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 adjournme