XIX: Hitler Takes Czechoslovakia under Protective Custody

XIX Hitler Takes Czechoslovakia under Protective Custody

THE AGREEMENT at Munich made provision for an international commission that was to fix the new boundaries of Czechoslovakia. The work of this commission was soon made a tragic farce by Hitler’s determination to absorb what was left of the Czech State.1 This flagrant violation of a solemn pledge and his continued pressure upon the Jews within the Reich converted American opinion of Hitler into open hostility.

a. International Aspects of Anti-Semitism in Germany

One of the most unfortunate legacies of the World War was the refugee problem. After February 1920, the League of Nations attempted to handle several aspects of this problem and during the following year Dr. Fridtjof Nansen was appointed to supervise the work done for Russian refugees. Later his duties were expanded so as to include the Armenians, the Assyrians, and the Turks. The League itself did not supply relief. Its main function was to assist in raising necessary funds in several European states and to act as an agent to help in the distribution of food and clothing to the refugees.

After January 1933, Nazi Germany inaugurated a campaign against Jews and political malcontents who hated the harsh measures of the Hitler regime. In order to alleviate the plight of this new stream of refugees the League created the office of High Commissioner. James G. McDonald was appointed to fill this vacancy and he served for two years in a brave attempt to accomplish something worth-while. When he resigned in 1935 he indicated that steps should be taken to remove the causes of the refugee problem rather than extend relief to a growing stream of helpless human beings.2

By 1937 some 130,000 Jews had left Germany. Those who remained in the Reich lived under restrictions that made it difficult for them to secure acceptable employment. The Anschluss which added Austria to Germany (March 1938) considerably widened the area of anti-Semitism and made the problem of refugees a more serious one. On March 24, 1938, in answer to this challenge, Secretary Hull issued an invitation to a large number of nations to join with the United States in setting up a special committee “for the purpose of facilitating the emigration from Austria and presumably from Germany of political refugees.” It was pointed out that although the members of the committee would be appointed by the co-operating governments, the costs of this enterprise would be met by funds from private organizations. No country would be asked to change its prevailing immigration quota and care would be taken not to interfere with the work that was already being carried out by the League of Nations.3

With special reference to the United States it was apparent that there was no need to seek an increase in the existing quotas relative to immigration from Austria and Germany. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1938, the immigration from those areas was considerably less than the quotas fixed by law.4 This small number of refugees was due to the restrictions in the Reich with reference to the removal of money or other assets. In 1933, emigrants from the Reich had been permitted to take 75 per cent of their property with them; subsequently, the proportion had been reduced to 15 per cent and in 1938 it had reached the low level of 5 per cent. These restrictions made it necessary for private organizations to finance the emigration of minority groups like the Jews.5

The first meeting of the international committee proposed by Secretary Hull was held in France on July 6, 1938, at which a temporary organization was effected. Later the committee met in London and Lord Winterton was appointed permanent chairman with Mr. George Rublee, an American, being selected as director. Estimates were submitted indicating that the number of refugees from Germany would probably total at least 660,000. Upon the broad shoulders of Mr. Rublee was imposed the burden of persuading Nazi officials to liberalize the restrictions upon the removal of property from the Reich and thus make it possible for a large number of refugees to proceed to countries willing to receive them.6

While Mr. Rublee was awaiting an invitation from the Nazi Government to visit Berlin for the purpose of discussing the refugee problem, the German Ambassador in Washington (Dieckhoff) had a long conversation with Sumner Welles, the Acting Secretary of State. He seemed to be in a “distinctly emotional and nervous condition” and complained that it was very difficult for any “German diplomatic representative” to carry on his duties in the United States without “suffering a very serious nervous strain.” After this introduction he launched into a detailed defense of Germany’s expansion at the expense of Czechoslovakia. The government of the Reich was merely following out the Wilsonian policy as enunciated in the well-known Fourteen Points. Germany had now “incorporated within its own territory all individuals of German nationality in Central Europe. The present German Reich had not the slightest intention of extending its sovereignty any further within Europe either through force or through any other method. . . . Germany had not only announced but had repeatedly reiterated her desire to live at peace with her neighbors, especially with France and Great Britain, and that the Munich Agreement had made such peace possible.”

With reference to the treatment of Jews and other minorities within the Reich, Dieckhoff said that he was of the opinion that no other nation was entitled to criticize the “domestic policy” of Germany. Welles immediately replied that it was

absolutely impossible for American public opinion to think that the policy which Germany had been pursuing these recent years with regard to the Jews within their own borders . . . could be regarded as a purely domestic question. I [Welles] said that any country that forced the emigration from its borders of hundreds of thousands of individuals whom other countries for humanitarian reasons felt it necessary to shelter . . . would hardly expect the rest of the world to regard such a policy as this a domestic policy. . . . The people of the United States . . . were a deeply religious people and a highly idealistic people and the torture of human beings which had been taking place in Germany revolted the best instincts in all of them.

I then went on to discuss the injustices done to our nationals, whether of Jewish origin or not, in Germany by refusing to permit them to take out of Germany the moneys which they possessed and I said I thought it necessary to say in all frankness that public opinion in the United States on this point had reached such a stage that there would inevitably be a general demand in the immediate future for the taking by the United States Government of retaliatory measures against German nationals residing within the United States.

In conclusion Welles remarked that nothing would do more to “ameliorate public indignation” in the United States than an agreement on the part of the German Government to receive Mr. Rublee and negotiate with him some satisfactory agreement. Ambassador Dieckhoff seemed “very much impressed” with the advice of Mr. Welles and promised to do “everything in his power” to persuade his Government to extend an invitation to Mr. Rublee to visit Berlin and settle the refugee problem.7

b. Ambassador Kennedy Toys with the Idea of Acting as an Interlocutor between Hitler and Roosevelt

While the German Government was pondering the question of inviting Mr. Rublee to Berlin, Ambassador Dirksen, in Rome, sent an important dispatch to the Foreign Office. It dealt with the desire of Ambassador Kennedy to pay a visit to Berlin for the express purpose of a conference with Hitler. Kennedy would talk frankly with the Führer and “try to bring about a better understanding between the United States and Germany.” Kennedy hinted that persons who “regarded Germany sympathetically were prevented from seeing the President. . . . For this reason Kennedy believed he could be of general use in the advancement of German-American relations, as he had the ear of the President and approached the Germany of today with understanding and sympathy.” Kennedy then “repeatedly emphasized the sympathy which the average American felt for the German and which was greater than his liking for the average Englishman.” Moreover, it should be remembered that “very strong anti-Semitic tendencies existed in the United States and that a large portion of the population had an understanding of the German attitude toward the Jews.”8

In Washington, Ambassador Dieckhoff was not enthusiastic about the proposed Kennedy visit to Berlin. He felt that the argument that the President should be “better informed regarding Germany” was pretty weak. The President was “well informed from the reports of his Berlin Ambassador,” but in spite of this fact he still assumed an “unfriendly attitude” towards Germany. Kennedy could not alter this attitude. American public opinion could be “rectified” only by the “rebuilding of Europe through joint, successful action of the European Great Powers.”9

c. Ambassador Wilson Is Recalled from Germany

Any possibility that Ambassador Kennedy might visit Berlin was destroyed by fresh outbreaks of anti-Semitism in Germany. On November 7 a young Jewish refugee from Poland (Herschel Grynszpan) went to the German Embassy in Paris and shot Ernst vom Rath, the third secretary, who died three days later. Immediately, throughout Germany, Jews were plundered and beaten, their shops were wrecked, and their synagogues were burned. On November 13 the Nazi Government imposed a fine of a billion marks ($420,000,000) upon German Jews as a form of collective punishment. This drastic action was succeeded by a number of decrees which barred all Jews from high schools and universities, and excluded them from many types of business enterprise. They were forbidden to attend cinemas, theaters, museums, public concerts, and lectures, and their permits to drive motor vehicles of all kinds were withdrawn. Far-reaching ordinances of segregation were put immediately into force.10

This outburst of anti-Semitism in the Reich aroused deep-seated resentment in the United States which was given partial expression on November 14 in a nationwide radio broadcast featuring critical remarks by leaders of various political and religious faiths. Among these speakers were former President Hoover, Harold L. Ickes, Rev. Robert I. Gannon, S.J., president of Fordham University, and Bishop Edwin Hughes of the Methodist Episcopal Church. At a press conference, President Roosevelt sharply denounced the measures of the Nazi Government: “I myself could scarcely believe that such things could occur in a twentieth-century civilization.”11 He then announced the recall of Ambassador Wilson from Berlin in order to get a “first-hand picture” of the situation in Germany. This action led the German Government to recall Ambassador Dieckhoff from Washington. Relations between the two countries were seriously strained.

Before Ambassador Wilson received his letter of recall he telegraphed to Secretary Hull that Senator Reynolds, of North Carolina, was anxious for him to arrange for an interview with Chancellor Hitler.12 Hull responded by instructing the ambassador that “in the circumstances as they exist today we feel that it would be inadvisable for the Embassy to request or arrange for an interview with Chancellor Hitler for any American, whether official or otherwise.”13 Apparently he felt that all Americans should be protected from any contact with the Führer.14

d. Dr. Schacht Offers Solution of Refugee Problem

It was apparent to thoughtful Germans that the strained relations between Germany and the United States might eventually lead to war. Perhaps a bargain might be made whereby the economic conflict between the two countries could be ended and thus make it possible to inaugurate a period of milder treatment for the Jews in Germany.

This economic conflict between Germany and the United States had been heightened by the reluctance of the Nazi Government in March-April 1938 to assume the obligation of Austria’s external debts. After the close of the World War the American Congress had authorized a credit to the Austrian Government of $26,000,000 for the purpose of purchasing flour for relief distribution. American investors had then moved into the picture by putting their funds into several types of Austrian external obligations. These private investments had at one time reached the considerable total of $38,000,000. In April 1938, after the Anschluss, the American Government took up this matter of the payment of these Austrian obligations and frankly informed the German Foreign Office that the “welfare of numerous American citizens is directly affected [by the absorption of Austria] and this Government would appreciate prompt assurances on the subject.”15

The Reich failed to respond to this invitation and then added insult to injury by concluding with the British Government an arrangement for a limited service on Austrian external obligations that were payable in London. This deal was made possible because Germany’s trade balance with Britain was favorable and thus British officials had it within their power to impound German surplus funds and apply them to the Austrian debt. The Chamberlain Government had no desire to adopt such rigorous countermeasures, so an agreement was reached whereby German goods (not cash) would be accepted in payment of these obligations. This agreement led German newspapers to boast that the usual Anglo-American parallel policy had been discarded by the British Foreign Office.16

By the end of 1938, Germany had concluded arrangements with most of the creditor countries for some kind of payment to the holders of Austrian obligations. The United States was the shining exception.

In the last week of November, Dr. Schacht was anxious to come to some agreement with the Department of State that would partially satisfy American demands. During a conversation with Donald R. Heath, first secretary of the American Embassy in Berlin, he expressed his urgent desire

for a settlement of the economic conflict and difficulties in German-American relations, not because of the mutual economic benefits which would result but because such a settlement would work to prevent further measures against the German Jews. . . . He made a veiled but unmistakable reference to the anti-Jewish measures and demonstrations and said with great feeling that they were scandalous. Returning to the difficulties in the state of German-American economic relations he said: “If I could only sit down with Secretary Hull I know that we could quickly find a way out of our difficulties.”17

In December 1938, Schacht went to London to visit Montagu Norman, governor of the Bank of England. In London he made it a point to confer with Mr. Rublee with reference to the emigration of Jews from the Reich. He proposed the pooling of all the capital supplies left by the refugees in Germany and the use of this property as collateral for a large international loan. This loan would be used to expedite the movement of refugees from Germany to their new homes. It would be repaid from the proceeds derived from additional German exports to new markets or to old markets that had been partially closed.18

On December 20, Mr. Rublee was invited to Berlin for further discussions of the Schacht plan for aiding the emigration of persons from the Reich. During the following month there was an exchange of notes between the Department of State and the German Foreign Office. The Foreign Office refused to acknowledge the $26,000,000 relief loan to Austria as a valid obligation, and it contended that payments on other Austrian external obligations held by American investors should be adjusted in the light of Germany’s unfavorable trade balance with the United States. The Department of State rejected these contentions, but it did suggest that Reich officials might initiate conversations with representatives of American holders of Austrian bonds.19 This suggestion failed to lead to any worth-while results so the Austrian debt question remained as one of the constant irritants in German-American relations.

e. Secretary Ickes Increases Tension in German-American Relations

Another important irritant in German-American relations was Secretary Ickes, whose contemptuous remarks deeply disturbed German officials. On December 18, in a speech delivered in Cleveland, he sharply criticized Henry Ford and Colonel Lindbergh for accepting the award of the German Eagle from Chancellor Hitler: “How can any American accept a decoration at the hand of a brutal dictator who, with the same hand, is robbing and torturing thousands of fellow human beings?”20

Before Dr. Thomsen, the German chargé d’affaires, could file a formal protest at the Department of State with reference to the pungent remarks of Secretary Ickes, George S. Messersmith, Assistant Secretary of State, sent a memorandum to Sumner Welles dealing with this Cleveland incident. He thought that any “protest from the German Government concerning the relatively innocuous remarks of Secretary Ickes comes with particularly bad grace at this time. The German newspapers have recently contained dastardly attacks on the President and Mrs. Roosevelt. . . . As the complete . . . control of the German press is a declared part of the program of the National Socialist Government, the German Government cannot escape responsibility for such attacks.”21

Mr. Welles accepted the advice of Mr. Messersmith with reference to answering the protest of Dr. Thomsen. After the German diplomat had recited his complaint, Welles coldly remarked that the criticism that Secretary Ickes had hurled at Henry Ford and Colonel Lindbergh primarily touched American citizens and therefore the German Foreign Office was injecting itself into an American domestic question. Needless to say, the Department of State would not discuss such questions with “the representative of any foreign government.” With particular reference to the criticism by Secretary Ickes of the policies of the Nazi Government, Welles acidly declared that

the German Government must surely be familiar with the fact that the recent policies pursued in Germany had shocked and confounded public opinion in the United States more profoundly than anything that had taken place in many decades, and that such references to this state of public indignation as might have been made certainly represented the feeling of the overwhelming majority of the people of the United States. . . . It seemed to him that the desire of the German Government to make a protest of this character came with singular ill grace. He said that for the past few months he had carefully followed the German press which was completely under the influence and dictation of the authorities of the German Government, and that he had rarely read more unjustifiable criticism or open attacks . . . against the President of the United States and members of his Cabinet.22

f. The Economic Offensive against Germany Is Accelerated

While political relations with Germany were daily becoming more strained, Secretary Hull widened the breach between the Department of State and the German Foreign Office by pushing with increasing ardor his economic offensive against the Reich. In order for his trade agreements program to be really effective it was necessary for him to enlist the support of Britain. In the early part of 1936, Hull bluntly informed the British Ambassador in Washington that the “clearing arrangements reached by Britain with Argentina, Germany, Italy and other countries were handicapping the efforts of this Government to carry forward its broad program with the favored-nation policy underlying it.” The tendency in most of these arrangements was “to drive straight toward bilateral trading and to restrict and obstruct the sum total of world trade.” These restrictions and obstructions were milestones along the road to war.23

In October 1936, Hull instructed James C. Dunn, chief of the Western European Division, to write a letter to Ambassador Bingham in which the situation was placed squarely before the British Government. No time should be lost in establishing “sound and substantial trade upon a firm basis of equality of treatment and exchange of opportunities for trade to the greatest extent each nation can possibly contribute.” Widened trade opportunities would provide a basis for world peace.24

Finally, on November 17, 1938, a formal ceremony was held at the White House at which Secretary Hull, Prime Minister Mackenzie King of Canada, and Sir Ronald Lindsay, the British Ambassador, signed important trade agreements on behalf of their respective governments. The capstone was thus placed upon the large economic structure sponsored by Secretary Hull. The most important trading nations were now lowering barriers while many other countries were raising theirs. The concessions provided for in these agreements were “generalized” so that a considerable number of nations could profit by them if they could supply any of the products affected. American farmers were particularly benefited by reduced rates on important agricultural exports. Duties were entirely removed from wheat and lard. Canadian concessions to the United States included reductions in the duties on fruits, vegetables, and types of machinery not manufactured in the Dominion. In return, three of Canada’s major exports to the United States were “bound” to the free list—pulpwood, wood pulp, and newsprint paper.25 America’s answer to Munich was given in strong economic accents which grated loudly upon German ears that were closely attuned to the dubious harmonies of bilateral agreements.

g. Germany Is Anxious for an Accord with the United States

The actions of Secretary Hull and the acidulous comments of Sumner Welles seemed to point the way to a definite deterioration in German-American relations. Mr. Gilbert, the American chargé d’affaires in Berlin, thought that it was possible that Hitler had decided to break off diplomatic relations with the United States “immediately after Christmas.”26 He had learned that the Führer had become “exceedingly irate” upon being informed of the reply of Sumner Welles to the protest of Dr. Thomsen relative to the tart remarks of Secretary Ickes on December 18. Ribbentrop was believed to be preparing a counterblast to the pungent comments of the Secretary of the Interior.27

Although Ribbentrop did not make this expected attack upon American officials, Mr. Gilbert was told that “certain extremists” close to Hitler were “urging a break with the United States.” But such a break in relations would not be “popular in Germany,” and the chargé had not been able to detect “even a hint” of hostility in his conversations with German officials.28

From Paris, Hugh Wilson reported that Dr. Goebbels had recently requested the Havas correspondent in Berlin “not to present in his despatches the future of German-American relations in too gloomy fashion.” The German Government had “no intention of aggravating the present conflict and sincerely desired the re-establishment of normal relations between the two countries.”29

It was apparent that Goebbels and other Nazi officials awaited with deep interest the President’s message to Congress in January 1939. It contained the expected warning that acts of new aggression were all “about us” and that the “God-fearing democracies of the world” could not “forever let pass without effective protest” these threats to their way of life. But it was made clear that democratic protests must be along “peaceful lines.” It was also emphasized that there were many methods “short of war” that could be employed to bring home to aggressor nations “the aggregate sentiments of our own people.”30

The temperate language of this Presidential message to Congress gave reassurance to the German Government and led it to continue the recent gestures of conciliation. These gestures were listed by Mr. Gilbert as follows:

1) A cessation of the unrestrained violence of the press.

2) The invitation to the Evian Committee to come to Berlin.

3) More conciliatory replies to our notes respecting discrimination against certain classes of American citizens together with publicity given to recent exchanges.

The question of whether these actions were “gestures for immediate ends” or whether they represented a “considered change of policy” remained to be seen. It should appear obvious to German leaders that “self-interest would suggest the desirability of better relations with the United States.”31

This self-interest led General Göring to have a conference with Mr. Rublee on the refugee problem and to arrange for a series of talks between Rublee and Ministerial Direktor Wohltat. Göring then invited Mr. Gilbert to his private residence for a discussion of German-American relations. The atmosphere of the meeting was

most cordial and friendly and Goering stressed repeatedly that he was anxious to find a solution of the Jewish problem. He appeared to be fully conscious of the importance of settling the problem from the point of view of good relations with other countries particularly the United States. . . . He discussed the subject of Jewish emigration generally and particularly emphasized the necessity of moving rapidly. . . . In concluding the conversation, Goering laid great stress at considerable length on the desirability of good relations between Germany and the United States. Outside of the Jewish problem he saw no concrete problems which should trouble relations between the two countries.32

Dr. Schacht was equally conciliatory. In a talk with Donald Heath, third secretary of the American Embassy, he said that he would be interested in “taking over any worth-while project which might be offered him either in Germany or abroad.” After this intimation that he might be willing to accept a position with some large American banking institution, he stated that he was largely responsible for the invitation that had been extended to Mr. Rublee to visit Berlin with reference to the refugee problem. It was due to “his initiative” that the recent conversations between Rublee and Nazi officials had taken place. He had personally suggested the matter to “Hitler and had his approval before he started his talks.” He had also “gotten Hitler’s approval of each stage of the conversations.”33

h. Chamberlain Pays Ardent Court to Mussolini

While Göring, Goebbels, and Schacht made these gestures of conciliation towards the United States, the basic Nazi policy of expansion made them so futile that it is difficult to understand why they were regarded as worth-while. The restless mind of Hitler, despite all his public promises to the contrary, was fixed upon the early absorption of Czechoslovakia. Before he would make any military move in this direction he wished to expand the Rome-Berlin Axis into a triple German-Italian-Japanese military alliance. On October 28, Ribbentrop urged this alliance upon Mussolini as a necessary weapon to use against the democracies when the inevitable war with them broke out.34

After waiting some months, Mussolini, on January 1, 1939, instructed Ciano to “accept the proposition of von Ribbentrop to transform the anti-Comintern pact into an alliance.” He also considered a clash with the democracies as “inevitable” and wished to “effect a military alignment in advance.” On January 2, Ciano informed Ribbentrop by telephone of the decision of the Duce, and on the following day Ambassador Attolico returned to Berlin with detailed instructions relative to the proposed pact. After talking with Ribbentrop, Attolico favored January 28 as “the date for the signing of the alliance.” The German Foreign Office promptly prepared an outline of this new triple alliance which was sent to Rome where it gained Mussolini’s speedy approval.35

While Mussolini and Hitler were planning a triple alliance to face the democracies in an inevitable war, Neville Chamberlain decided to visit Rome in order to secure certain guarantees of world peace. It was a hopeless quest and the fascist leaders were determined that the negotiations should end in nothing more than empty promises. Ciano was anxious that Chamberlain should not receive an “enthusiastic welcome” in Rome and he was disappointed when the populace cheered “the old man with the umbrella.”

After a conference at the Palazzo Venezia with Chamberlain and Lord Halifax, Mussolini contemptuously remarked to Ciano: “These men are not made of the same stuff as Francis Drake and the other magnificent adventurers who created the empire. These. . . are the tired sons of a long line of rich men and they will lose their empire.” During the conversations on January 12, Lord Halifax talked with such caution that Ciano was certain that the “British do not want to fight.” The Duce’s contempt for these pacific Britishers grew apace and Ciano told Ribbentrop on the telephone that the visit of Chamberlain was “a big lemonade, absolutely harmless.” But Chamberlain still nursed hopes for a continuance of the peace of Europe, and Ciano noted that the Prime Minister’s eyes “filled with tears when the train started moving and his countrymen began singing ‘For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow.’ ”36

The communiqué issued to the press gave an assurance that it was the “will of Italy and Great Britain to pursue a policy aiming effectively at the maintenance of peace.”37 At the same time this optimistic note was being sounded for the anxious ears of the public, Ciano was confiding to his diary that the Italian Foreign Office was planning a campaign of “steadily increasing propaganda against France.” When this had its expected effect the news of the new triple alliance could then be announced and the populace gradually prepared for war with the democracies. As for England, Ciano thought that there was little to worry about. Towards the end of January, Lord Perth had submitted for Italian approval the outline of a speech which Chamberlain would soon make in the House of Commons. The comments of the Duce on this gesture of conciliation revealed his growing contempt for the British Cabinet: “I believe this is the first time that the head of the British Government submits to a foreign government the outline of one of his speeches. It’s a bad sign for them.”38

i. France Favors a Free Hand to Hitler in Eastern Europe

While Chamberlain was courting Mussolini, Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister, was planning a new program of appeasement that would please Hitler. His first step was to endeavor to negotiate with Germany an accord similar to the one Chamberlain had signed with the Führer at the time of the Munich Agreement. On October 19, M. François-Poncet, at his farewell audience with Hitler, carefully broached this matter of an arrangement that would build a new understanding between the two countries.39 The Führer was pleased with this evidence of French naïveté and gave the project his blessing. On December 6, in the famous Salle de l’Horloge where the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact had been signed, Bonnet and Ribbentrop inscribed their signatures upon a Franco-German Declaration of Friendship. This declaration announced that no question of a territorial nature remained in suspense between France and Germany and it recognized as permanent the frontier line as then drawn. After emphasizing the importance of pacific relations, provision was then made for consultation “in case any complications” arose that “should threaten to lead to international difficulties.”40

According to Ribbentrop, Bonnet, in the secrecy of personal conversations, assured him that the Four-Power guarantee relative to Czechoslovakia was “something to which no special importance was to be attached.” Although Bonnet, some months later, strenuously denied the statements in the Ribbentrop letter, it is quite apparent that in December 1938 he was anxious to give Germany far-reaching assurances with reference to Nazi plans for expansion in eastern Europe.41

In December 1938, Jules Lukasiewicz, the Polish Ambassador to France, reported a conversation with Bonnet in which the French Foreign Minister stated that Ribbentrop had “received a French promise not to oppose German economic expansion in the Danube Basin.” It was also true that Bonnet had intimated to Ribbentrop that German “political expansion” in the same region would not “encounter serious French resistance.”42

In order to provide further development of his schemes for appeasement, Bonnet sent Paul Baudouin to Rome with offers of a share in the directorate of the Suez Canal, of certain privileges for Italians in Tunis, and of important concessions relative to Djibouti and the railway to Addis Ababa. To Berlin he sent Count Ferdinand de Brinon to solicit Ribbentrop’s assistance in securing Italian acceptance of these proposals. But Ribbentrop had no desire to compose the difficulties between France and Italy, so he “torpedoed” the Baudouin mission by revealing some of its secrets to the press.43 The Rome-Berlin Axis was now treating the democracies with open contempt.

j. The British Foreign Office Has a Case of Jitters

To Chamberlain these repeated doses of appeasement which he forced down his throat were increasingly bitter but he swallowed them as the price of peace. At least he had been able to preserve the independence of Czechoslovakia. In Parliament, Sir Samuel Hoare glibly expressed the opinion that the Czech State was now as “safe as Switzerland,” and Sir Thomas Inskip solemnly declared that in the event of an act of unprovoked aggression against the Czechs, His Majesty’s Government would feel “bound to take all steps in their power to see that the integrity of Czechoslovakia is preserved.”44

By November 1, Chamberlain, impressed with the gravity of the situation in Europe, began to hedge with reference to the scope of the British guarantee of the integrity of the Czech State. He still supported Inskip’s statement as to the policy of the British Government, but he frankly confessed that he could not enlighten the House of Commons as to “what the terms of the guarantee will be and who will be the partakers in that guarantee.” He could say, however, that Britain had never guaranteed “the frontiers as they existed.” Her pledge was merely against “unprovoked aggression and not the crystallization of the frontiers.”45

He did not hide the fact that this aggression might come at any time. Indeed, throughout Europe there was increasing fear of the outbreak of war. In January 1939, Coulondre, the French Ambassador in Berlin, reported that Hitler had uttered a most disturbing threat: “If Czechoslovakia did not toe the line, he would let loose against her a lightning action.”46

The British Foreign Office learned that Hitler was

bitterly resentful at the Munich Agreement which baulked him of a localized war against Czechoslovakia and demonstrated the will to peace of the German masses in opposition to the war-mongering of the Nazi party. He feels personally humiliated by this demonstration. He regards Great Britain as primarily responsible for this humiliation and his rage is therefore directed principally against this country which he holds to be the chief obstacle now to the fulfilment of his further ambitions.

In the event of Germany picking a quarrel with Holland, His Majesty’s Government was considering

the desirability, as a matter of tactics and precaution, of being ready at once with a proposal to both Governments for the selection by a neutral Government of a board of three arbitrators. Such a proposal might not prove effective but if arbitration were overriden by Germany the issue would be clear and His Majesty’s Government would have locus standi for appropriate action.47

A few days later the British Government decided that the “strategic importance of Holland and her colonies” was so great that a “German attack on that country must be regarded as a direct threat to the security of the Western Powers. Failure to take up such a challenge would place Germany in a position of overwhelming predominance in Europe and in such circumstances His Majesty’s Government is disposed to think that it would have no choice but to regard a German invasion of Holland as a casus belli.”48

On February 7, President Roosevelt received a message from Lord Halifax to the effect that the British Government had now moved to the point where “any attempt by Germany to dominate Holland by force or threat of force would also have to be regarded as a menace to the security of the United Kingdom.” A German attack “on Holland and an attack on Switzerland are in the same category.” Replies from the French Foreign Office to British inquiries as to French policy clearly indicated that the “French Government agree with His Majesty’s Government in considering the contingency of an invasion of Holland as a casus belli.”49

On February 17, Ambassador Kennedy had a long talk with Chamberlain who expressed the view that the general outlook in Europe “is much better.” He could not see any “definite indication of moves toward Holland, Switzerland, or elsewhere to the West or to the Ukraine and in this he takes issue with the Foreign Office. He still feels that the only hope of doing business with Hitler is to take him at his word.” He believed that there was a “very definite chance of arriving at some solution through economics.”

Chamberlain discussed at length his visit to Rome to see Mussolini. He contrasted the Duce, “as a man who likes to see the whole picture . . . as against Hitler who looks out of the window at Berchtesgaden dreamingly considering the future prospect of Germany without being very practical.” But Chamberlain still thought that he could “do business with Hitler” and that his policy of appeasement could “still be worked out.” He remained “very optimistic.”50

Three days later Kennedy talked matters over with Viscount Halifax who apparently had caught some of Chamberlain’s optimism. In a report to Secretary Hull, Kennedy summed up the situation in England as follows:

My observations, and I have talked with Chatfield, Simon, Hoare, Halifax and Chamberlain, in addition to many other people, are that they thoroughly believe that England is on its way; that Germany will not attack; that the problem of last fall, when they were obliged to do things that perhaps they would rather have done otherwise, is gone, and that while England will not go to war if Germany should attack Rumania or the Ukraine, they would declare war at once if Germany moved towards Switzerland or Holland.51

The fluctuating atmosphere in the Foreign Office was described by the British Ambassador during a conversation with Sumner Welles:

The Ambassador said that on January 24 and 26 public opinion in London and the Foreign Office in particular had been in an almost unbelievable state of excitement because of reports that Germany was planning a move in the West involving the invasion of Holland. By February 11, the day he had left London to come to the United States, opinion in general including that of the Foreign Office had swung over to a state of almost unbelievable optimism and of reassurance. The Ambassador said that he thought one state of mind was as disquieting as the other and that the nervous strain under which they were all living in England was appalling. He said that his own Foreign Office was in a very unsatisfactory condition. He said that Lord Halifax was a man of real ability and an “excellent Christian gentleman,” but that he did not seem to have any real insight into the European situation. . . . He said that he doubted whether Mr. Chamberlain’s colleagues in the Cabinet shared his feeling of reassurance, and that he knew as a positive fact that the Foreign Office was extremely apprehensive.52

k. Germany Fears the U.S. Will Intervene in World War II

From London, Kennedy sent further information on the threatening situation in Europe. Halifax had asked the Nazi Ambassador in London (von Dirksen) why Hitler, if he really wished to have peace, was continuing his “terrific armament program.” Dirksen replied that “they were greatly disturbed in Germany at the almost weekly utterances of the President of the United States and they had become convinced that the United States would come to the aid of England and France not in two years, but probably in two days and they therefore felt that the only thing to do was to keep making themselves strong.” It was Kennedy’s own belief that the “top-side men” in the British Government asked themselves every night how Hitler, in the face of the tremendous armament program in Germany, could possibly proceed to a peacetime basis. There was little doubt that the “long-term outlook for England was exceedingly dark.”53

These German fears of American intervention in a possible second world war were confirmed by the statements of American diplomats like Kennedy and Bullitt. Before the Munich crisis, Kennedy repeatedly told Chamberlain that America would rush to the assistance of Britain and France in the event of unprovoked aggression. Bullitt had been more cautious but at times he gave similar assurances. In a conversation with Count Potocki, Polish Ambassador at Washington, he spoke of the possibility of a conflict between Germany and the European democracies. When asked if the United States would enter such a war he replied: “Undoubtedly yes, but only after Great Britain and France had made the first move.” Sentiment in the United States was “so tense against Nazism and Hitlerism” that it amounted to a “psychosis” similar to that which existed “before America’s declaration of war on Germany in 1917.”54

After stating that this “psychosis” was partly created by “emigrants from Germany and Czechoslovakia” who incited the American public against Germany by the use of “various calumnies,” he finally came to the topic of American sentiment towards Russia:

It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia is almost completely eliminated. Soviet Russia, if mentioned at all, is mentioned in a friendly manner and things are presented in such a way that it would seem that the Soviet Union were co-operating with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the clever propaganda the sympathies of the American public are completely on the side of Red Spain.55

On January 14, Bullitt had a last talk with Ambassador Potocki before leaving for Paris with instructions from President Roosevelt. He stated that he was prepared to assure Britain and France that they could rely upon the fact that the United States would be prepared “to intervene actively on the side of Britain and France in case of war.” America was ready to “place its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.”56 In February 1939, after he reached Paris, Bullitt informed the Polish Ambassador, Jules Lukasiewicz, that if hostilities should break out one could “foresee right from the beginning the participation of the United States in the war on the side of France and Britain.”57

l. Hitler Takes the Czechs under Protective Custody

Perhaps these indirect assurances from Ambassador Bullitt of American intervention on the side of the democracies in the event of World War II may have strengthened the optimism of Chamberlain with regard to the situation in Europe. At any rate, he continued to cling to his hope that war could be averted by a policy of appeasement, and he closed his eyes to the evident signs that Hitler would soon liquidate Czechoslovakia.

With the British Prime Minister in this bemused condition, Hitler moved rapidly to carry out his objectives. On January 21 he had a significant conversation with M. Chvalkovsky, the Czech Foreign Minister, who had been summoned to Berlin. Chvalkovsky was informed that first of all his country must immediately leave the League of Nations. Then she should be at all times ready to mold her foreign policy in accordance with Nazi desires. As a final item in this program of subjection, the Czech Army should be materially reduced.58

Paris and London learned of these harsh conditions from a dispatch sent by the French Minister in Prague.59 But even this ominous news did not destroy British hopes for the continuance of peace. On March 1 the British Ambassador conveyed to Sumner Welles a special message from Lord Halifax to the President. The latest information in England was to the effect that “Herr Hitler has for the time being abandoned the idea of precipitating an immediate crisis such as he seemed to be contemplating at the beginning of the year.” There were no “preliminary signs of impending mobilization” in Germany. Sir Nevile Henderson had gained the impression that Hitler “was at present planning no immediate adventure.”60 Chamberlain was still wearing his cloak of confidence and on March 9 had assured the representatives of the press that “Europe was settling down to a period of tranquility.”61

But in Prague there were no false hopes. Ruthenia and Slovakia were giving indisputable signs of secessionist desires. On March 6, President Hácha dismissed the Ruthenian Government and three days later he took similar action against the government of Slovakia. The Slovak Premier, Monsignor Tiso, fled to Berlin where he had an interview with Hitler on March 13. The Führer demanded that he issue at once a proclamation of Slovak independence. Armed with this mandate, Tiso went to Bratislava where on March 14 he issued the required proclamation. Ruthenia quickly followed suit and this action dissolved what was left of the Czech State.62

After German troops had massed along the Czech border in a menacing manner, Hitler sent a summons to President Hácha to visit Berlin for a significant conversation. Upon his arrival on the evening of March 14 he was accorded the honors due to the head of an important state, and the Führer added a grotesque touch to the occasion by sending a box of chocolates to Hácha’s daughter. But these favors did not mean that the Czech President would not have to undergo an extended exercise in humiliation. He was permitted to have merely a brief rest in his hotel rooms before being conducted to the Chancellery to see Hitler. He was plainly unnerved and tried to curry favor with the Führer by making critical comments upon the government of Beneš. The regime of his predecessor in office had been “alien” to him and the only time he had met Beneš some misunderstandings had immediately arisen. He now realized that the fate of Czechoslovakia was in Hitler’s hands but he retained the hope that her independence was safe.

The Führer was pleased with this cringing, compliant spirit. It made it easier for him to announce that he intended to take the provinces of Bohemia and Moravia under protective custody. The Czechs had merely two alternatives. They could resist and suffer dreadful punishment, or they could submit gracefully and be given a measure of autonomy.

After setting forth these harsh conditions, Hitler signed the documents necessary to carry out his objectives and then left Hácha to the brutalities of Göring and Ribbentrop. Finally, after several fainting spells induced by exhaustion, Hácha signed the Statute of the Protectorate. As he left the Chancellery at 4:30 in the morning, Chvalkovsky, who accompanied him, exclaimed with deep emotion: “Our people will curse us, and yet we have saved their existence. We have preserved them from a horrible massacre.”63

On March 15, Hitler and his legions entered Prague in triumph. On this same day, Chamberlain told the House of Commons that the “situation has radically altered since the Slovak Diet declared the independence of Slovakia. The effect of this decision put an end by internal disruption to the State whose frontier we had proposed to guarantee. His Majesty’s Government cannot accordingly hold themselves any longer bound by this obligation.”64 On the following day Sir John Simon developed the Prime Minister’s reasoning with regard to the obligation to defend Czechoslovakia. It was difficult to guarantee something which no longer existed. It was indeed impossible “to suppose that in these circumstances the guarantee to maintain the State of Czechoslovakia can have any meaning.”65

But this policy of appeasement was suddenly thrown overboard by the Prime Minister under pressure from Lord Halifax. On the morning of March 17, the American chargé d’affaires saw Halifax who informed him that Chamberlain would deliver a speech which would be a “rather stiff one.” He was not prepared to say “that they would or would not go to the rescue of Rumania or Poland at this time. They are going to start educating public opinion as best they can to the need of action. They are suspicious that Hitler will keep on moving and that rather quickly.”66

That night (March 17), the Prime Minister made a speech in Birmingham which sounded a note of sharp criticism of Hitler’s absorption of Czechoslovakia. While he felt bound to repeat that he was

not prepared to engage this country by new unspecified commitments operating under conditions which cannot be foreseen, yet no greater mistake could be made than to suppose that, because it believes war to be a senseless and cruel thing, this nation has so lost its fibre that it will not take part to the uttermost of its power in resisting such a challenge if it were made.67

On the following day Ambassador Kennedy talked with Halifax who expressed the opinion that if Hitler moved into Rumania, England could not “wait any longer. Halifax says that they must determine at once one of two things: first, whether Hitler is bluffing, and if so his bluff should be called; if he is not bluffing, the sooner they take him on the better it will be. He thought that the Prime Minister’s speech last night very definitely committed them to action if Hitler started for Rumania. My hunch is that if Chamberlain opposes that idea very strongly there may be a break between the Prime Minister and Halifax.”68

m. Reaction in the U.S. to German Absorption of Czechoslovakia

The news of the German absorption of Czechoslovakia came to Secretary Hull while he was enjoying a vacation in Florida. He immediately telephoned to Sumner Welles, the Acting Secretary of State, and dictated a statement to be given to the press. After some emendations by the President, this statement was released on March 17. It emphasized the viewpoint that the American Government, founded upon the principles of human liberty and democracy, could not refrain from expressing its “condemnation of acts which have resulted in the temporary extinguishment of the liberties of a free and independent people with whom . . . the people of the United States have maintained specially close and friendly relations.”69

The word “temporary,” the Department of State later explained, meant that the American Government did not recognize the legality of the establishment of a German protectorate over Czechoslovakia. Vladimir Hurban would still be recognized as the Czech Minister in Washington. Exports from Bohemia, Moravia, and Slovakia, however, would be treated by the United States customs officers as German products and high countervailing duties would be levied upon them. On March 23, the trade agreement that had been negotiated with Czechoslovakia was suspended by Presidential proclamation.70

Six weeks after the destruction of the Czech Republic, a World’s Fair was opened in New York City. In anticipation of this event the Czech Government had erected a building in which would be displayed some exhibits that would impress friendly eyes with the development of industries in the land of Masaryk. On the façade was an inscription taken from the words of Comenius, seventeenth-century educator and patriot:

After the Tempest of Wrath Has Passed

The Rule of Thy Country Will Return to Thee

O Czech People

Under the ruthless rule of Russia it will be many decades before this prophecy will come true.

1John H. Ferguson, American Diplomacy and the Boer War (Philadelphia, 1939), pp. 208-9.
2February 10, 1904.
3February 10, 1904.
4February 11, 1904.
5Tatsuji Takeuchi, War and Diplomacy in the Japanese Empire (New York, 1936), pp. 155-57.
6Edward H. Zabriskie, American-Russian Rivalry in the Far East 1895-1914 (Philadelphia, 1946), pp. 101-60.
7Ernest B. Price, The Russo-Japanese Treaties of 1907-1916 Concerning Manchuria and Mongolia (Baltimore, 1933), pp. 34-38.
8A. Whitney Griswold, The Far Eastern Policy of the United States (New York, 1938), pp. 129-34.
9Theodore Roosevelt to President William H. Taft, December 22, 1910. Knox MS, Library of Congress.
10John G. Reid, The Manchu Abdication and the Powers, 1908-1912 (Berkeley, 1935), chaps. 4-10.
11Charles Callan Tansill, Canadian-American Relations, 1875-1911 (New York, 1944), chaps. 1-4, 10-12.
12Merle E. Curti, “Bryan and World Peace,” Smith College Studies in History, XVI (Northampton, 1931).
13Charles Callan Tansill, America Goes to War (Boston, 1938), chaps. 2-6.
14Edwin Borchard and William P. Lage, Neutrality for the United States (New Haven, 1937), p. 183.
15Tansill, op. cit., pp. 459-60.
16Borchard and Lage, op. cit., p. 88. It is interesting to note that in the eventful days that just preceded America’s entry into the World War, President Wilson had so little regard for Secretary Lansing that he complained bitterly to Colonel House about his shortcomings: “I [House] was surprised to hear him [the President] say that Lansing was the most unsatisfactory Secretary in his Cabinet; . . . that he had no imagination, no constructive ability, and but little real ability of any kind. He was constantly afraid of him because he often undertook to launch policies himself which he, the President, had on several occasions rather brusquely reversed.” House Diary, March 28, 1917. House MS, Yale University Library.
17President Wilson did not have a clear idea of the actual meaning of the Fourteen Points. In his Diary, December 20, 1918, Secretary Lansing makes the following significant comments: “There are certain phrases in the President’s ‘Fourteen Points’ [Freedom of the Seas and Self-Determination] which I am sure will cause trouble in the future because their meaning and application have not been thought out. . . . These phrases will certainly come home to roost and cause much vexation. . . . He [the President] apparently never thought out in advance where they would lead or how they would be interpreted by others. In fact he does not seem to care just so his words sound well.” Lansing Papers, Library of Congress.
18Oscar Cargill, Intellectual America: Ideas on the March (New York, 1941), p. 504.
19The correspondence dealing with the pre-Armistice agreement is printed in full in Foreign Relations, 1918, Supplement, I, The World War, I (Washington, 1933), 337-38, 343, 357-58, 379-81, 382-83, 425, 468-69.
20Paul Birdsall, Versailles Twenty Years After (New York, 1941), pp. 35-36.
21David Lloyd George, Memoirs of the Peace Conference (New Haven, 1939), I, 306-9.
22Harold Nicolson, Peacemaking, 1919 (New York, 1939), p. 18.
23The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, ed. Charles Seymour (Cambridge, 1928), IV, 343.
24Philip M. Burnett, Reparation at the Paris Peace Conference (New York, 1940), I, 63-64.
25Ibid., p. 69.
26Ibid., pp. 832-33.
27Birdsall, op. cit., p. 258.
28Thomas A. Bailey, Woodrow Wilson and the Lost Peace (New York, 1944), p. 240.
29Thorstein Veblen, The Nature of Peace (New York, 1917), p. 261. Secretary Lansing did not share the viewpoint that the Germans had forfeited their colonies through maladministration. In his Diary, January 10, 1918, he remarked: “This purpose of the retention of conquered territory is prima facie based upon conquest and is not in accord with the spirit of a peace based upon justice. . . . it is necessary for peace that the adjustment should be equitable.” Lansing Papers. Library of Congress.
30Edwyn Bevan, The Method in the Madness (London, 1917), pp. 305-6.
31Arthur P. Scott, “George Louis Beer,” in the Marcus W. Jernegan Essays in American Historiography, ed. W. T. Hutchinson (Chicago, 1937), p. 315.
32Ibid., p. 319.
33George L. Beer, African Questions at the Paris Peace Conference, ed. L. H. Gray (New York, 1923), pp. 58-60.
34Bailey, op. cit., p. 163.
35Harry R. Rudin, Germany in the Cameroons, 1884-1914 (New Haven, 1938), pp. 11, 414, 419.
36Bailey, op. cit., p. 167.
37It is significant that most of Professor Lord’s colleagues on the Inquiry thought that his zeal for Poland was “excessive.” Birdsall, op. cit., p. 178. See also, Hunter Miller, My Diary at the Conference of Paris (privately printed, 1928), I, 289.
38Ray S. Baker, Woodrow Wilson and World Settlement (Garden City, 1922), III, 37-38.
39Miller, op. cit., IV, 224-26.
40Seymour, op. cit., IV, 334-35.
41Lloyd George, op. cit., II, 637-42.
42René Martel, The Eastern Frontiers of Germany (London, 1930), pp. 49-50.
43William H. Dawson, Germany Under the Treaty (London, 1933), pp. 149-52.
44Diaries, Letters and Papers (London, 1935-37), II, 503.
45Documents on International Affairs, 1934, ed. John W. Wheeler-Bennett and Stephen Heald (New York), p. 424.
46Miller, op. cit., IV, 224-28; VI, 49-52.
47E. Alexander Powell, Thunder Over Europe (New York, 1931), p. 62.
48Dawson, op. cit., pp. 102-9. See also, I. F. D. Morrow and L. M. Sieveking, The Peace Settlement in the German Polish Borderlands (London, 1936).
49Powell, op. cit., p. 66.
50Baker, op. cit., pp. 482-84. Apparently, Henry White did much to give President Wilson the correct view of the situation in Upper Silesia. See Allan Nevins, Henry White (New York, 1930), p. 423.
51In the learned account written by Georges Kaeckenbeeck, The International Experiment of Upper Silesia (London, 1942), p. 6, the vote is given as 707,605 for Germany; 479,359 for Poland.
52(London, 1930), pp. 79-88.
53Dawson, op. cit., pp. 206-9.
54Sir Robert Donald, The Polish Corridor and the Consequences (London, 1929), pp. 197-98. See also, Sarah Wambaugh, Plebiscites Since the World War (Washington, 1933); W. J. Rose, The Drama of Upper Silesia (Brattleboro, 1936); Colonel E. S. Hutchinson, Silesia Revisited—1929 (London, 1930).
55Seymour, op. cit., IV, 347, 349, 383.
56Articles 428-432 of the Treaty of Versailles, The Treaties of Peace, 1919-1923 (New York, 1924), I, 254-55.
57General Henry T. Allen to Secretary Hughes, December 22, 1921. 862T.01/346, MS, National Archives.
58Ambassador Wallace to Secretary Hughes, Paris, April 27, 1920. 862.00/921, MS, National Archives.
59Emil Sauer to Secretary Hughes, Cologne, February 16, 1923. 862.00/1215, MS, National Archives.
60Dawson, op. cit., p. 84.
61Nevins, op. cit., p. 372.
62G. E. R. Gedye, The Revolver Republic (London, 1930), pp. 29-31.
63Herbert Hoover, “Communism Erupts in Europe,” Collier’s, CXXVIII (September 8, 1951), pp. 26-27, 68-71.
64Alma Luckau, The German Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference (New York, 1941), p. 124.
65Ibid., pp. 98-100.
66George A. Gordon to Secretary Hull, Berlin, May 22, 1933. 862.00/2985-86, MS, Department of State.
67George A. Gordon to Secretary Hull, Berlin, June 17, 1933. 862.00/3010, MS, Department of State.
68George A. Gordon to Secretary Hull, Berlin, June 23, 1933. 862.00/3017, MS, Department of State.
69George A. Gordon to Secretary Hull, Berlin, July 10, 1933. 862.00/3028-29, MS, Department of State.
70George S. Messersmith to Secretary Hull, July 10, 1933. 862.00/3033, MS, Department of State.

Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy 1933-1941