XVIII: Munich: Prelude to Prague

XVIII Munich: Prelude to Prague

a. President Roosevelt Extends Monroe Doctrine

AS TENSION developed in Europe over the problem of the Sudeten Germans, President Roosevelt became deeply concerned over the possible outbreak of war. In January 1938 he had vainly endeavored to secure British support of a plan for world peace, but Prime Minister Chamberlain had rejected this appeal on the ground that it might adversely affect his efforts to conciliate Italy and thus dislodge the uneasy Duce from the eager arms of Hitler. In the midsummer of 1938 the President decided to take an independent step in foreign policy which apparently would be along a road familiar to Americans since 1823. He would have his fellow countrymen raise their eyes from accustomed American sights to a distant horizon where a one-world concept could be dimly seen. Since 1932 he had been lustily singing in a chorus of isolationists but had been furtively eyeing the exotic wench of collective security who waited in the wings for the cue that would inevitably come.

In order to give this cue in the most impressive manner, he paid a visit to Queens University in Kingston, Ontario (August 18) for the ostensible purpose of receiving one of his innumerable honorary degrees. As a part of this ritual for securing knowledge by degrees, Roosevelt then made an address which formally placed Canada under the protection of the Monroe Doctrine: “I give to you assurance that the people of the United States will not stand idly by if domination of Canadian soil is threatened by any other empire.”

After this broad promise of protection he then began to talk as though the Monroe Doctrine had some far-flung implications. He made it clear that the Dominion of Canada was a “part of the sisterhood of the British Empire.” The question then arose: if America would help one of these sisters in distress world she stand idly by if the others were reduced to dire straits? In partial answer to this query he repeated one of the Hull clichés to the effect that “we in the Americas are no longer a far-away continent, to which the eddies of controversies beyond the seas could bring no interest or no harm. . . . The vast amount of our resources, the vigor of our commerce, and the strength of our men have made us vital factors in world peace whether we choose or not.”1

Some American newspapers regarded the President’s address at Kingston as a “somewhat startling statement” of a familiar fact,2 but it was admitted that he had given it a “calculated portentousness“ by timing it at “a tense moment in international affairs.”3 In London, J. L. Garvin, noted editor of the Observer, interpreted the President’s words as an “intimation to the dictatorships that at a pinch the United States would be unable to keep out,”4 while the Manchester Guardian was certain that they were “virtually a guarantee of help against aggression.”5

In France, the Kingston address was received as a definite assurance of support to the “democracies” if a serious crisis arose. Bonnet, the Foreign Minister, was moved to make several suggestions to Ambassador Bullitt. He thought it would be helpful if the American Ambassador in Berlin were instructed to inform the German Foreign Office that the Department of State believed the negotiations at Prague between the Sudeten Germans and the Czech Government “offered substantial possibilities for success.” Therefore, the “use of force” to influence these negotiations would be regarded with disfavor. Bonnet also suggested that “in case of dire necessity” the President could offer to serve as a mediator in the difficulties between the Czechs and the Sudeten Germans and thus save the situation.6

A few days later, Léon Blum, former Premier of France, urged the President “to address himself to Europe with all the prestige of his person and with all the authority of the State whose moral or material support would be finally decisive in any general war.”7 It was obvious that a large part of the world was looking to the United States for leadership in a crisis that threatened war, and the President was strongly tempted to respond to this pressure. But Prime Minister Chamberlain was once more devising a settlement through appeasement, so the American Chief Executive had to bide his time.

b. Chamberlain Pays a Visit to Berchtesgaden

When Prime Minister Chamberlain prepared to visit Berchtesgaden in search of peace he had some very definite ideas in mind concerning the Sudetenland problem. He knew that the Czech State rested upon “weak foundations” of diverse nationalities that had a sharp dislike for one another. Great wisdom, good fortune, and ample time were needed to overcome these nationalistic difficulties, but “even before the death of the wise Masaryk too little of these was vouchsafed.” The liberal regime about which Beneš had waxed so eloquent at Versailles slowly disintegrated. The country

was made a centralised State, and later, under stress and strain, in part a police State, exacerbated at every point where conflict always breaks out in a land of antagonistic races,—as to the proportion of officials, allotment of schools, or census statistics. These wrangles were still dragging their length along when the great depression cast the German areas . . . into sudden poverty. . . .

Unemployment was chronic in the German region . . . but unemployment benefit for Germans was wholly inadequate, and much lower than for Czechs. Drastic laws of 1935-6 tightened the Czech hold on government employment, drew a wide frontier zone within which arbitrary imprisonment could be imposed, and imported a Czech police into German areas. . . . While Beneš and Hodza, his Slovak Premier, slowly embarked in 1937 on steps to give Germans a pinch more of office or employment, they stoutly declined to hear of anything “Swiss,” or local autonomy. . . .

After six years of warning the British Government, late in 1937, pressed Beneš to make serious concessions. . . . Zero hour was near.8

Chamberlain thought that the only way to greet this zero hour with any chance of success would be to invoke the principle of self-determination. But this invocation presented formidable difficulties and he saw this fact clearly during his first conversation with Hitler. When he reached Berchtesgaden on September 15, he noticed that the Führer appeared “very shy” and had some trouble in finding appropriate small talk. It was decided that the conversation between Chamberlain and Hitler should be held in the Führer’s sparsely furnished bedroom with only Paul Schmidt to act as the interpreter. This arrangement excluded the presence of Ribbentrop who was visibly excited at being left out of the picture.

The Führer spoke “quietly and in low tones” most of the time, but occasionally he became “very excited and poured out his indignation against the Czechs in a torrent of words.”9 Chamberlain listened attentively and “then, looking Hitler full in the face, he emphasized that he was prepared to discuss every possibility of righting German grievances, but that in all circumstances the use of force must be excluded.” At this point Hitler exploded: “Force! Who speaks of force? Herr Beneš applies force against my countrymen in the Sudetenland, Herr Beneš mobilised in May, not I. . . . I shall not put up with this any longer. . . . I shall take matters into my own hands.” This outburst provoked Chamberlain who excitedly exclaimed: “If I have understood you aright, you are determined to proceed against Czecho-Slovakia in any case. . . . If that is so, why did you let me come to Berchtesgaden. . . . It is best for me to return at once.”

Hitler now hastened to conciliate Chamberlain. He quickly referred to the troubles in the Sudetenland and calmly remarked: “If you are prepared to recognise the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination, . . . then we can continue the discussion in order to see how that principle can be applied in practice.” But Chamberlain suddenly became exceedingly cautious. A plebiscite in the Sudetenland would entail enormous “practical difficulties.” It would be best for him to return to London to discuss this matter with the Cabinet. After securing from Hitler a promise that no aggressive action would be undertaken against Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain returned to the Berchtesgaden hotel and on the following day took a plane from Munich to London.10

When he reached No. 10 Downing Street he read a telegram from Nevile Henderson warning him that “no discussion of half measures at this stage will serve any purpose whatsoever but merely encourage Herr Hitler to throw discretion . . . to the winds. . . . If the British and French Governments do not agree to the principle of incorporation of the German areas in the Reich, it is absolutely certain that Germany will act by herself.”11

It was apparent to Chamberlain that it was no time for “half measures.” Something far-reaching would have to be done at once. Summoning Prime Minister Daladier and Foreign Minister Bonnet to London, he recounted to them his talk with the Führer and then observed that the issue involved was a “very simple one.” It was a question “whether or not to accept the principle of self-determination.” If this principle were applied to the Sudetenland problem he did not “anticipate any great difficulties from the German side.” But Daladier was full of misgivings concerning the application of the principle of self-determination to the Sudetenland. Lord Halifax shared these misgivings but he asked Daladier to look at the “practical realities of the situation.” Neither France nor Russia, and certainly not England, would be able to give “effective protection” to Czechoslovakia in the event of war with Germany. It was obvious, therefore, that both Britain and France would have to devise some means to save Europe “from destruction.” This formula might not be palatable but it would have to be tried.

Finally, after three meetings, Prime Ministers Chamberlain and Daladier, and Foreign Ministers Bonnet and Halifax agreed upon a formula that was submitted to the Czech Government on September 19. The British and French governments were convinced that the point had been reached where it was evident that the Sudetenland districts “mainly inhabited by Sudeten-Deutsch” would have to be transferred to the Reich. This could be effected either by “direct transfer or as the result of a plebiscite.” The areas marked for transfer would contain more than 50 per cent “of German inhabitants.” The details covering these transfers could be settled by “some international body including a Czech representative.” If the Czech Government accepted this Anglo-French proposal, Britain was prepared to join France in an “international guarantee of the new boundaries of the Czechoslovak State against unprovoked aggression.”12 The matter was now up to President Beneš and the Czech Cabinet.

c. Beneš Accepts the Anglo-French Proposals

The problems facing Beneš were so complicated that they defied successful handling. If he accepted the Anglo-French proposals, he would have to witness the dismemberment of the Czech State and would have to consent to the surrender of the strategic frontier. If he refused to respond to this pressure, Britain and France might declare that they were no longer vitally interested in the fate of Czechoslovakia and this action would be an invitation to Hitler to take over the whole country. On September 20 the reply of the Czech Government was handed to the representatives of Britain and France in Prague. It was an appeal to them to reconsider the point of view expressed in their joint note of September 19. They should recognize the fact that it was “not merely the fate of Czechoslovakia which is at stake, but that of other nations as well.”13

This Czech appeal fell upon British and French ears that were not only deaf but were somewhat indignant. Did President Beneš desire a second world war? In Berlin, Sir Nevile Henderson appreciated the fact that the Czech President had “terribly difficult circumstances to contend with,” but he had “thrown away his opportunities during the past four months until it was too late.” The only thing Beneš could do was to bow to “force majeure and accept the Franco-British plan.”14

The application of this force majeure came during the early morning hours of September 21 when Beneš was informed by the British and French representatives in Prague that he would have to accept the Anglo-French proposals or, in the event of war with Germany, Czechoslovakia could not count upon British and French assistance.15 Throughout the morning and early afternoon of September 21 the Czech Cabinet gave anxious consideration to these proposals. Finally, at five o’clock, the Czech Government indicated that it had “sadly accepted” them. The way was now open for the second scene in the drama of Munich.

d. Hitler Formulates New Demands

This second scene was devoid of the little touches of courtesy that had marked the meeting at Berchtesgaden. Godesberg-on-the-Rhine had been selected because of its convenient location, but that was the only item in its favor. The conference between Chamberlain and Hitler was held in the Hotel Dreesen with its ominous background as the birthplace of the bloody purge of June 1934. In such an atmosphere Hitler dropped any pretense of accommodation and showed the ugly attitude of a highwayman who insists upon beating his victims while robbing them.

At the beginning of the conversation on September 22, Prime Minister Chamberlain rehearsed what had been agreed upon at Berchtesgaden and what the British and French governments had done to implement this agreement. There would be no necessity for a plebiscite but only an agreed cession of territory to the Reich in accordance with some “guiding principle.” The details could be settled by a commission consisting of one German, one Czech, and a neutral chairman.

When Chamberlain completed his recital, Hitler asked if this Anglo-French program had been submitted to the Czech Government and had been accepted by it. Chamberlain answered in the affirmative. Hitler paused for a moment and then slowly remarked: “I am exceedingly sorry, but that is no longer of any use.”16 It was evident that the crisis over the Sudetenland had moved to its “most critical stage.” There was no time for the usual delays of diplomacy.

When Chamberlain heard Hitler’s terse negative observation he ardently argued that the Anglo-French proposals had really met all reasonable demands for the application of the principle of self-determination. Moreover, these proposals had been accepted by the Czech Government. The British and French governments had “got exactly what the Fuehrer wanted and without the expenditure of a drop of German blood.” Hitler replied that he had no use for international commissions with their usual interminable delays. A frontier line would have to be drawn “at once.” But it would have to be a language frontier based upon “existing reliable maps.”

He was insistent that the Czechs should immediately withdraw from the areas that were so delimited and that German troops should occupy them. He expected that the Czechs would claim that this frontier line “did not represent the real minority situation.” In that case he was “in favour of holding a plebiscite everywhere” in the disputed areas. Where the result “showed a Czech majority, he would be perfectly prepared to surrender the territory which he had occupied.” He would be quite ready to “bow to a majority.” And although he had no high opinion of international commissions he would be “perfectly ready for the plebiscite to be carried out” by one. But he insisted that the disputed areas be occupied “by German troops at once.” As to a nonaggression pact with Czechoslovakia, the Führer declared that he would be willing to go that far only if the Czechs succeeded in placing their relations with Poland and Hungary “on a proper footing.”17

These demands overwhelmed Chamberlain who protested that they were in sharp contradiction with the ones that had been agreed upon at Berchtesgaden. Perhaps some better understanding could be reached in tomorrow’s conversation! After bringing the conference to a close, Chamberlain walked slowly to the terrace of the Hotel Dreesen where he was suddenly stopped by Hitler who addressed him in soft, contrite tones: “Oh, Mr. Prime Minister, I am so sorry: I had looked forward to showing you this beautiful view of the Rhine. . . but now it is hidden by the mist.”18

The Prime Minister was startled by this unexpected shift from far-reaching political demands to poignant regrets over hidden natural beauties. A breath-taking vista over the fabulous Rhine might have softened Chamberlain’s mood a trifle, but the blanket of mist depressed his spirits to such an extent that he confessed to Lord Halifax that his conversation with Hitler had been “most unsatisfactory.” It was possible that he would soon return to London.19

On the morning of the twenty-third, Chamberlain sent a letter to Hitler in which he pointed out that the chief difficulty in the German proposal was the suggestion that German troops “in the immediate future” should occupy the Sudeten areas that were in dispute. If the soldiers of the Reich moved into any part of the Sudetenland there was “no doubt that the Czechoslovak Government would have no option but to order their forces to resist.” This would mean war with all its grim implications. There was, however, a slim possibility that the Czech Government might permit law and order to be maintained by the “Sudeten Germans themselves.”20

In reply to this letter, Hitler sent a note to Chamberlain in which he made the small concession that German troops could be removed “from doubtful areas when vote is taken in them.”21 But Chamberlain knew that this bait was too small to interest the Czech Government. He would have to talk things over with Hitler once more and try to make him more pliable. On the evening of September 23-24 he had his second conversation with the Führer. Unlike the first meeting, there were now three British and two German officials present. Ribbentrop opened proceedings by handing to Chamberlain a memorandum which stated the “German desiderata” with regard to an agreement. It contained a provision under whose terms the Czech troops were required to begin the evacuation of predominantly German areas in the Sudetenland at 8:00 A.M. on September 26 and to complete their withdrawal by September 28.

Chamberlain read this memorandum carefully and remarked in surprise: “But this is nothing less than an ultimatum.” “No, no,” exclaimed Hitler, it is “nothing of the sort.” It is not “a diktat at all: look, the document is headed by the word, ‘Memorandum.’ ” As the Führer went through this little exercise in mockery, Chamberlain’s patience gave way and he broke out into a bitter indictment of the way he had been treated. There had been no real effort to respond to conciliatory proposals.22 Surprised by this outburst from the Prime Minister, Hitler finally agreed to a slight concession. He would postpone the date of the entry of German troops into the Sudetenland until October 1. Then, after making a few other minor alterations in the draft of his memorandum, he presented it to Chamberlain for study and for eventual transmission to the Czech Government.23

Realizing that all this bluster must have badly frayed the nerves of Prime Minister Chamberlain, Hitler attempted to soothe them with a few words of flattery. Turning to the Prime Minister he softly remarked: “You are the only man to whom I have made a concession.” He then gave an assurance that the annexation of the Sudetenland would satisfy his territorial ambitions in Europe. He had no desire to dismember Czechoslovakia; he did not wish to incorporate into the Reich any peoples other than German. With these conciliatory words and wide promises the conference at Godesberg closed and Chamberlain prepared to leave for London. His anxious efforts for peace had gained such minor concessions that the drums of war resumed their long roll.

e. Chamberlain Makes a New Appeal to Hitler

When Chamberlain reached No. 10 Downing Street he found many telegrams of importance awaiting him. Sir Eric Phipps had telegraphed from Paris that “unless German aggression were so brutal, bloody and prolonged (through the gallantry of Czechoslovak resistance) as to infuriate French public opinion to the extent of making it lose its reason, war now would be most unpopular in France. . . . All that is best in France is against war, almost at any price.”24 From Berlin, Sir Nevile Henderson sent a warning that the Germans were now insisting upon actual Czech concessions and would not be satisfied with mere words. Any encouragement “given to the Czechs to hesitate or prevaricate will be disastrous and only immediate surrender of territories which they have agreed ultimately to surrender can save them from complete tragedy.”25 His Majesty’s Government might be able to prevent war by making it “absolutely clear at Prague that they must accept [the] German plan or forfeit claim to further support from Western Powers.”26

After reading this urgent telegram from Sir Nevile Henderson, Chamberlain turned to a note that had just been received from Prague. The Czech Government had carefully considered the German demands and had rejected them. They were “absolutely and unconditionally unacceptable.”27

On this same day there was a meeting at No. 10 Downing Street between carefully selected groups of British and French statesmen. After Prime Minister Chamberlain described his conference with Hitler at Godesberg, Premier Daladier spoke some bold words. The French Council of Ministers had rejected any “idea of suppressing the international commission which had been decided upon in principle by the French and British Ministers.” It had also been “agreed that the French Government could not recognize Herr Hitler’s right to take possession” of Czech territory “by force.” It was apparent that the Führer considered all the territory marked red on the map was “his already without a plebiscite in view of the fact that these areas were over 50 per cent [German].” Therefore, in this area “there was no need for a plebiscite.” But there were other areas where a plebiscite should be held because “it was uncertain whether there was a German or a Czech majority.” If these areas were held by German troops until the plebiscite were held it would mean that the “remaining Czech territory would be cut off from Slovakia” and would be “at Germany’s mercy.” Hitler should be told that he would have to accept the “Anglo-French proposals agreed upon last Sunday.”

When Chamberlain inquired what should be done if Hitler refused to accept these proposals, Daladier boldly answered that in such an event “each of us would have to do his duty.” As Chamberlain listened to these defiant words he remembered the telegrams from Sir Eric Phipps stressing the passionate desire in France for peace at almost any price. Therefore, he suggested that it was time to get down to the “stern realities of the situation.” If Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, would France declare war? Daladier replied that France would undoubtedly “fulfill her obligations” to the Czech State in case of an “unprovoked aggression.” This fulfillment would consist of “offensive operations” against the Siegfried line and bombing raids upon “German factories and military centres.” Chamberlain quickly alluded to the fact that the French air force was quite weak. It might happen that German planes would dominate the situation and subject Paris to a “rain of bombs.” He also referred to many comments in the French press which certainly did not indicate the existence of a strong and “bellicose spirit” in favor of an unyielding attitude towards Germany. In conclusion, he assured Daladier that the British Government would not “exert pressure” upon the Czechs to accept Hitler’s Godesberg demands. Neither would it express an opinion as to the course France should pursue. The French Government would have to make its own decisions.28

On the following day, Chamberlain had a “personal conversation” with Daladier and General Gamelin. The French Chief of Staff breathed a spirit of confidence and gave assurances that if hostilities broke out the democratic nations would “dictate the peace.”29 The Prime Minister was encouraged by this fluent optimism to make some assurances of his own. The British Government had said “publicly several times” that it could not “afford to see France overrun or defeated by Germany, and that we would come to her assistance if France were in danger.” It should be perfectly clear that “His Majesty’s Government had no intention of going back on what they had said.”30

This was an important pledge and Chamberlain made it with some misgivings. Despite the bold words of General Gamelin it was well known that a spirit of defeatism was manifest in many French circles. Moreover, Sir Eric Phipps had definitely warned that “all that was best in France” was opposed to war. The only group in favor of hostilities was a “small and corrupt” clique of Communists who were “paid by Moscow and have been working for war for months.”31

With this admonition from Phipps clearly in mind, Chamberlain decided to write a last letter to Hitler with the hope that it might stave off the conflict that constantly threatened to break out. On September 26 he entrusted to Sir Horace Wilson a letter that was to be delivered to Hitler immediately. In it he called attention to the fact that the Czech Government had already signified its acceptance of the proposal to transfer a large portion of the Sudetenland to the Reich. Would it not be possible for Hitler to agree that representatives of Germany would meet with representatives of Czechoslovakia and settle by agreement “the way in which the territory is to be handed over?” Surely the tragic consequences of a war “ought not to be incurred over a difference in method.”32

f. Roosevelt Supports Chamberlain’s Plea for Peace

While Prime Minister Chamberlain was wrestling with Hitler at Berchtesgaden and Godesberg, President Roosevelt was kept in close touch with events in Europe by telephone messages from Ambassador Kennedy in London and Ambassador Bullitt in Paris. On September 24, Bullitt urged that “some effort” be made by the American Government to “maintain peace.” He suggested that the President direct an appeal to the British, French, German, Italian, and Polish governments to send representatives to The Hague in an effort to find a formula for peace. The United States should also be represented at this conference.33

On the following day, the American Minister at Prague sent a message from Benes to President Roosevelt entreating him to urge Britain and France not to desert Czechoslovakia and thus cause her destruction by Hitler. The President was moved by these urgent requests for aid and he was ready to make some statement in support of the preservation of peace in Europe. After throwing off the restraining hand of Secretary Hull, President Roosevelt directed Sumner Welles and Adolf Berle to draft an appeal to both Hitler and Beneš. He signed them at 12:15 A.M. on September 26 and they were cabled at once to Berlin and Prague.34

In these communications to Beneš and Hitler the President pointed out the terrible destruction that a second world war would entail. The economic system “of every country is certain to be shattered,” and the “social structure” might well be “completely wrecked.” Although America was in a different hemisphere it could not “escape some measure of the consequences of such a world catastrophe.” The President therefore felt that he should call attention to the solemn obligations of the Kellogg-Briand Pact to solve “controversies by pacific methods.” He was persuaded that there was no problem “so difficult or so pressing for solution that it cannot be justly solved by the resort to reason rather than by resort to force.” For this reason, and on behalf of the “130,000,000 of the people of the United States and for the sake of humanity everywhere,” he most earnestly appealed to Beneš and Hitler “not to break off the negotiations looking to a peaceful, fair and constructive settlement of the questions at issue.”35

President Beneš sent a prompt and favorable reply on September 26, but Hitler was too busy to take any notice of the President’s appeal. That evening he was scheduled to make a speech in the Sportspalast in Berlin. President Roosevelt would have to wait a while for an answer.

g. Britain Makes Further Efforts to Preserve Peace

Although Hitler was engaged upon the task of putting finishing touches to the speech he was to give at the Sportspalast on the evening of September 26, he still found time to see Sir Horace Wilson who had been sent to Berlin with Chamberlain’s latest note. Sir Nevile Henderson accompanied Sir Horace. Henderson had received from Viscount Halifax an important instruction: “Since you left, [the] French have definitely stated their intention of supporting Czechoslovakia by offensive measures if latter is attacked. This would bring us in, and it should be made plain to [the] Chancellor that this is an inevitable alternative to a peaceful solution.”36

Armed with this strong warning, Sir Horace Wilson and Sir Nevile Henderson had a conference with Hitler at 5:00 P.M. He was extremely restive and could be persuaded only with difficulty to listen to the letter from the Prime Minister. At one point he shouted: “It is no use talking any more,” and then he moved to the door as if to leave the room. He finally agreed that a meeting between Czech and German representatives could take place “but only on the assumption that the Czechoslovak Government accepted the memorandum including October 1.” In view of his “intense emotion” it was thought best not to advise him of the sharp instruction Henderson had received from Lord Halifax.37

During this heated conversation Hitler several times exclaimed that Germany was being “treated like niggers; one would not dare treat even Turks like that.” Finally he shouted: “On the 1st October I shall have Czechoslovakia where I want her.” If France and England “decide to strike, let them strike. I care not a farthing.” He would not permit “M. Beneš to lead him any further by the nose.” Whether by negotiation or by the exercise of force, the Sudeten territory would be “free on 1st October.” He must have an affirmative reply to his demands “within two days, that was to say by Wednesday.”38

That evening (September 26) Hitler delivered his speech in the Sportspalast. It contained an acidulous attack upon President Beneš and the responsibility for any hostilities that might break out was placed squarely upon his shoulders: “Now let M. Beneš make his choice.” His comments upon Chamberlain were friendly and he reiterated his desire for “good relations with England.” He declared that after the Sudeten question was settled, Germany had “no further territorial claims to make in Europe.” The Reich wanted no Czechs within her borders. But he wished to make it clear that the Sudetenland problem would have to be solved by October 1 or German troops would occupy the disputed territory with “himself as the first soldier of the Reich.”39

Chamberlain read this vitriolic speech with increasing alarm and at once instructed Sir Horace Wilson to assure Hitler that the promises of the Czech Government relative to the Sudetenland were really made to Britain and France. The British Government was prepared to “undertake that they shall be carried out fairly and fully . . . and with reasonable promptitude,” provided that the German Government would agree to “the settlement of terms and conditions of transfer by discussion and not by force.”40

On the afternoon of the twenty-seventh, Sir Horace had his second conversation with the Führer. With regard to the Czechs and the Sudetenland, Hitler said there were two alternatives: the Czech Government had either to accept the terms of the Godesberg memorandum or to reject them. If they rejected the terms he would “smash the Czechs.” This sentence of destruction he repeated several times as though he wished to give proper emphasis to it. At this point Sir Horace conveyed a warning to the Führer: “If, in pursuit of her Treaty obligations, France became actively engaged in hostilities against Germany, the United Kingdom would feel obliged to support her.” This threat angered Hitler who shouted in reply: “If France and England strike, let them do so. It is a matter of complete indifference to me. I am prepared for every eventuality. . . . It is Tuesday today, and by next Monday we shall be at war.”41

After Sir Horace left the Chancellery, Hitler began to have some doubts concerning the abrupt manner in which he had conducted his conference with the British representative. Perhaps he would gain more by adopting a more conciliatory attitude. With this idea in mind he immediately addressed a letter to Chamberlain in which he stated that if he gained his objective with reference to the Sudetenland he was ready to “give a formal guarantee for the remainder of Czechoslovakia.” In view of this fact he left it to the judgment of the Prime Minister whether it would be worth while to continue his much-appreciated efforts to “bring the Government in Prague to reason at the very last hour.”42

Hitler now had time to answer President Roosevelt’s appeal of September 26. His telegram to the President emphasized the importance of the principle of self-determination and adverted to the betrayal of this principle by President Wilson with special reference to the inclusion of the Sudeten Germans in the artificial state of Czechoslovakia. When the President gained a better understanding of the problem of the Sudetenland he would realize that the German Government had not been lacking either “in patience or a sincere desire for a peaceful understanding.”43

h. Roosevelt Exerts Further Pressure upon the Dictators

When President Roosevelt received this telegram from Chancellor Hitler he decided that its dubious tone required a second appeal for world peace. In this second communication to the Führer he stated that the “question before the world today . . . is not the question of errors of judgment or of injustices committed in the past. It is the question of the fate of the world today and tomorrow.” Resort to force in the World War had failed to bring tranquility to the nations that had been engaged in that conflict. Victory and defeat “were alike sterile.” World War II would be as “unnecessary as it was unjustifiable.” Negotiations for a peaceful ending of the present dispute over the Sudetenland were “still open.” They could be continued if the Führer would “give the word.” Acceptance by the Chancellor of a pacific solution of the Sudetenland dispute would gain for him the gratitude of “hundreds of millions throughout the world.”44

On this same day (September 27), the President also sent a strong appeal to Mussolini to lend his assistance to efforts for peace. After stating that a second world war would mean the “destruction of millions of men, women and children in Europe,” he urged the Duce to help “in the continuation of the efforts to arrive at an agreement of the questions at issue by negotiation or by other pacific means rather than by resort to force.”45 Mussolini thus had the eyes of the world trained upon him and he greatly enjoyed this opportunity to stroll across the European stage as the one person who could bring war or peace to countless millions.

i. Chamberlain Prepares the Basis for the Munich Accord

While President Roosevelt was sending his appeals to Hitler and Mussolini in favor of a pacific solution of the Sudetenland problem, Prime Minister Chamberlain was making further efforts along the same line. On the night of September 27, Henderson paid a late visit to the German Foreign Office in order to hand to the State Secretary some new proposals, agreed to by France, which would press the Czech Government to consent to the “immediate transfer of the Sudeten territories on the basis of a time-table guaranteed by His Majesty’s Government.” These proposals were a definite concession to Hitler and they constituted “the main basis of the final settlement at Munich.”46

On the following morning, Henderson received from the Prime Minister a final letter that was to be presented to Chancellor Hitler. It began by conveying to the Führer an assurance that he could gain all his important objectives “without war and without delay.” In order to find some basis for peace it might be expedient to call a conference in Berlin between the representatives of Britain, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, and Italy for the purpose of discussing the Sudeten problem. Prime Minister Chamberlain himself would be willing to visit Berlin at once in order to help arrange the necessary details. The Führer should have no doubt that Britain and France would see that all Czech promises would be “carried out fairly and fully and forthwith.”47 On this same day (September 28), Chamberlain also sent a personal message to Mussolini in which he recounted his appeal to Hitler and then asked the Duce to support his efforts to prevent the outbreak of war.

Before these letters could evoke any response, the French Ambassador called Ernst von Weizsäcker and asked for an audience with Hitler. Ribbentrop, who thought that war would be the best solution of the Czech problem, was opposed to any parleys between the ambassador and the Führer. According to Weizsäcker, this belligerent attitude of Ribbentrop was the cause of a violent scene: “I said that it was a monstrous thing that he should want to start a war when the real differences between the two sides were so small and were concerned only with the method by which the Sudetenland should be incorporated. . . . In this mood we went together from the Kaiserhof to the Chancellory.”48

When the French Ambassador arrived for his audience with the Führer he was clear and cogent in his arguments against any precipitate action with regard to the Sudetenland: “You deceive yourself, Chancellor, if you believe that you can confine the conflict to Czechoslovakia. If you attack that country you will set all Europe ablaze. . . . Why should you take this risk when your essential demands can be met without war?” The Ambassador then produced a map which showed the separate phases of the evacuation. Hitler was impressed with the remarks of François-Poncet and later frankly stated that he had been the only one “who made a sensible proposal.” At this point there was an important interruption. The Italian Ambassador (Attolico) hurried into the room and announced in excited tones: “I have an urgent message to you from the Duce, Fuehrer!” The Duce, in responding to Chamberlain’s plea for pressure upon Berlin, expressed to Hitler the opinion that it “would be wise to accept the British proposal” and voiced the hope that mobilization would not be ordered.49

When Sir Nevile Henderson called at the Chancellery some hours later he was greeted by Hitler with the welcome remark: “At the request of my great friend and ally, Mussolini, I have postponed mobilizing my troops for twenty-four hours.” The atmosphere in Berlin was noticeably less tense than on the previous day and the Führer, “though a little distrait, was not unreasonable.” When Henderson handed him Chamberlain’s suggestion concerning a five-power conference he replied that he would have to consult the Duce before making any decision. He had hardly made this remark before Attolico made another breathless appearance and murmured that Mussolini had signified his approval of a five-power conference to deal with the Sudetenland problem.50

Hitler had already received a note from the French Foreign Office which was even more conciliatory than the one from Chamberlain. In answer to these gestures of appeasement, the Führer invited Mussolini, Prime Minister Chamberlain, and the French Premier (Daladier) to Munich for a conference on the following day (September 29).

j. Capitulation at Munich

The Munich Conference did little more than confirm the program of appeasement that had already been agreed upon by Britain and France. Although Daladier at first showed a combative spirit he was taken in hand by General Göring and soon subsided. Göring was delighted with the Premier’s quick surrender: “M. Daladier is the very kind of man I like—he is so elastic.”51 Thanks to the elastic attitude of both Chamberlain and Daladier, the Munich Agreement was signed in the early morning of September 30 after considerable debate which revealed no sharp differences of opinion. The Sudetenland was ceded to Germany, and in order to simplify matters it was divided into four zones whose occupation by German troops would commence on October 1 and continue until October 7. The evacuation of these zones by the Czechs was guaranteed by Britain, France, and Italy; the details were to be carried out by an international commission in Berlin whose membership would include the State Secretary in the German Foreign Office, the British, French, and Italian ambassadors, and a representative of Czechoslovakia.52 Germany had thus “incorporated the Sudeten Lands in the Reich without bloodshed and without firing a shot.”53

It was apparent that in this whole matter of Munich, President Roosevelt played a very minor part. His appeals to Hitler were without any appreciable influence, and his message to Mussolini was regarded by the Duce with indifference. American relations with Italy since 1935 had grown steadily worse, so there was no reason why Mussolini should pay any attention to an American President who consistently refused to recognize the Italian conquest of Ethiopia. Chamberlain, on the other hand, had gone out of his way to appease the Duce, and the British Ambassador in Rome was justified in his statement that it was the Prime Minister’s plea that moved Mussolini to ask Hitler to muzzle the dogs of war.54 There is a possibility that Chamberlain was influenced to seek a pacific solution of the deepening crisis by the assurance that had been given to him some weeks earlier by Ambassador Kennedy: “Whatever course Chamberlain desires to adopt, he [Roosevelt] would think right.” This amounted to a far-reaching blank check and Chamberlain undoubtedly had it in mind during the Munich crisis. I was able to discover in the State Department archives, however, no evidence of any real pressure upon the Prime Minister in favor of peace at any price.

In Administration circles there were some persons who were greatly pleased with the Munich Agreement. Sumner Welles hailed it as a pact that promised the possibility of a new world order “based upon justice and law.”55 Secretary Hull was more cautious although he did admit that the agreement afforded “a universal sense of relief.”56 In a letter to Mackenzie King, President Roosevelt remarked: “I can assure you that we in the United States rejoice with you, and the world at large, that the outbreak of war was averted.”57 A week later he expressed his thoughts to Ambassador Phillips in Rome: “I want you to know that I am not a bit upset over the final result [Munich Agreement].”58

k. American Opinion of Munich

This Presidential indifference to the implications of the Munich Agreement was not shared by the American press. To the Miami Herald, on the eve of Munich, it seemed that Europe was about to be “plunged into the mass murder of modern war because of the will of one man.”59 The Richmond Times-Dispatch was confident that the “responsibility for war, if it comes, will remain on the shoulders of Nazi Germany, where it belongs,”60 and the New Orleans Times-Picayune voiced a similar opinion: “In the event that the world is thrown again into chaos, the war guilt almost inevitably will be chained to the neck of Adolf Hitler.”61

When the text of the Munich Agreement was made public many papers had words of praise for Chamberlain. The New York Herald-Tribune thought that there could be “only heartfelt applause for the scrupulous integrity and the self-sacrificing devotion with which he [Prime Minister Chamberlain] labored for peace.”62 Other papers were equally laudatory. The Washington Post regarded the agreement as a step down the road to peace. The sacrifices of the Czechs would “seem a small price to pay for peace, particularly if the peace thereby obtained is stabilized.”63 The Washington Evening Star had no doubt that Hitler had “won a considerable victory,” but of “paramount importance is the fact that a bloodless solution has been found for the gravest threat to international tranquility in the last quarter of a century.”64 The Atlanta Constitution thought the Munich accord had many imperfections, but “hope has come where only yesterday was despair, and the peoples of the world can take heart anew.”65

The New York Times had words of praise for Munich: “Let no man say that too high a price has been paid for peace in Europe until he has searched his soul and found himself willing to risk in war the lives of those who are nearest and dearest to him.”66 The Chicago Tribune was also impressed with the importance of preserving the peace of Europe: “No doubt there were neurotics and hotheads in all the countries concerned who were eager for war, but they were outnumbered a thousand to one by those who were willing to make substantial sacrifices for peace.”67 The Los Angeles Times belonged to this large group of papers that had words of praise for the results of the Munich Conference: “There was no doubt that war was narrowly averted at Munich.” Therefore, in comparison “with its immediate alternatives it rates among the first diplomatic achievements of history.”68 The Cleveland Press had a similar viewpoint. The critics who heaped blame upon Chamberlain and Daladier should pause a moment and think of the horrors of war. Then they would “thank God for the truce thus achieved.”69 The Boston Evening Transcript stressed the fact that the “big thing at the moment is that there is still peace in the world. Reason has not abdicated, it is only trampled a bit.”70 This theme was repeated by the Christian Science Monitor: “Reason has played a part in the present agreement. . . . It is a peace made without war—possibly the most notable one in history.”71

These favorable comments in the press were balanced by adverse remarks in many other papers. The Philadelphia Inquirer believed there were “aspects of this so-called settlement . . . which thoughtful persons the world over must view with a profound sense of futility and foreboding.”72 The Norfolk Virginian-Pilot could see nothing to praise in the Munich negotiations. The net result was an “ill-smelling peace.”73 The Emporia Gazette saw the settlement at Munich as only a stopgap. Real peace had not been achieved: “America may breathe deeply now, but she should tighten-up her belt for tomorrow, gird up her loins for the inevitable strife.”74 The Portland Oregonian was openly derisive of a peace with Hitler: “What good is a peace pact with this curser of democracy, torturer of Jews, coercer of minorities, and maestro of brutal prison camps?”75

The Atlanta Constitution was of the opinion that the Munich Agreement conclusively showed that the United States could “no longer trust Great Britain. The policy of the empire is expediency and the people of this country cannot rely upon England’s word under these circumstances.”76 The Constitution, however, had warm words of praise for the policy of President Roosevelt. It was he who had “almost single-handedly tugged the world back from the brink. . . . To his eternal credit, Franklin Roosevelt did not falter in his purpose, now so dramatically brought to a fruitful conclusion.”77 The Hearst press had the same surprising viewpoint: “There can be no doubt that if a peaceful adjustment of the crisis in Europe is achieved, as a result of the Four-Power agreement in Munich, President Roosevelt will have contributed enormously to that end. . . . Mr. Roosevelt’s second message to Chancellor Hitler ranks with the great state papers of all time. . . . Wishful foreign commentators had read into the first message a hint that the United States might follow its sympathies into another European war as it did in 1917. President Roosevelt left no room for that false interpretation in his second message.”78

Not to be outdone in passing out words of praise for individuals who supposedly worked for peace in Europe, the New York Daily News had some friendly words for Adolf Hitler: “Now is the time for haters of Hitler to hold their harsh words. He has made a significant gesture towards peace; one that nobody but himself could have made at this time.”79

l. Diplomatic Straws in the Wind

In Washington the German Ambassador pursued a policy of conciliation in the late summer of 1938. On the day before Munich he had a long talk with Secretary Hull which covered many topics. When the Secretary mentioned certain rumors to the effect that Chancellor Hitler was seeking “general dominion by force,” Ambassador Dieckhoff hastily denied that the Führer had any “world ambitions.” He believed that Germany had a right to “interests in the Balkan and Danubian countries,” and he saw no reason why they should be “bottled up.” Hull pointed out the implications of this German drive to the East by remarking that it was incomprehensible to him why Europe wished “to commit suicide.” Dieckhoff quickly changed the subject and began to discuss German-American relations. He had recently talked with Hitler and had discovered that the Führer was taking a “genuine interest” in the United States. He was beginning to realize that “certain readjustments of existing practices or policies by his Government relating to trade and also the Jewish question would be important, if not vital in the restoration of entirely satisfactory relations between our two countries.”80

From the American Embassy in Berlin information was received to the effect that during the Munich crisis there had existed an intimate understanding between the German and the Polish armies. Lieutenant Colonel Truman Smith, military attaché in Berlin, submitted a report to Ambassador Wilson which left “no doubt of a large measure of military understanding between Poland and Germany. Perhaps the understanding was for this episode only, but it raises the possibility of a co-operation of a greater degree of intimacy than has yet been demonstrated between any two of the three points of the Axis.”

In his report to Ambassador Wilson, Colonel Smith had remarked:

I believe that in the recent crisis [Munich] the Polish and German Governments had definite and far-reaching military agreements. . . . From the start to the end of the crisis, the German Army indicated not the slightest concern for Russian intervention. Unless the Germans felt sure of Poland and that Poland would resist militarily a Russian attack, it is not thinkable that this indifference would have been so apparent in Berlin. . . . It appears scarcely possible that the above-described German and Polish movements could have taken place on a mere loose oral understanding of the two heads of State.81

Ambassador Biddle, in Warsaw, informed the Department of State that he had talked with Polish officials concerning the details in Lieutenant Colonel Smith’s memorandum and they had assured him that Smith’s information was incorrect.82 But in the documents on German foreign policy there is definite evidence that the Polish Foreign Minister, Beck, gave the German Ambassador in Warsaw some “very confidential information about Polish troops concentrations, in which confirmation of practical co-operation must certainly have been mentioned.”83 On this same day (September 27), the German State Secretary of the Foreign Office showed the Polish Ambassador in Berlin a map prepared by the headquarters of the Wehrmacht on which was drawn the demarcation line to be “observed between Polish and German troops if it came to an advance on Czechoslovakia.” The ambassador thought it would “be useful” if he had the opportunity to discuss this matter with the German Foreign Office on the following day. After that, the “military authorities should contact one another.”84 It is apparent that there was some definite co-operation between the General Staffs of the German and Polish armies with reference to a possible conflict with Czechoslovakia. The real extent of this co-operation must remain a matter of conjecture.

There was one fact, however, that was beyond all dispute: Hitler had won a most significant diplomatic victory at Munich. The German plan of expansion contained many items that had not yet been disclosed, so realistic statesmen adopted an attitude of watchful waiting. Even Prime Minister Chamberlain at times abandoned his role of Pollyanna and expressed some misgivings about Hitler. It is certain that he felt a definite personal distrust of the Führer. To Lord Halifax he admitted that Hitler was “uncouth and certainly not the kind of a fellow one would like to go around the world with on a two-wheeled bicycle.”85

It was not long before the Führer made Chamberlain and millions of other Britons hurriedly mount the machines of war and take long rides that would span much of the world. The strain of this unusual exercise meant death for Neville Chamberlain.

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.
81Ibid., pp. 417-19. Agreement of understanding and co-operation.
82Memorandum by the ambassador in France (Straus) of a conversation with the British Ambassador in France (Tyrrell), June 15, 1933. Ibid., pp. 420-21.
83Ambassador Dodd’s Diary, 1933-1938, pp. 9-10. For July 4, 1933, Dodd records a conversation with Colonel House in which the aging colonel remarked: “I sent two nominations to the President, your’s and Nicholas Butler’s, but I felt that you ought to be given precedence.”
84Ibid., p. 5.
85Cordell Hull, Memoirs (New York, 1948), I, 237-38.

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