XVII: President Beneš Postpones Too Long a Policy of Appeasement

XVII President Beneš Postpones Too Long a Policy of Appeasement

a. Czechoslovakia Precipitates the May Crisis

HITLER’S absorption of Austria made a fundamental change in British and French plans to appease Germany by restoring some of the colonial domain that had been taken away from her by the Treaty of Versailles. France had long been favorable to the return of some of the German colonies as one means of satisfying the demands of the Nazi Government for Lebensraum. In September 1937, Chautemps had informed Ambassador Bullitt that for France the question of colonies was “not insurmountable,” but he believed that Britain would “resist to the utmost” any colonial settlement satisfactory to Germany.1 British opposition to any “deal” with Germany concerning colonies was given vehement expression by Anthony Eden: “The British answer to Germany in re colonies should be a vast increase of Britain’s armament program.”2 France thought that this British position was too extreme, and Foreign Minister Delbos had tried to argue the question with Eden. He discovered, however, that the British Foreign Minister was “adamant” in his opposition. The British Government was “fully determined not to permit the clauses [of the Treaty of Versailles] with regard to colonies to be changed.”3

Some weeks later Delbos remarked to Ambassador Bullitt that he believed the

best chance of beginning negotiations which might lead to a peaceful settlement of the situation in Europe or at least postponement of war would be in the colonial domain. France and England could not offer Germany “concessions” in Austria and Czechoslovakia . . . [but] in the colonial domain France and England had something to give and could therefore demand something in exchange. He felt, therefore, that through the door of colonial concessions it might be possible to enter into fruitful negotiations. He believed that if some progress could be made in the colonial field it might not be impossible to begin conversations for a new Locarno. . . .

He [Delbos] said that as far as he was concerned, he favored making concessions to Germany piecemeal in order to stave off war, but in a democracy it was intensely difficult to make piecemeal concessions. Public opinion would very much prefer to submit to a fait accompli rather than make a concession.4

This conciliatory attitude on the part of France continued during the spring of 1938. In March, Flandin, former Foreign Minister, told the German Ambassador in Paris that from the “French standpoint the solution of the colonial question” was not a serious matter.5 For a while Britain also seemed in the mood for some concessions. With Eden out of the British Cabinet, Chamberlain was ready to discuss the colonial question. In his conference with the Führer, March 3, Sir Nevile Henderson had indicated that Britain “might be prepared to transfer some colonial territory in Africa to Germany.” Hitler had replied to this cautious statement by insisting that “all German colonies must be returned.”6 Henderson could give no “definite answer” to this sweeping demand, so the subject was postponed for future discussion.

Lord Halifax kept the matter open by assuring Ribbentrop that Britain “had in mind returning colonial territory to German sovereignty.” But he insisted that the British Government could not settle the colonial problem in “isolation from other problems.”7 Some solution was necessary for the questions that constantly threatened the status quo on the Continent. Hitler’s sudden absorption of Austria disturbed Halifax and postponed for a while all further conversations concerning colonies. British interest shifted to Italy and plans were made to entice Mussolini back into the arms of British and French statesmen.

In order to sound out Italy in this regard, Churchill was sent to France to survey the situation. He was surprised that the French Government would “place no confidence in an Anglo-French tie-up with the Soviet because of France’s doubts as to the value of the Soviet as an Ally.” Finally, after talking matters over with the French statesmen, Churchill frankly asked Blum a series of questions as to whether the French Government would be willing to enter into close relations with Britain and Italy for the purpose of negotiating “a Mediterranean Locarno.” The recognition of Franco’s government in Spain was an important item in this proposed three-power accord.8

After carefully studying all the implications behind these questions, Blum was said to have told Churchill that he was in favor of proceeding with the “preliminary discussions” leading to a new Locarno treaty.9 While France would be engaged in the first stages of these discussions, Britain was to initiate negotiations with Germany for a pact that would settle not only the question of colonies but would also extract from Hitler some general “guarantees of security” for the status quo in Europe. Chamberlain was said to be ready to “inform Daladier and Bonnet that if the French would agree not to put obstacles in the way of British direct bilateral talks with Germany, and if the French would complete their deal with Mussolini, the British would be prepared to make a defensive alliance with France.”10

b. The Sudeten Germans Formulate Demands Which They Know Cannot Be Fulfilled

It was difficult for Chamberlain or Halifax to realize the impossibility of negotiating a satisfactory treaty with either Germany or Italy. The European structure built upon the Treaty of Versailles was already tottering and Hitler was determined that it should not be repaired by any mortar of appeasement. He was bent upon its destruction and out of the ruins he expected to erect an edifice with the new Germany as the keystone. Such a task would require diplomacy with just the right flavor of force. Needless to say, there would also be the proper amount of deceit which through the centuries has earned for diplomacy the apt description of the “craft sinister.”

The assurances that General Göring gave to M. Mastný, the Czech Minister in Berlin, on the night of March 11 were too transparent to be deceptive.11 The Nazi leaders had worked out a blueprint of aggression that looked towards the absorption of Czechoslovakia as well as of Austria. They would first split the Czech State along the line of the Sudetenland, and the remaining portion would inevitably fall into German hands. The demands for Sudeten autonomy could be given a reasonable appearance, but they would really serve as a screen behind which the drive for the absorption of the Sudetenland could be organized and carried out. This fact was made clear during the conversation between Hitler and the leaders of the Sudeten German Party, Konrad Henlein and Karl H. Frank. The Führer stated that he “intended to settle the Sudeten German problem in the not-too-distant future.” He could “no longer tolerate Germans being oppressed or fired upon.” Hitler then turned to Henlein and remarked: “I will stand by you; from tomorrow you will be my Viceroy.” The purport of the instructions that the Führer gave to Henlein indicated that no compromise with the Czechs was acceptable: “Demands should be made by the Sudeten German Party which are unacceptable to the Czech Government.” Henlein replied: “We must always demand so much that we can never be satisfied.”12

The Karlsbad Programme issued by Henlein on April 24 was prepared in the spirit of Hitler’s instructions and was far-reaching in its implications. In the meantime, on April 21, Hitler had an important conversation with General Keitel in which a plan of operations for an attack upon Czechoslovakia was discussed in detail.13 Hitler’s policy of “planned aggression” left little to chance. While Britain and France nursed hopes of finding some formula of appeasement that might lead to a new Locarno, Germany was thinking of peace only upon her terms, and those terms meant Nazi dominance in Europe.

c. Chamberlain Says Britain Will Not Fight for Czechoslovakia

It was obvious to France that German dominance in Europe would soon be insured unless some way were found to defeat the schemes of Nazi leaders. But any plan that had any real promise of success in checking Hitler would presuppose an intimate association between Britain and France and an evident readiness to meet a Nazi challenge with the answer of immediate mobilization. But Chamberlain feared that such an answer might lead to the outbreak of hostilities. On March 14 he momentarily laid aside these fears and boldly denounced the use of “violent methods” in solving the problems of Europe. Further aggression could not be regarded by His Majesty’s Government “with indifference or equanimity.”14 But this show of courage soon disappeared. On March 24 he was much more cautious in his comments. Now he declared that Britain was not prepared to defend Czechoslovakia against unprovoked aggression.15

Two days earlier Viscount Halifax had instructed Sir Eric Phipps, in Paris, to inform the French Government that Britain recognized its obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations and under the terms of the Treaty of Locarno, but the Foreign Office had no intention of enlarging the scope of its responsibilities. A German attack upon Czechoslovakia would not, therefore, bring a British army into the field to defend Czech frontiers, although it was always possible that political pressures might compel the British Government to join a crusade against oppression.16

Halifax realized that this statement would be cold comfort to the French Foreign Office, but he was apprehensive about being more specific. His objection to the use of threats arose from his doubt of the ability of Britain, “or the ability of France and Great Britain combined, effectively to enforce them.”17

Henderson, in Berlin, agreed with Halifax about the “futility of forcible protests unbacked by force or the fear of force.” Moreover, one should not underestimate Hitler. He might be a “pathological subject, an introvert, a mystic or anything else which one may choose to call him, but in addition to all that, there is no doubt that he is a constructive genius.”18

With Hitler a big question mark and his policy a threat to the peace of Europe, British and French statesmen decided to hold some conversations in London on April 28-29. During the course of these talks Halifax repeated the warning that Britain’s specific commitments of aid were limited to the conditions laid down in the Covenant of the League of Nations and in the terms of the Treaty of Locarno. The British Government was not ready to “assume fresh military commitments.“ It was, therefore, extremely important for the Czechoslovak Government to realize the gravity of the situation and make “a supreme effort to reach a settlement” with Germany with reference to the autonomy of the Sudetenland.19

In order to conciliate Germany, Halifax sent word to Henderson that the Nazi Government should be advised that Britain had “no desire to interfere in what they [the Germans] regard as their own domestic sphere. . . . We are fully prepared to recognize that they have a special interest” in the Sudetenland problem. But it should be kept in mind that the British Government was not “disinterested in a question that may involve an outbreak of war.”20

Chamberlain, apparently, had some misgivings about these final words of warning to Germany. In order, therefore, to show a most sincere spirit of appeasement he made some revealing statements at an informal luncheon party given by Lady Astor to American and Canadian newspaper correspondents. He was reported to have said that “neither France nor Russia, and certainly not Britain, would fight for Czechoslovakia in the event of German aggression, and that the Czechoslovak State could not continue to exist in its present form.”21

d. Tension in Czechoslovakia

Despite the excessively conciliatory attitude of Chamberlain, Halifax continued his efforts to exert some pressure upon Germany in favor of the acceptance of a reasonable compromise of the Sudetenland problem. He instructed Henderson to convey an indirect warning to the German Government not to be “stiff” in its attitude towards Czechoslovakia. Ribbentrop should be impressed by the fact that it would be impossible for Britain “to be disinterested in any issue on which the future of European peace might one day be found to depend.”22 This warning appeared to have some effect upon the Nazi Foreign Minister who discussed the problems of Europe with Henderson in an “unusually temperate maner.” He was obviously “impressed both by the dangers of the situation” if it were “allowed to drag on and by the necessity of finding peaceful solution in this last opportunity for co-operation with Great Britain.”23

As the period of tension in Czechoslovakia did “drag on” without any real solution in sight, Henderson expressed to Halifax the fear that in the event of any “serious bloodshed” arising out of clashes between Germans and Czechs it was certain that Germany would intervene. It should be remembered that the Nazi Government regarded Henlein’s demands for Sudeten autonomy as reasonable. It would, therefore, be a “grave mistake” for the British Government to count upon its “moderating counsels at Berlin proving effective, even if backed by threat of war, if we support Czech proposals which fail approximately to satisfy Henlein’s demands.”24

As the crisis grew more threatening there were rumors (May 20) of partial German mobilization. Although these were promptly denied there was increasing anxiety about the imminence of war. This deepened when the Czech Government itself (May 20) suddenly decided upon partial mobilization.25 Matters were made worse when a Czech policeman fired upon and killed two Sudeten German motorcyclists who refused to answer his challenge. Karl Frank, one of the Sudeten leaders, had an audience with Prime Minister Hodža with regard to this incident, and when asked what he wished as a final solution of the Sudeten problem he replied: “Complete federalization, and in the event of its failure, a plebiscite.” Hodža agreed “unreservedly and declared that he intended to resign if Beneš did not side with him.”26

While things in Czechoslovakia remained unsettled, the tension in Berlin rose to such a height that Sir Nevile Henderson found Ribbentrop in a “highly excitable and pugnacious frame of mind.” He warned Henderson that “Germany would not wait much longer and if provocation continued her 75 millions would act as one man.”27

Halifax responded to this threat by advising Germany to have patience. Britain was exerting all possible pressure upon the Czech Government in order to “promote a peaceful solution” of the Sudetenland question. The Foreign Office in Berlin should remember that in the event of German aggression upon the Czechs, France would be compelled to intervene at once. In such circumstances, “His Majesty’s Government could not guarantee that they would not be forced” to become “involved also.”28 On the following day Halifax was more precise and more threatening. He informed the German Ambassador in London that “in the case of a German entry into Czechoslovakia, in whatever circumstances, even in the event of serious acts of provocation by the Czechs, the French would march against us [the Germans]. . . . In the event of a European conflict it was impossible to foresee whether Britain would not be drawn into it.”29

After sending these clear warnings to Berlin, Halifax then tried to exert a restraining influence upon the French Government. He assured the French Foreign Office that His Majesty’s Government would always honor their “pledge to come to the assistance of France if she were the victim of unprovoked aggression by Germany.” But the French Government should not assume that the British Government would “at once take joint military action with them to preserve Czechoslovakia against German aggression.”30

These British warnings to Germany had some influence upon Hitler who was always willing to revise his timetable if some compelling necessity dictated it. The evidence that France was ready to lend armed support to Czechoslovakia, together with the partial mobilization of Czech troops, were additional factors that led Hitler to abandon any thought of ordering his armies to cross the Czech border. On May 23 the Czech Minister in Berlin received assurances as to German intentions towards his country. On the same day Henlein was ordered to return to Czechoslovakia and resume negotiations for the peaceful settlement of the Sudetenland problem.

Czechoslovakia had won a diplomatic victory but her success would be short-lived. Hitler was now bent upon her destruction. He particularly resented the Czech rumors of German mobilization. The British military attache in Berlin, Colonel Mason-MacFarlane, had been permitted to ride along 1,100 kilometers of frontier roads and had seen no signs of troop activity.31 This negative report had been confirmed by certain consular officials, and at Nürnberg, Generals Jodi and Keitel testified that they had not moved “a single soldier” towards the Czech border.32 To be falsely accused by Czech officials was to Hitler the supreme insult.

It is significant to note that Beneš had decided upon mobilization without first informing France of his decision.33 He had then suddenly left for his country estate and thus isolated himself from events in Prague.34 High army officers had seized their cue and had taken over the situation. This action had so disturbed the Czech Cabinet that it had been decided to summon Beneš to return to Prague and choose between the civil government and the General Staff.

It was apparent to Hitler that Beneš had precipitated a crisis in order to humiliate Germany. Such tactics could never be forgiven or forgotten. On May 30, he issued a directive for “Operation Green.” The execution of this operation was to be assured by “October 1, 1938 at the latest.” The first two paragraphs reveal the Führers deep hatred for the Czechs and his determination to destroy their country: “It is my unalterable decision to smash Czechoslovakia by military action in the near future.” Some “unavoidable development of events within Czechoslovakia, or other political events in Europe providing a suddenly favorable opportunity which may never recur, may cause me to take early action.”35 This action was now inevitable.

e. Germany Prepares a List of Political Imperatives

To a French statesman like Bonnet the approaching Munich crisis was expected and welcomed. He constantly breathed a spirit of defeatism and was entirely ready to acquiesce in German domination of the European continent. He was cordially disliked by Prime Minister Daladier who lacked the courage to dismiss him from office. Daladier’s experience in the World War had made him an ardent pacifist. That long conflict had served as a grindstone that ground him down rather than polished him up. The “Bull of Auvergne” had grown weary of conflict and was longing for peaceful pastures. In a conversation with the German Ambassador in Paris he stressed the “horrors of the last war,” and feared that a second world war would end in a Russian triumph that would mean that “Cossack and Mongol hordes” would bring to Europe a hideous new design for living.36

With France ready for acquiescence and Britain bent upon appeasement, the future looked bright to Hitler. He was particularly pleased over the rift between Poland and Czechoslovakia. In Paris, Ambassador Biddle talked with the Czech Minister to France (M. Oszuski) and was shocked at his bitterness towards Poland. He was very fearful that there was “little hope of ameliorating Polish-Czech relations on a durable basis.”37 Hitler could make good use of this bitterness.

But the Führer would have to be more careful of appearances because in the United States there was a fast-growing suspicion of Nazi motives. On the last day of May, Ambassador Dieckhoff sent to the Foreign Office a long summary of American opinion of Germany in which there was a curtain line of warning:

I repeat on this occasion, too, that if, as a result of the Czech affair, a large-scale conflict should arise in which Britons became involved, the United States would not permanently stand aside, but would enter the conflict against us. Feeling here has become much more acute and bitter in recent months, and the few friends we still have are so timorous and dumb that there is little to prevent the entry of the United States into a war against us. The propaganda news from Austria has produced a bad impression in the widest circles here.38

Dieckhoff’s letter evidently made a deep impression upon Weizsäcker who prepared a memorandum which outlined a number of political imperatives that Germany should follow. First of all it should be assumed that in the path of German expansion, France would stand as the “most certain opponent” and Britain as the “most dangerous enemy.“ But neither country would cross swords with Germany “without the other.” In case of war, Germany would have to reckon “as a matter of course that the United States of America and Soviet Russia will associate themselves with the de facto alliance against us of these two Powers, France and Britain.” Germany would have to brush the opposition of “this Entente from her future path by diplomacy or by war.” Only if the “Entente attacks us will the Third Reich consider staking its existence on a war. Our essential war aims do not lie on their territory. We have no military recipe for defeating France and Britain.” Even taking into account Italian and Japanese assistance, the war would end in German “exhaustion and defeat.” The task of German diplomacy was to recognize clearly the limits to which German policy could be “pushed for the time being without causing the Entente to interfere.” The most immediate problem for Germany to solve was that dealing with Czechoslovakia. By leaving war out of the question for the time being, it was then obvious that the Czech State should be destroyed by “internal disruptive tendencies.” This process should be a gradual one and plebiscites and other peaceful procedures should be employed. Slogans like “self-determination” could serve a most useful purpose. But it should never be forgotten that Germany was “not free to choose the moment when this fruit may be plucked without too great a risk.”39

f. Konrad Henlein Asks for Provocative Concessions

Konrad Henlein was an important factor in this Nazi program for the gradual disintegration of Czechoslovakia. His list of demands would include items which he knew the Czech Government would not accept. But the Foreign Office did not want these demands to be so excessive as to cause “a new crisis.”40 After some pressure had been exerted upon him he presented to Dr. Hodža (June 8) his new program which emphasized the importance of dividing Czechoslovakia into racial areas. Each of these areas should enjoy such a degree of autonomy as to be virtually independent although it still retained an important voice in the affairs of the central Czech Government. Hodža accepted this memorandum along with the Karlsbad Programme as a basis for round-table conferences which should begin on June 23. Ernst Kundt would serve as the chief representative of the Sudeten Germans during these conferences.

Prime Minister Hodža assured the German Minister in Prague that “in the matter of autonomy he was ready to go to the utmost limit,” and his assurances were accepted at face value.41 But the negotiations dragged on without any settlement, and the British Government became deeply concerned about the situation. These fears were increased when the German Foreign Office expressed to Sir Nevile Henderson the opinion that the “state of the negotiations was highly unsatisfactory.”42 The German Government was critical of the dilatory manner in which the negotiations at Prague were being handled, and when the British Minister pressed this point, Beneš protested that he was anxious to settle everything as “soon as possible.”43 Henderson, in Berlin, was particularly worried about the continued delay in arriving at some solution of the problem. He sharply complained to Lord Halifax that his efforts for peace stood “no chance of success as long as there are no practical results to show for our action in Prague.”44

This lack of response in Prague to British pressure made the German Foreign Office skeptical of British intentions. Weizsäcker had a conversation with Hugh Wilson, the American Ambassador, and expressed his disgust with the fact that Viscount Halifax had never told the Czechs that they “must not go beyond a certain limit of patience if they did not wish finally to gamble away the support of the Western Powers in the event of a conflict.” Ambassador Wilson was in sympathy with the position of Herr Weizsäcker and he criticized the “delaying tactics” of Beneš and his methods of “suppressing facts.” The British apparently did not want a European war but they did not do “what was really necessary to avoid it.”45

g. Lord Runciman Calls Czechoslovakia an “Accursed Land”

It was difficult for the British Government to know what to do to prevent the outbreak of hostilities along the border of Czechoslovakia. Any little incident could be magnified into dangerous proportions. The British Minister in Prague followed with anxiety the conversations between Henlein and Czech officials, and he was disturbed when Hitler summoned the Sudeten leader (July 9) to Berchtesgaden to report on the progress of the negotiations. There was a possibility that this was the first step in a new Hitler program aimed at crushing Czechoslovakia by a surprise attack. British apprehensions were heightened by the surprisingly stiff attitude of President Beneš who appeared determined to “give the Sudeten Germans only a very short time in which to comment on the cut-and-dried indivisible scheme” which he intended to present to the Czech Parliament. Lord Halifax thought that it was “obviously unfair” for the Czech Government to take “several weeks to make up their own minds” and then demand that the Sudeten Germans “make up theirs in a few days.” In order to stave off a possible war the British Foreign Secretary decided to ask the Czech Government to accept Lord Runciman as an independent arbitrator.46

While the Czech Government was pondering the appointment of Lord Runciman, Lord Halifax had a long conversation with Captain Wiedemann who paid a visit to London as a special representative of Hitler. The Captain lost no time in telling Halifax of Hitler’s “admiration and friendship” for Britain. The Führer was anxious to preserve friendly relations with England and that was the reason for the Wiedemann mission. He was especially worried about the delays in the settlement of the problem of the Sudetenland Germans. At any moment incidents might occur which a “great State like Germany could not overlook.”47

These words of warning made Lord Halifax doubly anxious for the success of the Runciman mission, but the Czech Government insisted that the Sudetenland problem could not be the subject of outside arbitration so Runciman was finally sent to Prague merely as a “mediator and adviser.”48 When he talked the situation over with President Beneš he discovered that the Czechs had serious objections to an autonomous Sudetenland which, if it did not soon secede from Czechoslovakia, would at least constitute a dangerous leaven of discontent within the uneasy dough of the Czech State. While Runciman did not meet Henlein for some time after his arrival in Prague, he did have many conferences with other Sudeten Germans and took careful note of their arguments.49

It was soon obvious to him that the situation in Czechoslovakia was filled with political dynamite. The National Minorities Statute passed by the Czech Parliament did not meet the demands of Hitler, and the so-called Czech “Plan No. 2,” drawn up to meet all Sudeten objections, was rejected on August 17 by the Sudeten leaders. When this action was followed by large-scale German military maneuvers in Saxony and Silesia, the British Foreign Office grew alarmed. But British diplomats in Central Europe had evident sympathy with this German method of pressure. Sir Nevile Henderson, in Berlin, had long realized that the only way to keep the Sudetenland out of German hands was to propose to Sudeten leaders a compromise solution that would be so reasonable that European opinion would demand its acceptance. Any delays in this matter would invite Germany to push its own program of complete autonomy for the Sudetenland. President Beneš could never make up his mind how far to go along the road to concessions to the Sudeten Germans, and this indecision cost his country dearly.

In surveying this situation in Central Europe, Sir Nevile Henderson was anxious that the Foreign Office make no misstep. He was particularly anxious that it should discard the Eyre Crowe tradition of inveterate hostility towards Germany. Such a viewpoint might be disastrous. It should also be kept in mind that the Sudeten Germans had a very good case to present to world opinion. Their rights had not been carefully guarded by the Czech Government. In fact, the position of “Beneš and his military enthusiasts” was “quite untenable.” Moreover, Beneš himself was a “small man. That is a fact. And now all depends on Lord Runciman.”50

Chamberlain thought that he might be able to contribute to the success of the Runciman mission by exerting pressure upon Hitler. On August 27, at Lanark, he pushed Sir John Simon into repeating, during a speech, the warning of March 24 to the effect that if war resulted from Czechoslovak complications it would be “quite impossible to say where it would end and what Governments would become involved.”51 The French Government followed this warning by ordering troops to occupy the Maginot line.

Hitler’s response to this pressure was a message to the British Legation in Prague that he would “welcome a peaceful solution of [the] Sudeten question if it comes quickly.” He was also interested in a general “Anglo-German settlement” whose terms Henlein could bring to Berlin upon his next visit.52 Lord Halifax quickly vetoed any use of Henlein as an agent who could assist in negotiating a general settlement of Anglo-German problems. That could best be done through regular diplomatic channels. With reference to the Sudeten question he thought it would be expedient for Beneš to publish his latest offer to Hitler immediately, so that the world would appreciate its reasonable character.53

When Beneš handed to Mr. Newton his “Plan No. 3” the British Minister was “very much disappointed” in its contents and complained that instead of amplifying his former proposals he merely “diluted” them.54 Lord Runciman himself was so deeply disturbed by the way things were going that he began to call Czechoslovakia an “accursed country.” As he looked around the signs of “bad government” in Czechoslovakia were accumulating every day and “at any moment Hitler may find an excuse for crossing the frontier in order to maintain order.” The new plan of Beneš was distinctly unsatisfactory. It was a “long nine-page memorandum covered with bolt holes and qualifications.”55

Lord Halifax was greatly upset by this letter from Lord Runciman. If Beneš were “playing fast and loose” was it not time for “taking drastic action?” His behavior would “do incalculable harm” if something were not done to check him. He should be advised immediately to publish his new plan for the settlement of Sudeten difficulties. It should be evident that the German Government would not “stand aside and wait much longer for the present negotiations to produce a satisfactory solution of the Czechoslovak question.”56

Lord Runciman was now ready to tell Beneš that his “latest memorandum” had made a “bad impression.” He was also prepared to have Henlein visit Hitler and place the situation before him. As for Henlein himself, Runciman assured Lord Halifax that he was “courteous, friendly, and (I believe) honest.” It might be well for Britain to support the eight points of the Karlsbad Programme as the only way to peace.57

While Henlein was in Berchtesgaden discussing the Beneš proposal with Hitler, Prime Minister Chamberlain had a talk with Ambassador Kennedy. Chamberlain admitted that Britain did not have a strong enough army to stop Hitler if he invaded Czechoslovakia and therefore he did not believe in the use of empty threats. Kennedy became somewhat excited as the discussion proceeded and exclaimed that if Hitler seized Czechoslovakia it would “be Hell.” He believed that if France went to the aid of the Czechs and if Britain had “to go in too, the United States would follow before long.” When Kennedy asked if President Roosevelt could make any move that would be of assistance in this crisis, Chamberlain advised against another speech like the Chicago address of October 5, 1937. Any repetition of the threats contained in that address would “now be bad.” Kennedy then broke into the discourse to express the view that President Roosevelt had decided “to go in with Chamberlain; whatever course Chamberlain desires to adopt, he [Roosevelt] would think right.”58

Several days after Ambassador Kennedy had so generously promised Prime Minister Chamberlain American armed assistance in the event that Britain was drawn into a second world war, Ambassador Bullitt, in Paris, struck a very different note. In a conversation with Sir Eric Phipps, the British Ambassador, Bullitt remarked that if any German troops crossed the Czech frontier, France would “undoubtedly fight on behalf of Czechoslovakia.” Fortunately for France, Bullitt believed that she had the finest army “in the world today.” Bullitt then referred to the strong anti-German sentiment in the United States. When Phipps asked him if this meant any “likelihood of United States’ participation in hostilities at an early stage,” Bullitt replied in the negative. It should be kept in mind that the American people had a very definite objection to being “involved in hostilities in Europe only twenty years after the last war, with the likelihood that they would again get more kicks than ha’pence for their help.” He had made this fact clear to the French Government and was certain that they had “no illusions on this score.”59

On the day of this conference between Bullitt and Sir Eric Phipps, Henlein returned to Prague. He had talked with Hitler at Berchtesgaden and had told the Führer that the objectives sought by the Sudeten Germans were either “autonomy within Czechoslovakia” or a “plebiscite which means solidification with the Reich.” He had assured Hitler that he wished to gain either of these objectives in “a peaceable way” and to this the Führer had “fully assented.”60

As soon as the British Minister in Prague had this word from Henlein he advised President Beneš to go to the “limit of concession” and this limit “ought not to stop short of the eight Karlsbad points if a settlement could not be obtained otherwise.” After tendering this advice to Beneš, Mr. Newton then criticized Czech insincerity with reference to former promises that had not been carried out. President Beneš should understand that the failure of the Czech Government to live up to its word in these matters had made “a very bad impression.”61

h. Sir Nevile Henderson Loses Patience with Beneš

Sir Nevile Henderson was just as critical of President Beneš as was Mr. Newton. He thought it should be obvious that Hitler would not permit Henlein to accept less than the Karlsbad Programme and that the reluctance of Beneš to use these eight points as a basis for discussion had caused a dangerous delay in settling the Sudeten problem. It was difficult for the Czech President to face “realities.” In the end he would probably play the “same role as Schuschnigg and will end by doing incalculable harm to his country and possibly to all of us.”62

At this point, according to the dramatic story recounted by John Wheeler-Bennett, Beneš suddenly decided to summon the Sudeten leaders and ask them to enumerate in writing their principal demands. When they refused to do so he requested them to dictate their program which he took down and signed. This was later known as “Plan No. 4.” It embodied most of the items in the Karlsbad Programme and it indicated the limit of concessions that Beneš felt called upon to make.63

It is significant that the text of this “Plan No. 4” was furnished to the Royal Institute of International Affairs by the Czechoslovak Government in Exile in 1942.64 It may or may not be authentic in all particulars. It is also necessary to call attention to the fact that the colorful account of the meeting between Beneš and the Sudeten leaders, as given in the monograph by Mr. Wheeler-Bennett, was drawn entirely from the interview between Beneš and G. E. R. Gedye as published in the London Daily Herald of October 8, 1945. It is quite probable that Beneš gave his story as dramatic a setting as was possible. The admirers of President Beneš may still wish to accept his version of the meeting with the Sudeten leaders.

In the meantime it will be pertinent to notice that Mr. Newton, Lord Runciman, and Sir Nevile Henderson were at times sharply critical of Beneš and were suspicious of his program. In the dispatches of Lord Runciman there is no mention of the meeting of September 4 and the impression is given that Beneš was still negotiating with the Sudeten leaders. Mr. Newton, the British Minister, saw Beneš on September 4 and apparently talked to him “pretty plainly” about his “delays” in presenting terms to Henlein. Runciman regarded these delays as inexcusable: “Nothing can excuse his [Beneš’] slow movements and dilatory negotiations of the past five months.”65

By the first week in September, Sir Nevile Henderson had lost all patience with Beneš for his interminable delays. On September 6, he expressed to Halifax the opinion that the “moment has come” for Britain and France to give “categoric advice” to Beneš to accept “even what the latter describes as Hitler’s ultimatum.”66

Prime Minister Hodža appeared to share some of this Henderson viewpoint because he removed from the hands of Beneš (September 6) the control of the negotiations with the Sudeten leaders. He then told them that the final text of the plan for Sudeten autonomy “was not yet complete” but would soon be drafted. The Sudeten German delegation was impressed with the sincerity of Hodža and expressed the unanimous opinion that the Czech proposals “could not be turned down” because they included the substance of the Karlsbad Programme. But because of certain incidents that had just occurred at Maehrisch-Ostrau, the negotiations would have to be broken off until the matter was “cleared up.”67 They were never seriously resumed.

This decision on the part of the Sudeten German delegation to break off negotiations seemed to Lord Halifax to have so many ominous implications that he instructed Sir Nevile Henderson to inform Hitler that His Majesty’s Government was “greatly disturbed” by the situation in Prague and felt impelled to ask for the co-operation of the German Government in averting a “calamitous termination” of the Czech-Sudeten German negotiations.68 Henderson, at Nürnberg attending the Nazi Party celebration, was very much opposed to a policy of making even an indirect threat for the purpose of checking German action against Czechoslovakia. There would be no aggression against the Czechs but if they continued their “pin-pricking, anything may happen and no threat will deter the Chancellor once he decides that German honour . . . obliges him to act. It is essential to keep cool.”69

i. Kennedy Predicts U.S. Intervention in World War II

In London, Ambassador Kennedy was watching the situation in Prague and Nürnberg with evident apprehension. During a conversation with Lord Halifax he voiced the opinion that it was “essential to take every possible step to avoid a misunderstanding in Herr Hitler’s mind.” The British Government should be ready for any emergency and he wondered if “it might not be possible for the Soviet Government to make some movement that would compel attention, such as a concentration of aeroplanes near the frontier.” As far as America was concerned, he had been interested to notice that “American opinion was much more excited against Germany now than he had ever known it.” If Britain were drawn into the war now threatening Europe, and if London were bombed, the “history of the last war would be repeated, leading a good deal more rapidly than in the last war to American intervention.70

While Ambassador Kennedy was predicting American intervention in a second world war on the side of Britain, the German chargé d’affaires in Washington was writing in the same key. Although President Roosevelt was trying to preserve peace in Europe, it was very likely that if a German invasion of Czechoslovakia caused Britain and France to come to the aid of the Czechs, then America would be “found on their side.”71

As an offset to these widespread rumors of probable American intervention in any new war that might break out in Europe, President Roosevelt, at a press conference (September 9), blamed American newspapers for creating a war psychosis. Any inference that he was ready to support “the Democracies” against the totalitarian bloc in the event of war was not warranted by his formal or informal remarks. If newspapermen would pay careful attention to his exact words they would discover that they had been “100 per cent wrong.”72

j. Chamberlain Decides to Visit Berchtesgaden

Three days after the President made these statements at his press conference, Hitler delivered a speech (September 12) at Nürnberg. After blasting the Bolsheviks and Jews he turned his attack upon the Czechs who were “torturing three and a half million Germans.” He did not, however, offer any solution of the Sudetenland problem although he emphasized the importance of applying the principle of self-determination for the benefit of the hard-pressed Germans in Czechoslovakia.73

Hitler’s speech seemed to incite serious disorders in the Sudetenland, so the Czech Government promptly declared martial law (September 13). Henderson, in Berlin, believed that “only immediate action” by Czechoslovakia could avert “recourse to force by Germany.” The German Government would never put any faith in “the honesty of M. Beneš until something was done.” Mere words no longer carried any conviction. It seemed apparent that Beneš, even with doom knocking on the door, would “continue to haggle and will be unable to bring himself to make comprehensive, generous and immediate concessions essential to peace” unless the “severest pressure” was exerted upon him.74 In Paris, Prime Minister Daladier betrayed his apprehension of war so plainly that the British Ambassador believed that his recent bold words might have been only a game of “bluff.” During conversations with Sir Eric Phipps both Daladier and Bonnet had been seeking for some scapegoat and had finally settled upon Beneš.75

As Prime Minister Chamberlain read these telegrams with their high note of urgency, he decided to send a personal message to Hitler proposing a personal meeting “with a view of trying to find a peaceful solution” of the problems that beset Europe.76 When the Führer replied that he was “absolutely at the disposal” of the Prime Minister, the stage was set for another momentous meeting at Berchtesgaden.77 If the meeting had not occurred there were forces in Germany ready to challenge the authority of Hitler and possibly to depose him. Chamberlain’s passion for peace ruined the best-laid plans of plotters who might have saved the world from the agonies and destruction of World War II.

k. British Appeasement Saves Hitler

Chamberlain’s determination to carry appeasement to the bitter end was the salvation of Hitler and his clique who were bent upon a policy that meant inevitable war. In Germany, a large group of important persons were plotting to push Hitler aside and present a program that would preserve the peace of Europe. This group included such outstanding army officers as Colonel General Ludwig von Beck, Chief of Staff; Colonel General Kurt von Hammerstein, Commander in Chief of the German Army from 1930 to 1934; General Erwin von Witzleben; General Georg Thomas, head of the economic division of the planning staff of the Army; General Eduard Wagner, Quartermaster General; Major General Hans Oster; and Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg. Admiral Canaris was especially active in this plot to overthrow Hitler. The civilians included Carl Friedrich Goerdeler, one-time mayor of Leipzig; Hans B. Gisevius; Johannes Popitz, Prussian Minister of Finance; and Ulrich von Hassell, former German Ambassador in Rome.

In the summer of 1938 the plotters were pushed to prompt action by the Sudeten crisis. General Beck sent to the entire General Staff a memorandum which presented the view that hostilities with Czecho-

Slovakia would bring about a general European war which Germany could not win. General Brauchitsch approved the main points in the memorandum and took it to Hitler in July 1938 with definite words of warning. The Führer immediately brushed it aside and continued his Sudeten program.78

General Beck then informed the British Government of Hitler’s bellicose plans with reference to Czechoslovakia and urged an “unequivocal declaration by Britain that any violation of Czech neutrality would mean war.” Chamberlain, however, preferred continued appeasement and paid little attention to the significant advice of General Beck.79

After an interview with Hitler in which he pleaded against any action that might provoke a European conflict, Beck resigned as Chief of Staff and was succeeded by General Haider. Haider was also in the plot to remove Hitler and was ready to obey any order issued by General von Brauchitsch, who was Commander in Chief of the Army.

These highly-placed plotters were ready to take action when Hitler returned to Berlin which was scheduled for September 14. But at this moment news came that Chamberlain had decided to visit Berchtesgaden in a last attempt to prevent war. Although these tidings were deeply disturbing to the conspirators, it was presumed that Chamberlain would be faced with proposals that he could not accept. In that event, the plot would be carried out as a preventive of war. On September 28, when General von Witzleben went to the office of General Haider to receive the orders that would start the Putsch, a message came through to the effect that Chamberlain and Daladier would meet Hitler at Munich on the following day. This news checked the immediate execution of the plot, and the appeasement as recorded in the Munich Agreement so strengthened Hitler’s position that all plans to push him aside had to be indefinitely postponed. The “old man with the umbrella” had scared off an immediate shower in favor of the wild tempest of World War II.80

“1. Was Blum prepared and willing that both Blum and Chamberlain should recommend to the League recognition of Italian conquest of Ethiopia?

“2. Would Blum entertain the idea of a pact of non-aggression and economic cooperation between the British, French and Italian colonial empires on condition that Italy would assure France and Great Britain of:

a. No threat of interference with French and British Mediterranean communications?

b. No Italian bases to be established and no Italian territorial ambitions in Spain?

“3. In the event of Franco’s victory would France join Britain in eventually recognizing Franco in the first stage as a de facto government which might lay way open for Franco to negotiate a pact of mutual understanding or non-aggression with Britain and France guaranteeing no Italian or German troops or bases in Spanish territory?

“4. Would France join Great Britain and Italy in negotiating a Mediterranean Locarno to be supported by Franco in certain aspects although Franco would not be expected to be a principal part to the guarantees involved?

“5. In second stage would France join Britain in recommending to League the recognition of Franco government de jure?

“6. Would France then conclude an Anglo-French military alliance in support of the above policy with the approval of Italy?”

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.
71The Final Act of the Lausanne Conference, July 9, 1932 (London, 1932), Cmd. 4126.
72The countries represented at this conference in Berlin were France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States.
73New York Times, June 3, 1933.
74The United States was deeply concerned about this transfer moratorium because about 40 per cent of the German external debt, approximately $1,800,000,000, was owed to American creditors. For a different estimate see Cleona Lewis, America’s Stake in International Investments (Washington, 1938), p. 414.
75New York Times, June 21, 1933.
76Raymond Moley, After Seven Years (New York, 1939), p. 247.
77Ibid., pp. 261-62.
78The documents dealing with the London Economic Conference are given in great detail in Foreign Relations, 1933, I, 452-762.
79Memorandum by the chief of the Division of Western European Affairs (Moffat), March 24, 1933. Ibid., pp. 396-98.
80Ibid., pp. 409-11. Atherton to Secretary Hull, London, May 12, 1933.

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