the outstretched arms of the British.

Hitler believed that the Danzig situation was the main problem which had to be solved, if the danger of an explosion was to be banished. He told Ribbentrop and Brauchitsch that it might be possible for the German armed forces to proceed to a lightning occupation of Danzig, if Lipski gave the desired hint that the Polish Government could not take the responsibility of voluntarily relinquishing Danzig to Germany. This would indicate that Beck would prefer to be relieved of the responsibility for a Danzig change by German fait accompli. Hitler emphasized that there could be no possibility of such a response unless the Polish reply conveyed by Lipski was friendly and accommodating. Hitler again refused to permit Brauchitsch to prepare military plans for a possible German-Polish war. He admitted that the outbreak of a war between Germany[323] and Poland would nullify his proposals for a German-Polish settlement. Such an eventuality would raise anew the question of an “advanced frontier” from East Prussia to Upper Silesia, and also the questions of the huge Ukrainian minority of Poland and of German military relations with Slovakia.28

The moderate attitude of Hitler produced no effect on Beck on the eve of Lipski’s return to Berlin. Beck told American Ambassador Biddle an outrageous falsehood about Hitler’s policy toward Poland on March 25, 1939, which was a fitting prelude to his later public distortions about German policy. Beck claimed that Hitler had demanded the settlement of the Danzig question by Easter, which was only a few days away. In fact, Hitler had never set a time limit on the duration of his negotiation with Poland. Biddle reported with satisfaction on March 26, 1939, in a terse telegram: “Poland today on war footing having achieved same swiftly but quietly.”29

The Germans received a great shock on March 26, 1939, when Lipski returned from Warsaw and categorically rejected Hitler’s proposals for a settlement. The Poles refused to countenance any change of existing conditions. Their counter-proposals ignored the German request for the return of Danzig and a transit connection with East Prussia. The Poles also ignored the German offer to guarantee their frontiers. Lipski was instructed by Beck, before he boarded the train for Berlin on the night of March 25th, to remind the Germans that Pilsudski considered Danzig, as ‘Free City,’ to be the barometer or touchstone of German-Polish relations. The fact that the Marshal had been dead for nearly four years and might well have changed his mind was not taken into consideration. Lipski was ordered to inform Hitler, if the Chancellor was in Berlin, or otherwise to inform Ribbentrop, that Poland would fight to prevent the return of Danzig to Germany.30

Lipski requested to see Ribbentrop on March 26, 1939, when he discovered that Hitler had left Berlin. He was unenthusiastic about his instructions, and he hoped that he was performing his last act in Berlin as Polish Ambassador. He had come to Berlin in 1933 to facilitate conciliation between Poland and Germany, and he realized to his deep disappointment that his role had been played out. He naturally hoped to be recalled, and he would have been in greater distress had he realized that during the long months ahead Beck would restrict his authority without replacing him.

The Polish Ambassador submitted a written memorandum to Ribbentrop. The German Foreign Minister read the memorandum with astonishment. He made no attempt to conceal his surprise, he protested that the unwillingness of Poland to permit the German annexation of Danzig would destroy every chance of obtaining a German-Polish agreement. Lipski wasted no time. He quickly replied that “it was his painful duty to draw attention to the fact that any further pursuance of these German plans, especially where the return of Danzig to the Reich was concerned, meant war with Poland.”31

The German Foreign Minister, despite his sensation of unpleasant surprise, immediately retorted that the statement he was about to make would be effective from the moment it was uttered. Germany intended to regard a Polish violation of the Danzig frontier in exactly the same light as a Polish violation of the German frontier. Lipski attempted to score another point by denying that Poland, in contrast to Germany, had any plan to annex Danzig. [324]

Ribbentrop was unable to maintain his usual imperturbable composure on this historic occasion. He was unable to contain the feeling of despair which he experienced from this unpleasant interview. He vainly attempted to undo the consequences of the Polish note. He pleaded with Lipski. and he implored him to indicate that Poland might reconsider the entire question when the general situation was calmer. Germany was in no hurry to solve the Danzig problem. The Polish Ambassador replied by referring Ribbentrop to the written note of his Government. He then asked him if Germany, after all, would not reconsider, and agree for all time to renounce the German aspirations of Danzig. Lipski assured Ribbentrop that Beck would be glad to visit Berlin again in response to such a German concession.

Ribbentrop declared with sadness that a written Polish note really had not been necessary, since the Polish military measures of March 23rd appeared to be the true answer to the German proposals. The interview was over. Ribbentrop would have been inclined to abandon further efforts with the Poles had it not been for the stubborn conviction of Hitler that an agreement between Germany and Poland was worthy of every conceivable effort. Ribbentrop noted that Hitler remained quite calm when he read the Polish note of March 26, 1939.

Ribbentrop now had only the Polish note of categorical rejection to show for more than five months of difficult and patient negotiations. The first sentence of the note read as follows: “Today, as always, the Polish Government attach the greatest importance to the maintenance of neighborly relations with the German Reich for the longest possible period of time.” It would have been shorter to substitute “permanent neighborly relations” for the last seven very enlightening words of this opening sentence. It would have been less accurate to do so. The sentence as it was phrased expressed Beck’s conviction that there could be no such thing as permanent neighborly relations between Poland and the German Reich. It was this attitude which made Poland a natural object for the balance of power schemes of the British leaders.32


Poland Excited by Mobilization

Warlike enthusiasm momentarily gripped every section of Poland. The partial mobilization convinced the average Pole that his leaders contemplated war with Germany in the near future. The West Marches Society, an anti-German pressure group, held a public meeting on March 26, 1939, at Bydgoszcz (Bromberg), Polish West Prussia. The meeting was attended by thousands of Poles from the West Prussian area. Inflammatory speakers bitterly denounced the Germans, and the audience responded with passionate screams of “Down with Hitler!

“We want Danzig!,” and “We want Koenigsberg!” Bands of Poles roamed the streets after the meeting and assaulted Germans whenever they encountered them. Subscriptions were pouring in from all parts of Poland for an internal Government loan to provide the Polish air force with one thousand additional combat airplanes within four months.33

Rumors spread throughout the country that war had broken out, and that German and Polish troops were fighting at Oderberg. The editors of Polska Zbrojna (The Polish Army) assured the public that Poland had every reason to [325] be confident about the outcome of a German-Polish struggle. Polish readers were assured by the article, “We Are Prepared,” that they had no reason to feel inferior before any of the powerful military nations of the world. It was asserted that Poland possessed many advantages which would guarantee military victory over Germany. It was claimed that Polish soldiers were superior to German soldiers, and that Polish military equipment was better. The readers were informed that the Polish heroic spirit was superior to anything which Germany had to offer. An assurance from General Gluchowski, the distinguished Polish Vice-Minister for War, was cited at length. The General explained that the armed forces of Germany were only a big bluff, and that the Germans were fatally deficient in trained reserves. The General was asked by the newspapermen if Poland was superior to Germany from an overall military standpoint. He replied: “Why, certainly!”34

The Polish Senate at a special session expressed its sympathy for the “arduous experiences” of Lithuania in ceding Memel to Germany. Count Jan Szembek, the Assistant Secretary for Foreign Affairs, was a prominent participant in this affair. He also joined in the prolonged ovation which greeted the Senate resolution. 35

It was difficult for Ribbentrop to continue to seek a German-Polish agreement in this hectic atmosphere. He conferred with Lipski again on March 27, 1939. He complained about current Polish persecutions of the Germans at Bromberg and other places in Poland, and he obseryed that in Germany many people had the impression that the Polish Government could prevent such incidents if it cared to do so. He told Lipski that he frankly no longer knew what to make of the attitude and policy of the Polish Government. He did not threaten Poland, nor repeat his statement of the previous day about German policy toward a possible Polish violation of the Danzig frontier. Lipski also knew perfectly well that Ribbentrop’s statement had been made solely in response to the Polish threat to use force in preventing the restoration of Danzig to Germany.36

 Jozef Beck received German Ambassador Moltke on the evening of March 28, 1939. The Polish Foreign Minister repeated the threat which Lipski had conveyed to Ribbentrop on March 26th. He said that a German attempt to obtain Danzig would produce Polish military action against Germany which would accordingly mean a German-Polish war. Beck added that he was still willing to consider friendly relations with Germany if the Germans would drop their plans to acquire Danzig. Beck added that in the future Germany would be held strictly accountable for any action taken by the Senate of the so-called Free City of Danzig. Moltke, who had just sent a report to Berlin describing the ceaseless official Polish provocations which accompanied the mobilization measures, exclaimed to Beck: “You want to negotiate at the point of the bayonet!” Beck replied coldly that the German Ambassador was absolutely right, but that Germany should not object to this procedure since “that is your own method.”

It was difficult under these circumstances for Ribbentrop to maintain the impression that peaceful negotiations between Germany and Poland were in progress. The German Foreign Office was receiving a large number of reports from friendly foreign diplomats that the British were making all possible [326] preparations for war against Germany, and if seemed certain at Berlin that Halifax would seek to exploit the bellicose Polish attitude. American Minister Josepfe E. Davfes reported to Washington, D.C., from Brussels on March 30, 1939, that in Belgium the Chamberlain speech at Birmingham was regarded as a     disaster which had reversed the favorable prospects for peace in Europe.37

 French Ambassador Léon Noël reported to Paris that he had attended a diplomatic dinner on the evening of March 27, 1939, at which Beck, Count Michal Lubienski, and the Polish Chief of Staff, General Stachiewicz, were present. Noël complained that the Polish leaders deliberately avoided any reference to the obviously unsatisfactory recent negotiations with Germany, and that they appeared to be distracted and preoccupied with private problems. Beck was also vague in his conversations with American Ambassador Anthony Biddle, but he told Biddle on the evening of March 28th that the Polish partial mobilization was “a firm answer to certain suggestions made by Berlin.”38

Lukasiewicz informed Beck from Paris that he was continuing to collaborate closely with American Ambassador Bullitt. Lukasiewicz was repeatedly informed by Bullitt of the conversations between the British leaders and American Ambassador Kennedy at London. It was obvious to Lukasiewicz that Bullitt continued to distrust the British. The American Ambassador assured him that the United States would be able to exert sufficient pressure to produce a British mobilization at the peak of the next crisis. Lukasiewicz also suspected that part of this distrust reflected a childish desire on the part of Bullitt to exaggerate the importance of his own role on the European scene.39

Polish Ambassador Edward Raczynski reported on March 29, 1939, that the principal fear in Great Britain seemed to be that a German-Polish agreement would be reached despite the Polish partial mobilization. The British were arguing that such an agreement would be especially dangerous because it might lead to the rapid disintegration of Soviet Russia. The Polish Ambassador had learned that American Ambassador Kennedy was personally distressed by the war policy of the British leaders, and by the support for this policy which came from President Roosevelt. Raczynski warned Beck that Kennedy appeared to be privately somewhat out of step with Bullitt in Paris and Anthony Biddle in Warsaw, but that otherwise he was reluctantly carrying out his instructions from President Roosevelt to warn the British that their failure to act would produce dire consequences. Raczynski added that he received repeated requests from the British to reassure them that Poland would not accept the German annexation of Danzig. The Polish diplomat noted that it was difficult to convince the British that Poland was really willing to go to war over the Danzig issue.40


Hitler’s Hopes for a Change in Polish Policy

The relations between Germany and Poland had reached a crucial stage by March 29, 1939. The Poles had challenged Germany with the threat of war and a partial mobilization, but Hitler stubbornly refused to regard these Polish acts as a challenge. He also refused to accept the effort of the Poles to rupture the negotiations between the two countries, although this rupture in point of fact [327] had taken place with the categorical Polish rejection of the German offer on March 26, 1939. Hitler insisted that Ribbentrop should expend every effort to renew negotiations, and he continued to hope that Poland would refuse to conclude a military alliance with Great Britain. This hope appeared to have considerable foundation after the Poles rejected the British pro-Soviet alliance offer on March 24, 1939. Hitler also knew that Beck was refusing to play the British game in Rumania. It seemed, under these circumstances, that Anglo-Polish negotiations for an alliance might finally end in failure. Hitler hoped that it would be possible in the event of such a failure to renew negotiations with the Poles. He was prepared to assure them that Germany was in no hurry to achieve the realization of her program at Danzig.

Hitler’s strategy in dealing with the Poles at this point was entirely the product of his own analysis and conviction. The German military leaders wondered why they were not allowed to prepare plans for a possible war with the Poles. It was extremely unusual that Germany possessed no plans of any kind for such a conflict. It was customary for European nations to have operational plans for a possible struggle against a neighbor with whom relations were on an insecure footing. For instance, Germany had plans for possible military operations against Austria-Hungary throughout the 1870’s, and these were allowed to lapse only after the conclusion of the formal German-Austro-Hungarian alliance of 1879. The Germans maintained and repeatedly revised their plans for possible military operations against France and Russia from the 1870’s down to 1914. The German military men, during the days of the German Weimar Republic, were constantly working on their plans for a possible conflict with Poland, and the Poles were engaged uninterruptedly in the same activity from 1919 to 1939. There never was a break in French planning itself, throughout the period from 1871 to 1939. It is only in this light that Hitler’s stubborn refusal to permit military planning against Poland, throughout the period from the death of President von Hindenburg in August 1934, down to April 1939, can be understood. There was certainly no such restriction on military planning against the Czechs during the years after 1934. It adds up to only one conclusion, namely, that Hitler was determined to win Poland’s friendship.

Ribbentrop loyally carried out Hitler’s instructions to pursue negotiations with the Poles, but he was increasingly pessimistic. He could understand the desire of Weizsäcker and other officials at the German Foreign Office to take a more firm line with the Poles. Ribbentrop’s wife recalled that her husband had been inclined to abandon the project of a German-Polish agreement after the futile negotiation at Warsaw in January 1939, but Hitler convinced Ribbentrop in February 1939 that it was necessary to persevere because an understanding was still possible. The German Foreign Minister had responded favorably, and the manner in which he convinced Lipski of the need for an agreement on March 21, 1939, was a brilliant achievement.41

It is important to note that none of the German leaders, including Göring, who shared Hitler’s pro-Polish attitude, advocated the abandonment of the German claim to Danzig. Lipski had said that Beck might return to Germany on a visit if the Germans renounced Danzig. Hitler was not prepared to pay this one-sided price for an understanding, because he knew that an agreement on such a basis would be worthless. An understanding in which Germany made all [328] the sacrifices and Poland made none would not produce a relationship of confidence between the two countries. It would foster Polish contempt for Germany and the unwarranted conviction that a smaller Power like Poland could intimidate the German Reich. It would encourage the Poles to continue their intrigues against Germany in the hope of achieving future gains at German expense.


The Roots of Hitler’s Moderation Toward Poland

Countless Germans from the territories lost in 1919 complained with bitterness that Hitler was obsessed with the liberation of Danzig, but that he was indifferent about the fate of such former German cities as Kattowitz. They could not understand why Hitler was willing to renounce Kattowitz, which had not been in Poland any more than Danzig had been before the first Polish partition of 1772. Kattowitz, in contrast to Danzig, was little more than a village at that time, but the industrial revolution brought important changes, and the city had a population of 125,000 when it was assigned to Poland in 1922. The city of Kattowitz, despite French and Polish terror tactics, had voted overwhelmingly for Germany (82%) in the 1921 plebiscite. The Kattowitz region was one of the finest industrial areas in the world, and its coal deposits were far superior to those in any part of the Ruhr valley and much easier to exploit. The Kattowitz region had been part of Germany since the 12th century, and the exploitation of its industrial resources had been initiated by Frederick the Great. Steam engines for industrial purposes were first employed in 18th century Prussia in the Kattowitz region at Koenigshütte, which meant royal foundry of the King. The area was highly developed by the 20th century, and it would have been a far greater economic asset to Germany than Danzig and the superhighway to East Prussia combined.42

The claim that Hitler was indifferent about Kattowitz was unjust. He was sorely tempted to request the return of Kattowitz and the remainder of East Upper Silesia to Germany after the conclusion of the Russo-German Pact of August 1939, and he even discussed this temptation with British Ambassador Henderson. But he decided in this instance not to request the return of Kattowitz, because he feared that such an important additional claim by Germany would destroy the last chances of achieving a negotiated settlement with Poland.43

It was the political situation of Danzig, rather than its intrinsic importance, which decided Hitler’s policy. The creation of the free-city regime after 1918 was a serious and lasting threat to peace. The citizens of Danzig demonstrated their unwavering loyalty to National Socialism and its principles, and they had elected a National Socialist parliamentary majority before this result had been achieved in the German Reich. The renunciation of Danzig would have been a repudiation of this loyalty and the spirit which inspired it. It would have been unthinkable to expect the Poles to renounce political control of Danzig had the population of the city consisted of loyal Poles who supported the Polish OZON (Camp of National Unity) regime. The Poles were never requested to make any sacrifice of this kind. The situation of the German minority in Poland [329] was different from that of the German community at Danzig. The Germans of Poland had agreed to be loyal citizens of the Polish state, although they had never been accepted in Poland as equals. Many Germans were arrested in 1938 when they neglected to display the Polish national colors on the Polish national holiday in commemoration of November 11, 1918. This date was also the anniversary of the German defeat in World War I, but none of the ethnic Poles were arrested for failing to display national colors at that time. The Germans of Poland had nevertheless agreed to be Polish citizens. They had their own local political organizations, but, in contrast to the Danzigers, they were not National Socialists. Hitler was prepared to renounce them to Poland because of his desire for friendship with the Poles, and because of his wish to avoid the slaughter of an unnecessary war.44

It was known everywhere that Poland was constantly seeking to increase her control over Danzig. Hitler was not opposed to any of Poland’s further economic aspirations at Danzig, but he was resolved never to permit the establishment of a Polish political regime at Danzig. Numerous Germans from the eastern provinces later asserted that they would have revolted against Hitler had he concluded an agreement with Poland on the basis of his offer of October 1938.45 Such a revolt would have been improbable, and it would have been crushed ruthlessly had it occurred. The mass of Germans in the South and West were largely indifferent about the situation on the German eastern frontier. The situation of Danzig was an exception, and this was reflected in the extensive publicity it had received throughout Germany for many years. The larger question of German prestige would have commanded universal attention had Hitler passively witnessed the strangling of Danzig by his far weaker Polish neighbor. It was necessary to avoid this distinct possibility and to protect Danzig by bringing her back to the Reich. Hitler had never insisted that this had to be done immediately, but he was adamant in his determination never to renounce Danzig. He realized that the abandonment of Danzig would widen the breach between Germany and Poland rather than produce a relationship of friendship.

Hitler was willing to pay the price of abandoning the German territories lost to Poland before 1939 for reasons of high policy. He had always insisted that it would be childish to seek the recovery of every area which had been lost by Germany or by the Austrian Germans after World War I. His attitude in the Tirol question is one of the best illustrations of this policy. Hitler began his political career in Bavaria. The Bavarians and Austrians are the same branch of the German family. The entire Austrian area had been opened up by Bavarian pioneers in the 8th and 9th centuries. The Bavarians were bitter about the repudiation of self-determination by the Allied Powers in the Tirol settlement of 1919. Hitler believed that the South Tirol territory should be renounced permanently in favor of Italy, and he frankly expressed this unpopular idea in his speeches throughout the 1920’s. This unquestionably hindered the early growth of the National Socialist movement in Bavaria. The opponents of National Socialism Chargéd untruthfully that Hitler was the paid agent of Mussolini, and this was widely believed. It was argued that otherwise a man who claimed to be a German nationalist would never abandon South Tirol. The South Tirol was the homeland of a solid bloc of vigorous and [330] independently-minded Germans, whose heroic historical tradition was familiar to every German through the literature of Schiller.46

Hitler knew that an understanding with Italy would be impossible if the Germans expected Mussolini to abandon the strategic Brenner frontier. He knew that Italy would be the immediate neighbor of Germany if self-determination was applied in Rump-Austria, and if the tiny Austrian Republic joined the German Reich. He realized that cooperation with Italy would be an important asset for any successful German foreign policy. There could be no doubt of the fundamental wisdom of this attitude, but national sentiment has often constituted a formidable obstacle to realistic policy. The situation was complicated by German resentment toward Italy because of the Italian desertion of the Triple Alliance during World War I in favor of war against Austria-Hungary and Germany. Hitler knew that a pro-Italian policy would encounter great obstacles in Germany. He did not waste time before seeking to educate the German people to accept this policy, although he knew that it would cost him votes to do so.47

Hitler’s problem with South Tirol was not terminated by the formation of the Rome-Berlin Axis. The Italians were no different from the Poles in their pursuit of de-Germanization measures against the German minority. The Italian diplomats at Berlin insisted in January 1939 that the entire German population of South Tirol should be driven from their ancestral homes and forced to seek refuge in the Reich. The South Tirol crisis was discussed in a special meeting at the German Foreign Office on January 14, 1939. It is not surprising that German resentment about the ruthless Italian demand was very great. Hitler thought he could not afford the luxury of such feelings, and he instructed Ribbentrop to inform Italy that Germany would agree to an expulsion program if carried out slowly and gradually. It should be added that Hitler would have been willing to cooperate in a similar program with the Poles had the relations between Germany and Poland been established on a solid basis. Hitler agreed to confer German citizenship on the South Tirol expellees before they left their homeland for the trek to Germany.48

Hitler’s agreement to the exodus in January 1939 merely represented one stage in the handling of the problem. It was necessary for him to intervene again and again to moderate the German response to a series of extreme Italian provocations. The Italians knew that Alexander Bene, the German Consul-General at Bozen, South Tirol, had opposed the exodus plan. Italian Foreign Minister Ciano charged on May 3, 1939, that Bene had said the South Tirol would One day be liberated by Hitler. German Ambassador Mackensen, who was a close personal friend of Bene, knew that the Chargé was false. Bene had always done everything possible to convince the Germans of South Tirol that their land would remain irrevocably Italian. Mackensen knew that Ciano presented this irresponsible accusation as a convenient pretext to eliminate Bene’s influence in the exodus question.49

It was impossible for Hitler to prevent the spread of Austrian National Socialism before 1938 among the Austrian citizens resident in South Tirol. The Italian Government arrested Rudolf Kauffmann, the local National Socialist leader at Bozen, on June 16, 1939. The pretext for this action was that Kauffmann had not secured the permission of the Italian authorities for an [331] all-day hike of a group of German gymnasts. The Italians claimed that this hike constituted a hostile demonstration against the Italian state. The situation was complicated by English propaganda agents in South Tirol, who were distributing inflammatory tracts published in bad German which denounced the Italians. Hitler realized that stern measures were necessary under these circumstances. The Italians released Kauffmann on June 18, 1939. Hitler ordered Weizsäcker to contact Rome on June 20, 1939, to arrange an exit visa to Berlin for Kauffmann. Hitler announced that he intended to punish Kauffmann for ignoring local Italian regulations. Kauffmann was placed in a German concentration camp for ten weeks, and he was not released until early September 1939. Ciano told Mackensen on June 23, 1939, that he was pleased to learn that Kauffmann had been imprisoned by Hitler. He claimed that this would be a good example in teaching the people of South Tirol that it was dangerous to defy Italy.50

The point in all this was that Hitler possessed the necessary authority to maintain friendly relations with such neighboring states as Italy and Poland despite the existence of serious points of friction. This was not sufficiently appreciated by the Poles, and the fears of Lipski that German internal pressures might compel Hitler to modify his policy toward Poland illustrate the problem. These fears did not take account of the ruthless will of Hitler, or the loyalty which characterized his attitude toward friendly foreign Governments.

It was for these reasons that Hitler remained calm in the face of Polish provocations during the week following the Polish partial mobilization of March 23, 1939. He learned of an interesting luncheon conversation at Berlin on March 24, 1939, between Count Dembinski and Baron von Stengl. Dembinski was a wealthy Pole residing in Berlin, and a close friend of Jozef Lipski. Dembinski told his friend Stengl that the Polish partial mobilization had convinced him that war between Germany and Poland was inevitable. He had sent his wife and children to Poland, and he asked Stengl to care for his house and furniture when he too had to leave. Dembinski believed that the attitude of the Polish leadership was determined by the fact that the “world” was momentarily very anti-German. He told Stengl that the Poles were confident they could rely on Western support against Germany. He warned his German friend that the Poles might seek to take advantage of this situation very soon by provoking a conflict at Danzig.51

It would have been understandable had Hitler reacted to the many reports of this kind by concluding that a German-Polish understanding was impossible. This was not Hitler’s way. He had been told after the fiasco of his unsuccessful conversations with Mussolini at Venice in June 1934 that there was no hope for a German-Italian understanding, but he refused to believe it. He remained patient, and later he succeeded in winning the friendship of Mussolini. He believed that it was necessary to remain patient with Beck and the other Polish leaders, because Polish friendship was an important objective. He was equally determined to remain patient with Great Britain and the United States, in the hope that one day German relations with these two Powers would be placed on a solid and satisfactory basis. One might have expected that the encirclement policy launched by Halifax on March 20, t939, would have disabused Hitler of his remaining hopes for a lasting agreement between Great Britain and Germany, [332] but this was by no means the case. He knew that important objectives were not easily achieved, and he refused to take a tragic view of the situation. Hitler hoped that Halifax and Beck would fail to reach an agreement. This would provide Germany with new opportunities to improve relations with both Powers. The Polish challenge of March 23-26, 1939, had failed to prompt Hitler to reconsider his Polish policy.

[333]
Chapter 14


THE BRITISH BLANK CHECK TO POLAND


Anglo-French Differences

Polish Foreign Minister Jozef Beck on March 24, 1939, rejected the British plan for an alliance front to include the Soviet Union. Halifax responded one week later by extending a unilateral British guarantee to the Poles. The British Empire agreed to go to war as the ally of Poland if the Poles decided that war was necessary. The British public was astonished by this move. It is understandable that Hitler was also surprised. Sir Alexander Cadogan admitted to American Ambassador Kennedy on March 31, 1939, that Great Britain for the first time in her history had left the decision as to whether or not to fight outside her own country to another Power. Professor F.J.C. Hearnshaw, an ardent supporter of Halifax and his policies, hoped that the British public would believe that exceptional circumstances justified this step. His article The Only Way to Safety, claimed that “never since the close of the Middle Ages have the peace of the world, the reign of law and the very existence of human freedom been so formidably menaced as they are at the present moment.” This was undoubtedly true, but Hearnshaw failed to see that the actual menace was Halifax and his policy, which was needlessly exposing Europe to the latent threat from the Soviet Union. He hoped that the unconventional conduct of British foreign policy would be excused by his reference to the Middle Ages and the period before the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. It was the determination for war which Halifax had deliberately aroused, rather than such specious arguments, which caused the British ruling classes and the British public to accept whatever steps Halifax chose to take.1

The move of Halifax in guaranteeing Poland was a serious threat to Anglo-French unity. Franco-Polish relations were bad. French Foreign Minister Bonnet had agreed on March 23, 1939, to cooperate in the formation of an alliance front to include the Soviet Union, because he believed that such an achievement might produce a preponderant league of states to preserve the peace. It was not [334] because he desired war that he cooperated in this plan. It was evident that the unilateral British guarantee to Poland jeopardized the prospect of including Soviet Russia in an alliance front and vastly increased the danger of war. Bonnet refused to emulate the British by extending a French blank check to Poland. He had no taste for an Anglo-Franco-Polish war against Hitler.2

Lukasiewicz had informed Bonnet before the Polish partial mobilization of March 23, 1939, that Beck was hostile toward Halifax’s pro-Soviet alliance project. Bonnet did not sympathize with this attitude, and he told Lukasiewicz that he favored the Halifax plan. He reminded the Polish Ambassador that France had sought for years to reconcile Great Britain toward her own alliance policy with the Soviet Union. Bonnet claimed that the speech of Halifax in the British House of Lords on March 20, 1939, was more important from the diplomatic viewpoint than anything Chamberlain had said at Birmingham. Halifax in this speech had defined and explained the British alliance offer.3


Bonnet’s Visit to London

Bonnet accompanied French President Albert Lebrun on a visit to England on March 22, 1939. The purpose of the visit was to discuss the French attitude toward the British encirclement policy. Rumanian Minister Tatarescu had explained at Paris on March 18, 1939, that the charges made by Tilea in London about German demands were without foundation, and Bonnet had subsequently received confirmation of the Tilea hoax from the French diplomats in Rumania. This did not prevent Daladier and Bonnet from agreeing to take a positive attitude toward the British plan to guarantee Rumania. They hoped that Rumania would serve as a bridge between Great Britain and the Soviet Union.

President Lebrun and Bonnet attended a banquet at the Guildhall in London on the evening of March 22, 1939. Bonnet was amazed to discover that Chamberlain was still insisting on the authenticity of the Tilea story and of the existence of an immediate German threat to Rumania. He was surprised by the degree of excitement which Halifax had created in British high society. The wife of an important British functionary told Bonnet with passion that she had many children and that she loved them dearly, but she would prefer to see all of them die rather than to permit Hitler to dominate Europe. Bonnet had no doubt that the warlike spirit, for which the English upper classes had been famous for centuries, had been kindled successfully once again.

Important conferences took place between the French and British leaders at Windsor on March 23, 1939. Bonnet confirmed Halifax’s fear that the Poles were not likely to accept his pro-Soviet alliance plan. Halifax discussed the possibility of separate Anglo-French guarantees to Rumania and Poland in case Beck formally decided to refuse the alliance offer. Bonnet was congenial in discussing these problems, and he was careful not to offend his English hosts. He knew that the English leaders of the past had attempted to overthrow French Governments which did not please them in crisis situations by means of backstairs intrigue, and he hoped that it would be possible for Daladier and himself to avoid this problem. The English leaders were satisfied with Bonnet’s attitude at Windsor, and they assured President Lebrun that they desired to see Daladier [335] and Bonnet retained in office in France. Bonnet left the conferences with the conviction that British progress in the manufacture of war airplanes was the key explanation of the recent change in British foreign policy.4


Franco-Polish Differences

Lukasiewicz called on Daladier at Paris on March 23, 1939, to discuss the general situation. The Polish Ambassador complained that Beck had no enthusiasm for the deflection of the Anglo-French intervention policy to Rumania. He did not see why it was important to guarantee Rumania when that country had no problems with Germany. He bluntly told Daladier that the interest of France in Rumania caused him to doubt the sincerity of their policy in Eastern Europe. Lukasiewicz had received the misleading impression that Rumania would not accept a territorial guarantee without the participation of Poland, and he told Daladier that Poland would never extend a territorial guarantee to Rumania. The Rumanians had profited enormously from the 1919 treaties of peace. They had large minorities of Hungarians, Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Germans, Serbs, and Turks. They were not inclined to make a guarantee conditional on Polish acceptance. They were prepared to accept a guarantee of the territorial integrity of their country from any quarter except the Soviet Union.

Daladier claimed to Lukasiewicz that he understood the Polish position perfectly, but that he doubted if the Poles understood the position of Great Britain and France. He informed Lukasiewicz that Halifax was seeking to put a complete fence around Germany. He was attempting to block German expansion everywhere, and not merely in the direction of Poland. He hoped to anticipate possible German moves regardless of how remote some of them might seem.

Lukasiewicz was unimpressed by Daladier’s explanation of the Halifax policy, and it seemed to him that the remarks of the French Premier lacked conviction. He told Daladier that the Halifax offer to Rumania betrayed a lack of common sense. Lukasiewicz feared that the Western Powers would be unable to resist the temptation of making agreements at the expense of Poland. He declared that Halifax’s proposition for an alliance with the Soviet Union deserved condemnation and would be condemned by Poland. Lukasiewicz reminded Daladier that France had no commitment to support Poland at Danzig; nevertheless he believed that he had influenced Daladier to favor French support to Poland in that quarter. The French Premier, on the other hand, was very displeased by the attitude of the Polish Ambassador.5

American Ambassador Bullitt did what he could to support the Polish position at Paris. Lukasiewicz informed Bullitt on March 24, 1939, that Poland would reject the pro-Soviet alliance plan and press for a bilateral alliance with Great Britain. Bullitt assured Lukasiewica that the British would agree to such an alliance. The Polish Ambassador admitted that he did not trust the British, and he asserted that the cynical English leaders were quite capable of leading Poland into an untenable position and deserting her. He knew that Bullitt shared this attitude to some extent. Lukasiewicz reminded Bullitt of British participation in the partition of Czechoslovakia in 1938. He feared that Great Britain would offer to support Poland, and then insist on Polish concessions to Germany. [336] He knew that until recently the British leaders had favored Polish concessions to Germany, and he was not certain that there had been a complete change in their attitude.

Bullitt used many arguments to reassure the Polish Ambassador. He declared that he was in complete agreement with every aspect of Beck’s stand in the alliance question, and he regarded the creation of a solid Anglo-Franco-Polish front without the Soviet Union as the best thing which could possibly happen. He claimed that Halifax was not very serious about his Four Power Pact offer, and that it was mainly a gesture to increase British prestige and to appease the French. He said that the British leaders hoped that there would be a war between Germany and Russia, but that they were not eager to make commitments to the Soviet Union.6

Bullitt told Lukasiewicz on March 25, 1939, that he had instructed American Ambassador Kennedy at London to tell Chamberlain that the United States was in full sympathy with the Polish position in the alliance question. Bullitt contacted Kennedy again on March 26th. Kennedy was instructed to tell Chamberlain that the United States hoped that Great Britain would go to war with Germany if the Danzig dispute produced an explosion between Germany and Poland. Bullitt told the Polish Ambassador that he was confident that the British response to these suggestions would be favorable. Halifax, of course, was not displeased to know that he had unconditional official American support for his war policy. Lukasiewicz told Bullitt on March 26, 1939, that Lipski would reject the German proposals at Berlin the same day. He praised Bullitt as “an industrious friend who at many complicated points resolved our situation intensively and profitably.”7


Beck’s Offer to England

Polish Ambassador Raczynski was tactful in his approach to Halifax on March 24, 1939. He was “afraid that the communication he had to make ... would rather complicate an already complicated situation,” but he was instructed to reject the quadruple alliance offer, and to say that, in the Polish view, a pact with the Soviet Union might “provoke a catastrophe.” He developed Beck’s argument that the inclusion of the Soviet Union in an alliance would unduly threaten the peace. He added that he possessed plenipotentiary authority to propose an Anglo-Polish alliance. Halifax knew from previous conversations with the Poles that Poland wanted British military aid if “the Danzig question should develop into a threat to Poland’s independence.”8

Halifax admitted at once that he was interested in the Polish proposition. He also claimed with boundless hypocrisy that he would not object if Poland and Germany could negotiate successfully on the Danzig question. The fact that Halifax found it necessary to make this last point demonstrates his tactical skill as a diplomat. He had no desire to give the Poles the impression that he was pushing them into war.

Kennard submitted a jubilant report from Warsaw on March 25, 1939. He declared with considerable exaggeration that 750,000 Polish soldiers were already under arms. He admitted that many foreign diplomats in Warsaw [337] believed that Poland was seeking to provoke a war. Kennard hoped that it would be possible to label Germany the aggressor in a coming war, and he assured Halifax that he did not believe that “the Polish Government intends to force an issue with Germany.” He did not deny that the Polish partial mobilization had created an atmosphere of serious crisis. It is ironical, in view of this report, to discover Gilbert and Gott claiming that British policy was resting “on the assumption that Poland was in no danger.”9

Halifax was studying his response to the Polish alliance offer, when the Poles, on March 26, 1939, threatened the Germans with war if their Danzig proposal was not abandoned. Beck was not directly informing either England or France of his steps with the Germans, but it should occasion no surprise that Halifax learned of the Polish refusal of the German offer almost immediately. The details were confirmed in reports from sources which ranged from Paris to Danzig. The French Embassy in Berlin was informed that Polish circles which favored the surrender of Danzig to Germany were disappointed in Beck’s diplomacy. The story of the meeting between Lipski and Ribbentrop received extensive treatment in the Western press as early as March 27, 1939, and the emphasis was on the refusal of Poland to accept the German terms. Halifax received no official information from Beck, while deciding about the Polish alliance offer, but he knew perfectly well that Beck had thrown down the gauntlet to Hitler. 10

French Ambassador Noël at Warsaw was impressed by the enthusiastic display of Polish patriotism following the partial mobilization, but he feared that support from the West would add to the proverbial Polish recklessness. He was aghast at the fantastic optimism of the Polish military men. He believed that it was the responsibility of France to urge the Poles to be prudent rather than to excite them. He did not display much confidence that French restraint would be very successful. He believed the Poles should be informed that France was unprepared for a struggle with Germany. He also believed that the French military men should talk sensibly with the Polish military men, and he hoped that France would have an opportunity to aid Poland in overcoming her obvious military deficiency.11


Halifax’s Decision

Halifax came forward to his diplomats on March 27, 1939, with the definite decision to place Poland before Russia. He knew that the Russians on March 22, 1939, had insisted on Polish acceptance as a condition for the participation of the Soviet Union in an alliance front. The Poles had refused on March 24, 1939, and the British alliance offer of March 20, 1939, was dead as far as Halifax was concerned. He wired Kennard on March 27th that the Poles had won their point in the Russian question. He informed Kennard that the Poles had refused to collaborate with the Soviet Union “for reasons which I appreciate.” Halifax concluded that it would be possible to approach the Soviet Union later with a new alliance proposal.12

Halifax had made an epochal decision, and he was impatient to bring his new policy into the open. He decided not to wait until the arrival of Beck in [338] London on April 3, 1939, before assuming a public British commitment to Poland. He wired Kennard on March 30, 1939, that a guarantee to Poland would be announced in the British Parliament on the following day. He added that this guarantee would be binding without commitments from the Polish side. He attempted to place the responsibility for his extraordinary impatience on President Roosevelt. He informed Kennard with a touch of ironical humor that the American Embassy had bombarded him with assertions that Ribbentrop was urging Hitler to invade Poland before the British assumed any commitment. This was a transparent pretext to rationalize a rash policy. It was true that Bullitt at Paris was for immediate British action, but the American diplomats at Berlin hoped that Great Britain would adopt a policy of caution and restraint. American Chargé d’Affaires Geist suggested from Berlin that it would be wise for Great Britain to avoid placing obstructions before German eastward expansion. No one could have been more emphatic in deploring a hasty British guarantee to Poland.13

Halifax carefully avoided giving the impression that he believed the alleged story about Ribbentrop’s aggressive intentions. He did repeat the old argument that President Roosevelt and the United States of America would become hostile to Great Britain if she did not go to war against Germany. The constant reiteration of this theme by Bullitt at Paris was undoubtedly useful to Halifax. It also enabled him to shift part of the responsibility for his various moves to the United States, although in reality President Roosevelt was unable to play an active role in Europe at this stage. The official position of the United States was governed by neutrality legislation from the 1935-1937 period, and it is impossible, regardless of the attitude of Roosevelt, to saddle the United States with the responsibility for the moves which Halifax made. The decision of Halifax to confer an advance guarantee wiped out the hopes of Hitler that personal negotiations between Halifax and Beck would end in disagreement. The friction between the two men was a very real thing when Beck came to London, and it is possible that their negotiation would have ended in failure had it not been for the previous British guarantee.14

Halifax informed Kennard that he had decided not to restrict his pledge to Poland to mere cases of unprovoked aggression. He argued that German policy was so varied” and “so insidious” that Great Britain might have to come to Poland’s aid under different circumstances. He told Kennard that he had decided to ignore the question of the aggressor. He did not want Great Britain to remain neutral if the Poles forced Germany into war.15

Kennard met French Ambassador Noël on March 30, 1939, at the Bruehl Palace, which housed the Polish Foreign Office. The British Ambassador was holding the historic telegram which had arrived the same day, and which announced that a unilateral British guarantee would be extended to Poland. Kennard informed Noël that the British leaders had contacted President Moicicki and Marshal Smigly-Rydz by telephone to tell them of this step. The Polish leaders had given their consent. Kennard conferred with Beck, who also agreed to accept the British guarantee. Beck and Kennard agreed that a public announcement would be issued on the following day to inform the world of the great change in Europe. Noël correctly believed that he had witnessed one of the great events of history, and he greeted it with the classic sentence: “The die is cast.”16


Beck’s Acceptance of the British Guarantee

The Polish decision to accept the guarantee was the natural outgrowth of the Anglo-Polish negotiations, which had begun with the conference between Alfred Duff Cooper and Beck at the Hela peninsula in August 1938. These negotiations ante-dated the German-Polish negotiations by more than two months, and ultimately they completely overshadowed them. Beck preferred a war alliance with Great Britain to a peaceful understanding with Germany. Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, an ardent follower of Beck, and a brother of a former Polish Premier, sought to place the Polish decision on the highest possible moral plane. He declared that “when she made her choice between entering the German orbit or remaining loyal to the Western group, Poland certainly was not moved by cold calculation but by the historical tradition of many centuries and the feeling of close spiritual kinship with the West.” This Polish choice actually resulted in placing Poland securely and permanently in the Eastern orbit of the Soviet Union.

Jedrzejewicz explained that “the time is past when the peninsulas of Europe could hold back a flood from the Eurasian continent. Following this theory, a balance of power on the European continent cannot be obtained by permitting either Germany or Russia to get control of the gateway between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea. Command of these areas not only leads to temptation but to ultimate domination of Europe and the world.” Poland, by refusing to permit the return of Danzig to Germany, and by accepting the temptation to play the game of British policy, made a choice which contributed to placing this entire so-called gateway firmly under the control of the Soviet Union. 17

Jedrzejewicz’s curious compendium of the ideas of Polish geopolitics and of Chamberlain’s Birmingham speech is of little value in explaining the true motivation of Polish policy. It did reflect the ideas which Beck and the other Polish leaders presented to the Polish people to justify their policy in March 1939 and afterward. It is instructive to note the absurd allegation repeated by the Poles throughout this period that Germany, like Russia, was fundamentally not a European nation. This would be equivalent to arguing that the United States, unlike Canada or Mexico, was fundamentally not an American nation. Jedrzejewicz suggested that Germany was an area containing Eurasian forces which could flood Europe. This description is applicable to the Soviet Union, but senseless when applied to Germany. There is also the suggestion that the vast land mass between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea is some sort of gateway. If this were true, it might have been less difficult to prevent the later Bolshevik conquest of most of Europe. It is 750 miles by direct air line at the narrowest point of this land mass, from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, and this was why countries like Poland to the West of the Soviet Union were especially vulnerable to Russian invasion. One can but wonder at fantasy in politics when Polish views on this subject are considered. Henryk Baginski, an advocate of the Pilsudski federation program and the leading Polish geopolitician, asserted that “Poland forms an isthmus between the Baltic and Black Sea.” It was for statements of this kind that Baginski rated a special photograph in the Polish Who’s Who (Czy Wiesz Kto to Jest?) of this period.18

Polish territory extended to the Baltic Sea in 1939 through much traditionally [340] non-Polish ethnic territory. The Polish point nearest to the Black Sea was deep in Ukrainian ethnic territory and more than 250 miles from the seashore. Beck had admitted to Ribbentrop that Poland hoped to return to Kiev and to reach the Black Sea. It was also obvious that there was much sentiment in Poland favoring expansion along the Baltic Sea at German expense. Poland welcomed British support against Germany as part of a grandiose and aggressive Polish plan of expansion at the expense of both Germany and Russia. This program was presented as a benefit to European civilization because it would allegedly improve the operation of the balance of power. The Democratic Review, in the United States, had rejected the balance of power as a suitable doctrine for the Western hemisphere as early as 1844. The Polish program unintentionally served the interests of Bolshevik expansion rather than the balance of power, but its value to Europe was extremely doubtful in any case. The achievement of the Polish program required the shedding of oceans of blood and the sacrifice of trillions of dollars of wealth. One might well wonder how such a program could be justified.


The Approval of the Guarantee by the British Parties

Halifax encountered little difficulty in persuading the British Conservative, Liberal, and Labour parties to accept the unilateral guarantee of Poland which was announced in Parliament on March 31, 1939. His friend Geoffrey Dawson, the editor of the London Times, described the guarantee as “a very careful document.” The Labour Party people were jubilant because Halifax was pursuing a war policy, and they were caught off balance by the unexpected plan of a guarantee to Poland. The Labour Party leaders, after the Birmingham speech of March 17, 1939, congratulated Chamberlain for accepting the collective security policy which Labour had advocated in September 1938. Chamberlain continued to defend his earlier policy, but they accepted this with good-natured humor. He satisfied their hatred of Hitler by referring to the German leader as a “mad dog.”l9

The Labour leaders were mainly interested in an Anglo-Russian alliance because they sincerely wished to aid the program of the Soviet Union. The Halifax pro-Soviet alliance offer of March 20, 1939, convinced them that the British leaders were seeking such an alliance. They were not informed of the Polish refusal of the alliance on March 24, 1939, and Polish Ambassador Raczynksi cleverly misled them into assuming that Poland would accept it. The executive committee of the Labour Party did not learn the true facts until within a few hours of the announcement of the guarantee in the British Parliament. They were much concerned by the absence of the Soviet Union from this arrangement, but they were allowed no time to think about the matter or to concert an opposing strategy. They presented a number of objections of a general nature to the plan, but Chamberlain proceeded to announce it in the House of Commons at 3:00 p.m. on March 31st.

The Labour leaders were not informed that the guarantee was already in effect on March 30, 1939, before they heard about it. They did know that Soviet Ambassador Maisky had said that the Soviet Union did not approve of the [341] guarantee plan, and the Russian diplomat also complained that no time had been allowed for him to confer with his Government before the announcement of the guarantee. In the upshot, the British Labour leaders had grave misgivings about the Halifax policy, but they agreed to support it in the Commons debates on April 3, 1939. Halifax had used the element of surprise with telling effect in dealing with the Labour leaders. Their latex complaints about his policy toward the Soviet Union were met with the rejoinder that they themselves, and also the Liberals, had approved of the unilateral guarantee to Poland. Halifax experienced no difficulty at all in securing the agreement of the British Conservative Party for the guarantee, although the folly of the move was privately deplored by several prominent Tories. 20

The officials at the British Foreign Office knew that it was impossible to explain the guarantee to Poland by rules of strict logic. William Strang, the chief of the Central Office which dealt with Germany, admitted that the general arguments against war in 1938 were no less valid in 1939. He believed that it was impossible to claim that Poland was more worthy of a European war on her behalf than Czechoslovakia. He rationalized the situation with the observation that in 1939 good arguments either way would not have carried weight because “our people had made up their minds.” This rationalization confused cause and effect. The British public had welcomed the preservation of peace at Munich in 1938, and they were not at all in a bellicose mood on March 15, 1939, although their resistance to a war policy had been subtly undermined by a constant stream of war propaganda during the past five months.21

The decisive factor, which caused some of the British people to think that they had made up their own minds, was the strategy of Halifax in deceiving them. He had lied to them about British policy toward Czecho-Slovakia after Munich, and he had lied to them about Rumania. It was only by means of these palpable falsehoods that the British public had been whipped into a warlike mood. It was by these means that Halifax persuaded them to accept a policy which was dangerous and seriously devoid of logic. Thomas Jones was speaking the truth when he declared that “the declaration on Poland has given almost universal satisfaction.” This was a sad commentary on the ease with which a modern people can be deceived by their leaders.22


The Statement by Chamberlain

Sir Samuel Hoare later expended much energy in a vain attempt to argue that Great Britain had not surrendered her initiative in foreign policy to Poland. He admitted that the Poles had the right to interpret what they considered a threat to their independence, but he claimed that they would permit the British to aid them in defining this threat. This was an unrealistic expectation, and subsequent events were to show that the Polish leaders resented interference from the British in this matter. They were certainly under no obligation to accept it. The following statement, which defined the guarantee, was made in the House of Commons by Prime Minister Chamberlain on March 31, 1939:

“In order to make perfectly clear the position of His Majesty’s Government in the meantime before these consultations [with other governments] are [342] concluded, I now have to inform the House that during that period, in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty’s Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect.”23

The text of the Chamberlain speech was broadcast to the continent by the London short-wave radio at 3:58 p.m. on March 31, 1939. When the Belgian Minister to Germany, Vicomte Jacques Davignon, received the text of the British commitment to Poland, he exclaimed that “blank check” was the only possible description of the British pledge. Davignon was extremely alarmed, and he feared that the British move would produce a war in a very short time. He called at the German Foreign Office and discussed the situation with State Secretary Weizsaecker. Weizsäcker attempted to reassure Davignon by claiming that the situation between Germany and Poland was not tragic. The Belgian diplomat did not believe that this statement offered much consolation in view of the proverbial recklessness of the Poles.24


The Challenge Accepted by Hitler

Hitler’s attitude toward the proposed settlement with Poland was seriously affected by the news that Poland had received unlimited British military support for a policy of defiance against Germany. Jozef Beck allegedly told American Ambassador Kennedy, when he reached London, that he knew Hitler must have been “roaring mad” when he learned that Poland was “tying up” with Great Britain. These American colloquialisms, with their quaint frontier tinge, were obviously not the exact words Beck used, but they indicate that the Polish Foreign Minister knew that the Polish acceptance of the British guarantee was a challenge which Hitler could not possibly ignore.25

Hitler proceeded without delay to order the preparation of plans “for the gradual, seemingly unavoidable conflict with Poland, in such manner that these can be executed in the late summer of 1939.” He also gave Ribbentrop the welcome order to abandon his efforts to persuade the Poles to resume negotiations for a settlement. The Poles had long believed that war between Poland and Germany was necessary, and this view began to make rapid headway at Berlin. Chamberlain admitted in Parliament on April 3, 1939, that he was attempting to achieve the encirclement of Germany, but he claimed that this encirclement was a defensive move, and not aggression. It must be recalled that Poland on several occasions had offered to attack Germany if France would do the same, and these instances were familiar to the British leaders. A British blank check to Poland under these circumstances was not a reassuring element in an allegedly defensive policy.26

The first “Operation White” order (military code name of preparations for a possible German-Polish war) was issued by General Wilhelm Keitel, the German Army Chief of the High Command, to the top German Army commanders on April 3, 1939. The order called for the beginning of German planning and preparation for a possible Polish campaign. It was hoped that the initial [343] timetable could be completed by May 1, 1939, and that total preparations for a possible conflict could be made within five months. Hitler by April 3rd had modified his initial sharp reaction that war with Poland was “seemingly inevitable,” and he was careful to limit the prospect of such a conflict to the realm of possibility. The commanders were told that German relations with Poland were continuing on the basis of seeking to avoid any quarrels. He added that “a final settlement (i.e. a war) might become necessary, notwithstanding the pact in effect with Poland.”

The Danzig question was settled by the statement that the Free City remained an object of German concern, and that it would be annexed immediately in the event of a German-Polish war. The commanders were assured that, if war did become inevitable, all efforts would be made to avoid a conflict until the isolation of Poland was assured. This meant that Hitler was unwilling to accept the prospect of a war between Germany and England. Hitler continued to trust in the refusal of Poland to cooperate with the Soviet Union. He noted that Germany probably would not have to contend with Russian aid to Poland in the event of war since “intervention by Russia . . . cannot be expected to be of any use for Poland, because this would imply Poland’s destruction by Bolshevism.”27

Hitler was scheduled to deliver a speech at Wilhelmshaven on April 1, 1939, on the occasion of the launching of the German battleship Tirpitz. The Polish acceptance of the British guarantee prompted him to devote extra attention to this major address. He hoped to convey two principal themes to his audience and to the world. He wished everyone to know that Great Britain could not intimidate Germany, but he also wished to make it clear that Germany continued to favor a peaceful solution of European problems. Hitler was remarkably successful in conveying these two ideas without creating the impression that they were mutually exclusive. He denounced the pre-1914 British encirclement policy, and he made the point that the German Government of that time had been mistaken in allowing British encirclement plans to ripen without taking effective counter-measures. He congratulated the community of Wilhelmshaven on its recovery from the misery and poverty of the economic depression during Weimar Republic days. He blamed lies and propaganda for the demoralization of Germany in 1918 and the following years. It seemed hypocritical of the British leaders to take exception to the German program of peaceful territorial revision, and Hitler reminded his listeners that the British had seized vast stretches of territory by force less than twenty years earlier. He recalled that Germany did not have the power to prevent them from changing the map in 1919. Hitler repeated his desire for peace in Europe, and he announced his decision to call the September 1939 National Socialist Party Day the Party Day of Peace.28


Beck’s Visit to London

Beck departed from Warsaw by train on April 2, 1939, on his trip to London. He was accompanied by Jozef Lipski and Colonel Szymunski, his military adviser. A protocol chief from the German Foreign Office appeared at the Silesian Station [344] in Berlin on the morning of April 3, 1939, to welcome Beck during the few minutes that his salon coach was in the German capital. Halem asked Beck if he had any wishes, and the Polish Foreign Minister replied that he had none. A brief conversation of courtesy ensued. Beck claimed in the course of his remarks that it had been a great pleasure to receive Ribbentrop when the latter came to Warsaw on an official visit in January 1939. It was obvious that Beck, despite the events of recent days, was disappointed that Ribbentrop had not come to the station to exchange a few words with him. This would have been an impressive incident to relate in London. The Polish attitude toward Germany had long been secretly hostile, and hence it was not much different in April 1939 from what it had been in January. The German attitude toward Poland had changed.29

The Hungarians were especially distressed by this situation. They feared the consequences of a new European war for Hungary, which was easily understandable in view of the frightful treatment they had received from the Allies in 1919. The fact that their leaders had opposed war with Serbia in 1914 had brought them no mercy. Hungarian Ambassador Sztojay, who was later Premier of Hungary, had informed Weizsäcker on March 29, 1939, that Hungary desired to mediate between Germany and Poland. The Hungarians had never been at war with Poland in their entire history, and they were the traditional friends and allies of Germany. Weizsäcker learned that Hungarian Foreign Minister Csaky was prepared to urge the Poles to make concessions to Germany. Csaky believed that the intransigent Polish attitude was suicidal for both Poland and European peace. Weizsäcker replied that he did not believe that a Hungarian initiative would produce any impression on the Poles. He assured the Hungarian diplomat that Germany was anxious to avoid a conflict with Poland. He told the Danzig leaders on the same day to be exceptionally careful not to provoke the Poles during the current period of great tension.30

The Germans were more interested in the mission which had been proposed by Grigorie Gafencu, the Rumanian Foreign Minister. German Minister Wilhelm Fabricius informed the German Foreign Office on March 31, 1939 that Gafencu planned to visit Germany early in April as part of a tour d’horizon of the principal foreign capitals. He hoped that he could be useful in mediating between Germany and Great Britain, and the German leaders welcomed this prospect. Helmuth Wohlthat, the Commissioner of the German Four Year Plan, had returned to Berlin from his trade mission to Rumania. He noted that Tilea had been ordered to return to Bucharest from London for consultation. Wohlthat hoped that he would be recalled permanently, despite the fact that he was persona grata in Great Britain. The German diplomats, on the other hand, recognized that Gafencu could not afford to take this step.31

The news of the projected Gafencu mission prompted Ribbentrop and Weizsäcker to adopt a more optimistic attitude toward the current European scene. The German Foreign Office addressed a special circular to the German missions abroad on April 3, 1939. The German diplomats abroad were told that the British guarantee to Poland was merely a provisional arrangement, and that it might be possible to induce the British to adopt a more flexible policy toward the Poles.32

Jozef Beck arrived at London in the late evening of April 3, 1939. The first [345] formal conversations between Beck and the English leaders took place on the morning of April 4th. Beck greeted Halifax warmly and assured him that the British promise to support Poland was welcome to the Polish Government. He promised that Poland in return would fight Germany in the event of a direct conflict between Great Britain and Germany. Beck knew that such an eventuality was extremely unlikely, but his formal offer placed Poland on an equal footing with Great Britain in the matter of the guarantee. Halifax assured Beck that he would accept this offer, but he added that it was insufficient for his requirements. He desired to have far more extensive commitments from Poland. Beck received this news with some surprise, and he inquired what the British Foreign Secretary had in mind. Halifax said quietly that he wanted Poland to agree to go to war if Germany attacked Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, or Denmark. Beck was amazed by the sweeping nature of this request, which reflected a style and scope of permanent intervention with which he was unfamiliar. He replied that he would require some time to think it over.

Then the subject was turned to Beck’s refusal of Halifax’s pro-Soviet alliance offer of March 20, 1939. The British Foreign Secretary indicated that he required a personal explanation from Beck on the motives behind the Polish refusal. Beck carefully avoided a detailed discussion of this important question. He restricted his remarks to the previous argument presented by Raczynski, that a pact between Poland and the Soviet Union would provoke Germany. Halifax replied with sharpness. He asked if Beck was not at least aware that an Anglo-Polish pact would also have a provocative effect on Berlin. Beck was perfectly well aware of this, but he did not wish to admit if for the sake of his argument about Russia. He merely said that he felt under no obligation to give a definitive answer to this question. He was willing to discuss it in general terms and to make a few relevant observations. He asked Halifax to recall that Hitler had not objected to the old Franco-Polish alliance when he concluded the 1934 Pact with Poland. He argued that Hitler did not have the hostile feelings for Great Britain which he entertained toward the Soviet Union. This enabled Beck to imagine that Hitler might conceivably reconcile himself to an Anglo-Polish alliance. Halifax promptly dismissed this as a weak argument, which did not sound very convincing. He made it very clear to Beck that he was extremely disappointed by the Polish rejection of his March 20, 1939, alliance plan.

Beck informed Halifax that he was willing to “improve” Polish relations with the Soviet Union, but he would never consent to “extend” them. He declined to motivate this statement of policy. He requested the British leaders to accept it as one of the irrevocable facts in the situation. He repeated that “it was important not to provoke a conflict, though it was, of course, difficult to say whether, indeed, a conflict was unavoidable.” Halifax responded by asking Beck to take notice of the fact that he intended to engage in further negotiations with the Russians. He reminded Beck that he had the support of the French leaders for this policy. Beck merely responded with a gesture of helpless resignation. He said the decision was entirely up to them, since he was powerless to prevent them from negotiating with the Russians. He believed the British Foreign Secretary should know that Poland would never under any circumstances assume any “liability” toward the Soviet Union. He reminded Halifax that he had always [346] opposed the Franco-Russian alliance, which had been ratified in 1936. He regarded it as a “bad bargain,” and he predicted that future agreements with the Bolsheviks would be of the same quality.

Halifax was unimpressed with Beck’s opinion that a Polish “liability” toward the Soviet Union would be dangerous or even fatal for Poland. This was natural, because he was indifferent about the future of Poland. The new Polish state was merely a pawn in his game, and he hoped to use both Poland and the Soviet Union in achieving his aim. He asked Beck for an estimate of the military strength of the Soviet Union. Beck declined to go into this question. He merely remarked that his Government “had not a very high opinion of Soviet Russia.”

Halifax changed his tactics and said sarcastically “that some members of the Labour party believed that, if Great Britain and the Soviet Union could join hands, the world would be safe for ever more.” Beck was aware of the pro-Communist orientation of the British Labour Party, and he was pleased by Halifax’s sarcasm about it. The Polish Foreign Minister replied with amusement that “he doubted the validity of this theory.”33

The second meeting between Beck and the British leaders took place on the afternoon of April 4, 1939. Hitler had returned to Hamburg at noon on the same day from a two day cruise to Helgoland with 1,000 German workers and their families on the maiden trip of the new Strength through Joy (Kraft durch Freude) pleasure ship, Robert Ley. He would have been interested to know that Beck was worried about the determination of the British leaders to compromise Poland with Russia, and by the British attempt to gain a Polish pledge to guarantee such countries as Denmark and Switzerland against the alleged danger of German attacks. This would have confirmed his impression that the British were willing to expose Poland to the risk of domination by the Soviet Union, but that they were unable to offer her suitable protection against threats from any quarter.34

Beck defended his own policy on April 4th by telling the British leaders that everything Hitler had done until October 1938 was justifiable, but that “recent events were indefensible.” He referred to “conversations” about Danzig with the German leaders over a long period, but he refused to concede that these discussions had amounted to formal negotiations. Beck distorted history somewhat when he said that “Danzig had lived upon the Polish hinterland for the last eight centuries.” The Baltic city had not existed for that length of time. His remark was intended to convey the impression that Poland should control Danzig by natural right, but it was no more convincing than it would be to say that Rotterdam, which had lived on the German hinterland for many centuries, should belong to Germany. This did not bother the British leaders, because they were quite willing, while supporting Poland, to ignore the injustice of Polish claims. Halifax asked Beck what settlement at Danzig would be acceptable to Poland. He was pleased when the Polish Foreign Minister answered at once that he expected Germany to renounce her aspirations, and to guarantee the permanence of the Polish position there. Chamberlain asked Beck how he would react to the proposition of a German superhighway across the Polish Corridor. The Polish Foreign Minister replied that his country would never tolerate such a project. Chamberlain inquired if the Germans had ever asked for such a superhighway. Beck replied they had certainly asked for it orally, but never in writing.35
[347]
The last formal discussion between Beck and the British leaders took place in Chamberlain’s office at the House of Commons on the afternoon of April 5, 1939. The Prime Minister observed that the proposed Anglo-Polish bilateral pact was not what the British public expected. There was much more public interest in an Anglo-Russian pact, and many people in Great Britain were inclined to consider that Poland was a reactionary country and unworthy of a British guarantee.36 Halifax noted that certain questions had to be settled before such a pact could be concluded. He reminded Beck that he would expect him to guarantee Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, and Denmark against a German attack, and that otherwise the treaty would not be acceptable. Beck announced with finality that he could not make commitments about these states without consulting his Government. This ended the possibility that an Anglo-Polish alliance would be concluded during his visit. He refused to consider merely consulting with his colleagues on the telephone. He made it clear that his own attitude toward the Halifax terms was negative, and he was careful to avoid giving the impression that the ultimate reaction from Warsaw would be favorable.

The British leaders made another futile attempt to persuade Beck to transform the Polish-Rumanian alliance from an anti-Soviet pact into an anti-German pact. Beck replied that he opposed this plan. He reminded his hosts that Hungary was Poland’s most friendly neighbor, and that she was also a revisionist state. He rejected the proposed transformation of the Polish-Rumanian alliance, as a measure which would deprive Rumania of protection against the Soviet Union and require an impossible Polish guarantee of the Rumanian frontier against Hungary.

The British leaders did not like Beck’s response. They wished him to think exclusively in terms of destroying Germany, and to forget other considerations. In other words, they wished his thinking to be more similar to that of President Roosevelt in the United States. They began to employ the same propaganda methods on Beck which they used with Roosevelt. They began to suggest a number of hypothetical situations with their usual formula of saying “this may sound fantastic, but” what would you do in such and such a case. Beck put a stop to this by declaring bluntly that “it was against the tradition of the Polish Government to express definite opinions about third countries without directly consulting them.”

Chamberlain switched from hypothetical fantasies to rumors, and he declared that he had heard Germany was planning a sudden invasion of Hungary. Beck did not like this English style of rumor-mongering. He was convinced that this assertion of alleged German designs against Hungary was entirely false. He wished that the British leaders would desist from their efforts to alarm him in this way. He assured the British leaders with studied emphasis that he was entirely convinced Germany was not planning any political action outside her present frontiers except at Danzig. This was an effective method of reminding them that Poland was indispensable to their plan of launching a British preventive war against Germany.

Beck reminded the British leaders that Germany had refrained from undertaking the full military occupation of Slovakia, and that “in Slovakia German action had been extremely cautious and hesitating.” Chamberlain and Halifax [348] soon concluded that the tactics which were effective with President Roosevelt could produce no effect on Beck. This was true because Beck was much better informed about European affairs than President Roosevelt and his advisers.

Chamberlain unintentionally touched a sore point with Beck when he asked to what extent Poland had been dependent on Czecho-Slovakia for munitions. The suggestion that Poland might have depended upon the hated Czechs for her military strength was galling to Beck. He was somewhat carried away in his response, and he made some incautious remarks to Chamberlain for which he was bitterly criticized later when England refused to send military supplies to Poland. Beck replied to the immediate question with an emphatic: “Not at all!” This was correct, but the Polish Foreign Minister proceeded to inform his hosts with pride that Poland produced 80% of her own arms, and also exported large quantities of war materials to Great Britain and to other foreign countries. These remarks were later remembered in London when Poland pleaded in vain for a large British loan to pay for the importation of expensive foreign war materials.

Chamberlain proceeded with his survey of European countries, and he inquired what Beck thought about Yugoslavia. Beck had no reason to be friendly toward the anti - Catholic Serbian regime of that extremely backward Balkan country. He replied neatly that Yugoslavia would probably cooperate with Italy in peacetime, and with Germany in wartime.

Chamberlain and Halifax were preoccupied with the Balkan area because of reliable reports that Italy intended to consolidate her position in Albania. This was a logical Italian move, and the Germans were relieved to learn that Mussolini was content to take this step instead of formulating more ambitious projects. An Italian protectorate in Albania would not be a major change. The Albanian state which had been carved from Turkish territory in 1912 had never succeeded in achieving much stability. Nearly one-half the Albanian population lived beyond the frontiers of the tiny state, in Yugoslavia or Greece. Albania had been a sphere of Italian influence since World War I, and the Albanian troops were mostly commanded by Italian officers. The proclamation of a formal Italian protectorate would merely be the “dot” on the “i.” It was obvious that the Italians could consolidate their position in Albania with ease.

Hitler learned from German Ambassador Mackensen on April 4, 1939, that the Italians were negotiating with the Albanians for a protectorate. They were dissatisfied with King Zog, whom they claimed was conducting himself in the adventurous style of King Nikita of Montenegro. The Montenegrin king had caused much trouble in the Balkans on the eve of World War I, and the Italians complained that King Zog in 1939 was seeking to extend the Albanian frontier to the Vardar River in Macedonia. Ciano confided to Mackensen that King Zog had requested Italian troops on March 23, 1939, but Italy had refused, because she did not trust the Albanian king.

The Germans knew that King Zog had very little support in his own country. Albanian Foreign Minister Ekrem Bey Libohova complained to German diplomats at Tirana that the Italians were seeking to destroy Albanian independence against the wishes of the Albanian Government. There were threats that Albania would resist the arrival of unsolicited Italian troops. But Hitler was confident that Mussolini and Ciano could deal with the situation. He gave the German Foreign Office advance permission to support any Italian move in [349] Albania. Italian Ambassador Attolico telephoned Weizsäcker on the evening of April 6, 1939, that Italian troops would enter Albania at 4:30 a.m. on Good Friday, April 7, 1939. Weizsäcker was able to inform him immediately that the Italian move would receive German diplomatic and press support. Attolico was pleased with this prompt and helpful response. He told Weizsäcker that Ciano believed the Italian move would have specific and stabilizing consequences in the Balkan area.37

Beck was unimpressed with the British contention that an Italian move in Albania would produce a serious crisis. He admitted that an Italian occupation of Albania might place some strain on Italo-Yugoslav relations, but he did not think that this would be serious or that it would prompt the Yugoslavs to change their policy.38

The conversation was completed after several hours, when it was evident that nothing further could be accomplished. There was no Anglo-Polish alliance, but the advance guarantee to Poland of March 31, 1939, included all the conceivable alliance obligations for Great Britain, except for concrete promises concerning the wartime employment of the British armed forces. Beck was not impressed with Chamberlain and Halifax, and they did not regard him with much favor. But the British and Polish leaders were convinced that they needed one another, whatever their personal feelings, to achieve their respective goals.

A joint Anglo-Polish communiqué was issued on April 6, 1939, which stressed the alleged solidarity between the two countries. The public was informed that Poland had extended a pledge of military support to Great Britain. A fourth formal meeting was held on the same day, and the ground covered in the conversations was summarized and discussed for the last time. Beck never saw Chamberlain or Halifax again. He was satisfied that he could have his way on every point despite the unsatisfactory discussions, because he had the British guarantee of March 31, 1939, in his pocket. He had ample reason to be satisfied with his mission.39

Beck naturally did not restrict his contacts to the intensive formal conversations with his English hosts. He conversed with Winston Churchill, the prominent Tory Opposition leader, on April 4th. Churchill had been especially notorious for his lively imagination and his preoccupation with imaginary assassins and kidnapers.40 He asked with naive seriousness if Beck thought he would get back to Poland safely by returning on the train through Germany. Beck found this very amusing, and he replied with gentle irony: “I think we shall have time for that.”

Beck was repelled by Churchill’s attitude toward general European questions, and he was not attracted to the personality of the adventurous Tory. He regarded Churchill as an unbalanced man, and he knew that he was obsessed by “total animosity” toward Germany. Both Churchill and his younger Tory disciple, Anthony Eden, sought to persuade Beck to enter an alliance with the Soviet Union. Beck in his own thoughts dismissed Eden contemptuously as a typical product of Oxford University and the League of Nations at Geneva. Beck knew that neither Churchill nor Eden understood the Russian problem.41

Theo Kordt of the German Embassy in London was able to telegraph information to Berlin on April 5, 1939, about the principal topics which had been discussed between Beck and the British leaders. Chamberlain admitted in [350] the House of Commons on the following day that there had been no attempt to limit what might constitute a threat to Polish independence. The final word on this matter was left entirely to the Poles. Beck admitted to American Ambassador Kennedy before he left London that the British leaders had complained about the allegedly uncooperative Polish attitude. He also claimed that he had been able to diminish this dissatisfaction somewhat in the last conversations. Beck referred cleverly to his “old friend America” and his “new friend Britain.” He confided to Kennedy that he was ‘more than happy” to have the British blank check. He assured the American Ambassador that he did “not want to be the direct cause of plunging the word into war.” This was encouraging but Beck deprived the statement of any real meaning by admitting that he had no concrete plan to preserve the peace. Indeed, it may be safely assumed that Beck’s statement to Kennedy was entirely for the record.42

Kennedy talked with Halifax on April 6th. The British Foreign Secretary admitted that Beck was d0finitely opposed to a Russo-Polish understanding. Halifax believed that he deserved a vacation after the work of the past three weeks. He told Kennedy that Chamberlain was leaving for Scotland on the evening of April 6th, and that he was going home to Yorkshire the following morning. The Poles had their blank check, and a separate British approach to Russia would be the next step. The general European situation was discussed, and Halifax privately admitted to Kennedy that neither Hitler nor Mussolini wanted war.43

Count Michal Lubienski at the Polish Foreign Office received instructions from Beck to call at the German Embassy on April 6, 1939, to discuss the conversations at London. Lubienski was required to emphasize that Poland had rejected the British pro-Soviet alliance offer of March 20, 1939, and that she had only accepted the March 31, 1939, guarantee in order to block German aspirations at Danzig. A further attempt was made to mislead Hitler about Beck’s attitude, and to create possible discord among the Germans. Lubienski flatly asserted to Moltke that Beck would have been forced to resign had he advocated Polish acceptance of German claims to Danzig. He conceded that the Anglo-Polish combination had produced a new encirclement of Germany. He also claimed that the Germans had encircled Poland by extending their own influence throughout Bohemia-Moravia and into Slovakia.44

Weizsäcker responded to this conversation by inviting Lipski at Berlin to discuss the situation on April 6, 1939, at the German Foreign Office. The Polish Ambassador insisted that Poland did not desire any change in German-Polish relations, and that she wished to abide by the terms of the German-Polish non-aggression pact of 1934. Lipski argued that Germany was willing to accept Polish obligations to France when she concluded the Pact, and that it would be logical for her to make another gesture of the same kind by accepting the British guarantee of March 31, 1939. Weizsäcker pointed out the elementary fact that the situations were entirely different, because the Franco-Polish alliance of 1921 had ante-dated the 1934 Pact and had not been concluded after the signing of the Pact. He “loftily and indifferently refuted Lipski’s statements,” and he “received these remarks of Lipski’s with a smile.” He told Lipski that Polish policy had become “altogether incomprehensible to him.” He told Lipski that one fact was more important than all this sophistry, namely, [351]
that Germany was still anxious to arrive at an accommodation with Poland. He assured Lipski that it would still be possible to discuss questions of interest between Germany and Poland, despite the obvious Polish violation of the 1934 Pact. He added specifically that Germany was quite prepared to discuss the situation of Slovakia with the Poles, and to take Polish interests into account. He hoped that Lipski would realize from this statement that talk of Germany seeking to encircle Poland in Slovakia was idle falsehood.45

Hitler came to Berlin on April 6, 1939, to discuss plans for the German Army parade scheduled for his birthday on April 20th. American Chargé d’Affaires Geist reported that he was cheerful and in good spirits. The American diplomat also noted that the peaceful atmosphere of the German capital presented a stark contrast to Paris and London, where rumors of war and talk of war were the dominant themes. There was general confidence in Berlin that it would be possible to keep the peace in 1939.46

Sir Alexander Cadogan and Sir Maurice Hankey accompanied Beck to the railway station on April 6th. The Polish Foreign Minister was scheduled to arrive at Boulogne on the morning of April 7, 1939, for an important conference with his principal collaborator, Juliusz Lukasiewicz, the Polish Ambassador to France. Beck had given Lukasiewicz permission to bring American Ambassador Bullitt to Boulogne. It was agreed that Bullitt could accompany Beck and Lukasiewicz from Boulogne to Lille, but that the two Poles would travel alone and undisturbed from Lille to the Belgian capital. Beck made it clear to Lukasiewicz that he had no desire to visit Paris, or to discuss the current situation with Daladier and Bonnet.47


Beck’s Satisfaction

Bullitt was delighted at the opportunity to greet Beck on his return from England to the continent. He knew that this privilege resulted from the fact that he “was a strong admirer of the policy of Minister Beck” and enjoyed “friendly relations” with him. Bullitt discussed Roosevelt’s policy with Beck at some length. He claimed that he and Roosevelt were much dissatisfied with both English and American public opinion at this point. Beck expressed mild surprise at this remark as far as England was concerned, and he indicated that he was satisfied with the atmosphere which he had encountered in England. He was quite unperturbed that a formal Anglo-Polish alliance had not been negotiated, and he observed with satisfied irony that it would require much delicacy and discretion on the part of Chamberlain to handle the guarantee agreement other than by the standards of a normal alliance. Beck did not believe that the British Prime Minister possessed either delicacy or discretion. Beck observed, with a knowing smile to his listeners, that Chamberlain had said he was glad Poland had come instantly to an agreement with England. This amused Beck, because Poland had been waiting over a considerable period for the English offer of an agreement.48

Beck admitted that Halifax had sought to entangle him with obligations to Holland, Belgium, Denmark, and Switzerland, but he did not attach serious importance to this fact. He was more interested in speculating about the German [352] response to his visit to England and to his acceptance of the British guarantee. He declared that the alliance with England (sojusz z Anglia) had dealt a real blow to Hitler’s plans for a German-Polish agreement. He believed that British approval of Polish aspirations at Danzig had buttressed the Polish cause there as never before. A main topic of speculation was whether Hitler would respond to the British guarantee by denouncing the 1934 Pact with Poland.49

Bullitt took his leave from Beck at Lille and returned to Paris. He sent an exuberant report to Washington, D.C., at 11:00 p.m. on April 7, 1939. He informed Roosevelt and Hull that Beck was immensely pleased by recent developments in England, and that the degree of understanding which had been achieved was quite adequate to fill Polish needs. Beck had said that he knew that Hitler would be furious. Bullitt also added with obvious satisfaction that Beck had described Ribbentrop as a “dangerous imbecile.”50

The principal topic of conversation between Beck and Lukasiewicz, during the trip to Brussels, was Polish diplomatic strategy toward France. The main purpose of this strategy was to persuade the French to follow the British lead by expanding their commitments to Poland. Lukasiewicz was instructed to contact Bonnet immediately upon his return to Paris in order to expedite matters. Beck was unjustifiably optimistic in expecting the French leaders to emulate the British policy of granting a blank check to Poland. Bonnet tenaciously refused to commit France, during the following months, to a war over Danzig on behalf of Poland.

Hitler waited for three weeks before responding to the diplomacy of Beck and Halifax in his speech to the German Reichstag on April 28, 1939. The principal organs of the German press were restrained from criticizing Poland during these weeks. The main fire of German press criticism was directed against England. Great Britain was presented to the German public as an impertinent governess who presumed to dictate standards of policy and morality to the nations of the world. This campaign reached its climax in a cartoon of April 25, 1939, which appeared in the official National Socialist Party organ, the Voelkischer Beobachter (People’s Observer). The cartoon was entitled: The moral umpire of the world. It showed John Bull in a union jack vest which was dripping with blood from the latest British repressive measures against the Arabs of Palestine. He was pushing a placard on a hand cart. The placard carried the picture of a maiden aunt governess who claimed to be concerned about the welfare of humanity. Her comment about the recent events in Europe consisted of the one brief word so typical of English cant: “Shocking!” The point of the cartoon was that it was typical of the governess to profess shock at any action so long as it was not English brutality. Her back was turned on the British Empire and on the excesses practiced under English rule. This cartoon did not reflect any animus of Hitler toward the British Empire or toward the methods of English rule. It did reflect the point which Hitler had made in his speech of January 30, 1939, on the need to educate the German public about English policy.51

Hitler recognized that the British blank check to Poland on March 31, 1939, was the concrete expression of the alarmist statements which had been made in Great Britain about Germany since the Munich agreement. Hitler hoped that there would never be another Anglo-German war, although he knew that the [353] danger of such a war existed, and he wished the German people to be morally prepared to face this eventuality. Hitler wished the German public to know that the English leaders were seeking to prevent the return of National Socialist Danzig to the German Reich. Hitler hoped to avoid war with Great Britain, but he was not prepared to do so at the price of an ignominious retreat before the pretensions of Poland.52

The danger of an Anglo-German conflict resulted exclusively from the decision of the British leaders to place themselves unreservedly at the side of Poland. The British pledge to Poland was issued after the British leaders realized that the Poles had challenged Germany with a threat of war at Danzig and with the partial mobilization of the Polish armed forces. It was the most provocative move which Halifax could have made under the circumstances, and it was the step most likely to produce another European war. It was the move which Halifax refused to make on behalf of President Benes of Czechoslovakia on May 21, 1938. It did not make a European war inevitable, but it vastly increased the danger of war. It was the supreme challenge to the advocates of peace in Europe, and to the continental leaders who realized that the Soviet Union would be the principal benefactor from another European war.
 

Continue to Page III