memorandum on this conversation makes it perfectly clear that the Germans did not

misunderstand Halifax except, possibly, on the last point. There they failed to see that if

Germany made war, the British Government would be forced into the war against

Germany by public opinion in England. The German diplomatic agents in London,

especially the Ambassador, Dirksen, saw this clearly, but the Government in Berlin

listened only to the blind and conceited ignorance of Ribbentrop. As dictators themselves,

unfamiliar with the British social or constitutional systems, the German rulers assumed

that the willingness of the British Government to accept the liquidation of Austria,

Czechoslovakia, and Poland implied that the British Government would never go to war

to prevent this liquidation. They did not see that the British Government might have to

declare war to stay in office if public opinion in Britain were sufficiently aroused. The

British Government saw this difficulty and as a last resort were prepared to declare war

but not to wage war on Germany. This distinction was not clear to the Germans and was

not accepted by the inner core of the Milner Group. It was, however, accepted by the

other elements in the government, like Chamberlain himself, and by much of the second

circle of the Milner Group, including Simon, Hoare, and probably Halifax. It was this

which resulted in the' phony war" from September 1939 to April 1940.

The memorandum on Halifax's interview, quoting the Englishman in the third person,

says in part:(10)

“In spite of these difficulties [British public opinion, the English Church, and the

Labour Party] he and other members of the British Government were fully aware that the

Führer had not only achieved a great deal inside Germany herself, but that, by destroying

Communism in his country, he had barred its road to Western Europe, and that Germany

therefore could rightly be regarded as a bulwark of the West against Bolshevism. . . .

After the ground had been prepared by an Anglo-German understanding, the four Great

West-European Powers must jointly lay the foundation for lasting peace in Europe.

Under no conditions should any of the four Powers remain outside this cooperation, or

else there would be no end to the present unstable situation.... Britons were realists and

were perhaps more than others convinced that the errors of the Versailles dictate must be

rectified. Britain always exercised her influence in this realistic sense in the past. He

pointed to Britain's role with regard to the evacuation of the Rhineland ahead of the fixed

time, the settlement of the reparations problem, and the reoccupation of the Rhineland....

He therefore wanted to know the Fuhrer's attitude toward the League of Nations, as well

as toward disarmament. All other questions could be characterized as relating to changes

in the European order, changes that sooner or later would probably take place. To these

questions belonged Danzig, Austria, and Czechoslovakia. England was only interested

that any alterations should be effected by peaceful evolution, so as to avoid methods

which might cause far-reaching disturbances, which were not desired either by the Fuhrer

or by other countries.... Only one country, Soviet Russia, stood to gain from a general

conflict. All others were at heart in favour of the consolidation of peace.”

That this attitude was not Halifax's personal argument but the point of view of the

government (and of the Milner Croup) is perfectly clear. On arrival, Halifax assured the

Germans that the purposes of his visit had been discussed and accepted by the Foreign

Secretary (Eden) and the Prime Minister. On 26 November 1937, one week after

Halifax's conversation with Hitler, Chamberlain wrote to his sister that he hoped to

satisfy German colonial demands by giving them the Belgian Congo and Angola in place

of Tanganyika. He then added: "I don't see why we shouldn't say to Germany, 'Give us

satisfactory assurances that you won't use force to deal with the Austrians and

Czechoslovakians, and we will give you similar assurances that we won't use force to

prevent the changes you want if you can get them by peaceful means.'" (11)

It might be noted that when John W. Wheeler-Bennett, of Chatham House and the

Milner Group, wrote his book on Munich: Prologue to Tragedy, published in 1948, he

relegated the last quotation to a footnote and suppressed the references to the Belgian

Congo and Angola. This, however, was an essential part of the appeasement program of

the Chamberlain group. On 3 March 1938, the British Ambassador in Berlin, Nevile

Henderson, one of the Chamberlain group, tried to persuade Hitler to begin negotiations

to carry out this plan but did not succeed. He repeated Lord Halifax's statement that

changes in Europe were acceptable to Britain if accomplished without "the free play of

forces," and stated that he personally "had often expressed himself in favour of the

Перейти на страницу:

Поиск

Нет соединения с сервером, попробуйте зайти чуть позже