2. The United States and the Road to War in Europe

2 THE UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE by CHARLES CALLAN TANSILL We shun political commitments which might entangle us in foreign wars; we avoid connection with the political activities of the League oi Nations; . . . We are not isolationists except in so far as we seek to isolate ourselves completely from war. . . . I have seen war. ... I hate war. I have passed unnumbered hours, I shall pass unnumbered hours, thinking and planning how war can be kept from this nation. . . . I wish I could keep war from all nations, but that is beyond my power. I can at Jeast make certain that no act of the United States helps to produce or promote war. —FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT, speech at Chautauqua, New York, August 14, 1936.

Charles Callan Tansill was born in Fredericksburg, Texas, on December 9, 1890. He received his A.B. degree from the Catholic University of America in 1912 and his Ph.D. degree at Johns Hopkins University in 1918. Here he specialized in American diplomatic history under the direction of Professor John H. Latane. This has been his main field of interest, study, teaching, and writing throughout his academic life. He has taught American history and American diplomatic relations at the Catholic University of America, American University, Johns Hopkins University, Fordham University, and Georgetown University, where he now holds the chair of professor of American diplomatic history. He was for a time dean of the Graduate School of American University. Professor Tansill has given special attention to the causes of both World Wars. For ten years he was technical adviser on diplomatic history to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. For them he prepared a monumental work on the causes of the first World War, which was never published. Had it been, it would have ranked with the masterly book of Sidney B. Fay, The Oiigins of the World War. His most important books on diplomatic history have been America Goes to War (1938); The United States and Santo Domingo, iyg8-i8j^ (1938); The Foreign Policy of Thomas F. Bayard, i88^-i8gy (1940); and Main Issues in Canadian-American Relations (1944).

Far and away the most impressive of these is America Goes to War, probably the most exhaustive and substantial single volume contributed by any revisionist on the responsibility for the first World War. The eminent Columbia University historian, Henry Steele Commager, wrote of this book in the Yale Review, June, 1938 (pp. 855-57); "^ *s critical, searching and judicious ... a style that is always vigorous and sometimes brilliant. It is the most valuable contribution to the history of the prewar years in our literature and one of the notable achievements of historical scholarship of this generation." Professor Tansill has recently completed an equally definitive book on our entry into the second World War, Back Door to War; The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941, published early in 1952 by the Henry Regnery Company.

I. THE PEACE TREATIES OF 1919 INSURE THE OUTBREAK OF ANOTHER WORLD WAR 1. THE ALLIES BUILD THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES UPON THE SHIFTING SANDS OF BETRAYAL—THE VIOLATION OF THE PRE-ARMISTICE CONTRACT It was easy for President Roosevelt and Secretary Hull to talk glibly of the sanctity of treaties and contracts, It was an essential part of the international ritual that became quite popular after 1919. But, in Germany, numerous persons could not forget the fact that the Treaty of Versailles was the cornerstone of a structure that had been built upon the dubious sands of betrayal. Lloyd George and Clemenceau had reluctantly agreed to a pre-Armistice contract that bound them to fashion the treaty of peace along the lines of the Fourteen Points. The Treaty of Versailles was a deliberate violation of this contract. In the dark soil of this breach of promise, the seeds of another world war were deeply sown.

It should be kept in mind that Woodrow Wilson acquiesced in this violation of contract. His ardent admirers have contended that he was tricked into the unsavory bargain by astute European statesmen who were masters of the craft sinister. Ben Hecht, in his Erik Dorn, appears to accept this viewpoint and refers to Wilson at Versailles as a "long-face virgin trapped in a bawdy house and calling in valiant tones for a glass of lemonade/'1 In truth, Wilson had ordered his glass of lemonade heavily spiked with the hard liquor of deceit, and the whole world has paid for the extended binge of a socalled statesman who promised peace while weaving a web of war. The story of this betrayal began on October 5, 1918, when Prince Max of Baden addressed a note to President Wilson requesting him to negotiate a peace on the basis of the Fourteen Points. Three days later the President inquired if the German government ac81 82 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE cepted these points as the basis for a treaty. On October 12, Prince Max gave an assurance that his object "in entering into discussions would be only to agree upon practical details of the application"

of the Fourteen Points to the terms of the treaty of peace. Two days later President Wilson added other conditions. No armistice would be signed which did not insure "absolutely satisfactory safeguards for the maintenance of the present military supremacy" of the Allied and Associated armies. Also, a democratic and representative government should be established in Berlin. When the German government accepted these conditions, the President informed Prince Max (October 23) that he was now prepared to discuss with the Associated governments the terms of the proposed armistice. This discussion ended in an agreement on their part to accept the Fourteen Points with two exceptions. With reference to the "freedom of the seas" they reserved to themselves "complete freedom" when they entered the Peace Conference. In connection with the matter of reparations, they understood that compensation would be made "by Germany for all damage done to the civilian population of the Allies, and their property, by the aggression of Germany by land, by sea, and from the air." These terms were conveyed to the German government on November 5 and were promptly accepted by it. On November 11 an armistice placing Germany at the mercy of the Allied Powers was signed in the Forest of Compiegne. With the cessation of hostilities the question of a treaty of peace came to the front.2 The good faith of the Allied governments to make this treaty in conformity with the Fourteen Points had been formally pledged.

But hardly was the ink dry on the Armistice terms when Lloyd George openly conspired to make the pre-Armistice agreement a mere scrap of paper. During the London Conference (December 1-3) the wily Welshman helped to push through a resolution which recommended an Inter-Allied Commission to "examine and report on amount enemy countries are able to pay for reparation and 'indemnity/ " The word "indemnity" could easily be stretched to cover the "costs of the War." Although such a move was "clearly precluded by the very intent of the Pre-Armistice Agreement," Lloyd George showed an "apparent nonchalance about principle UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 83 and contract" and started on a slippery path that "led rapidly downhill into the morasses of the December elections."3 2. REPARATIONS AND RASCALITY In his pre-election promises Lloyd George revealed a complete disregard of the pre-Armistice contract. His assurances to the British electorate were in direct contradiction to his pledge to be guided by the Fourteen Points. At Bristol, on December 11, 1918, he informed his eager audience that "we propose to demand the whole cost of the war [from Germany] ."4 The spirit that animated the election was stridently expressed by Eric Geddes in a speech in the Cambridge Guildhall: "We shall squeeze the orange until the pips squeak."5 At the Paris Peace Conference Lloyd George (January 22, 1919) suggested the appointment of a commission to study "reparation and indemnity." President Wilson succeeded in having the word "indemnity" deleted but it was merely a temporary semantic victory. The French gave ardent support to the position of Lloyd George. Their schemes for the dismemberment of Germany would be promoted by a collapse caused by exorbitant financial claims.

This concerted action against the pre-Armistice agreement was strongly contested by John Foster Dulles, the legal adviser of the American members on the Reparation Commission. He insisted upon a strict adherence to the pre-Armistice promises and was supported by President Wilson, who unequivocally stated that America was "bound in honor to decline to agree to the inclusion of war costs in the reparation demanded. ... It is clearly inconsistent with what we deliberately led the enemy to expect."6 But Lloyd George and Clemenceau quietly outflanked the American position by the simple device of expanding the categories of civilian damage so that they could include huge sums that properly belonged in the categories of "war costs." Lloyd George insisted that pensions and separation allowances should be included in the schedule of reparations, and Clemenceau hastened to his support. It was evident to both of them that these items were excluded by the express terms of the pre-Armistice agreement. If 84 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE President Wilson had adhered to the assurances he had given his financial experts he would immediately have rejected this transparent scheme to violate the pledges of the Allied Powers. But when these same experts indicated the evident implications of the Lloyd George proposals and stated that they were ruled out by logic, Wilson profoundly surprised them by bursting out in petulant tones: "Logic! Logic! I don't give a damn for logic. I am going to include pensions/'7 Not content with adding an undeserved burden that helped to break German financial backs, Wilson followed the lead of Lloyd George along other roads of supreme folly. At the meeting of the Council of Four (April 5), the British Prime Minister suggested that in the treaty of peace the Allies should "assert their claim"

and that Germany should recognize "her obligation for all the cost of the war." When Colonel House remarked that such an assertion would be contrary to the pre-Armistice agreement, Clemenceau reassuringly murmured that it was largely "a question of drafting."8 This experiment in drafting turned out to be the bitterly disputed Article 231 which placed upon Germany the responsibility "for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany." This socalled "war guilt clause" aroused a deep and widespread hatred in all classes in Germany against a decision that was regarded as fundamentally unfair. And then, to add insult to injury, Article 232 repeated the language of the pre-Armistice agreement with its fake formula which limited reparations to civilian damages. The ease with which this language had been twisted to Allied benefit had clearly indicated that it would be no protection to Germany.

These two American surrenders were followed by a third which meant a complete abandonment of the position that no "punitive treaty" should be imposed upon Germany. The American experts had placed much reliance upon the creation of a reparation commission which would have farreaching powers to estimate what Germany could afford to pay on Allied claims and to modify the UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 85 manner and date of these payments. But Clemenceau wanted this commission to be nothing more than a glorified adding machine designed merely to register the sums that Germany should pay. It was to have no right to make independent judgments. The American contention that the payment of reparations should not extend more than thirty-five years was vetoed by the French who thought that fifty years might be required.9 During the heated discussions in the Council of Four (April 5, 1919), Colonel House was so obtuse that he did not realize the French were storming the American position until one of the French experts informed him of that fact. Norman Davis shouted to him that the French banners bore the legend, "Allied claims and not German capacity to pay should be the basis for reparations."

Although this declaration was in direct violation of the principles which the American experts had been fighting for during three long months, the confused Colonel tore down the American flag and hoisted the dubious French tricolor. By this action he flouted "both the letter and the spirit of the Pre-Armistice Agreement/'10 When President Wilson confirmed this surrender that had been executed by Colonel House, he indirectly extended a much-needed helping hand to Adolf Hitler who warmly welcomed impressive illustrations of Allied perfidy as one of the best means to promote the Nazi movement. The financial experts at Versailles failed to fix any particular sum as the measure of German liability for having caused the World War. In 1921 the Reparation Commission remedied this omission by computing the amount to be approximately $33,000, 000,000. One third of this sum represented damages to Allied property, "and one half to two thirds, pensions and similar allowances. In short, Wilson's decision doubled and perhaps tripled the bill."11 Germany might have been able to pay a bill of not more than ten billion dollars, but when Wilson consented to play the part of Shylock and helped to perfect a plan that would exact a pound of flesh from the emaciated frame of a war-wasted nation, he pointed the way to financial chaos that inevitably overwhelmed Germany and Europe. He also helped, indirectly, to write several chapters in Mein Kampf.

86 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE 3. THE COLONIAL QUESTION The colonial question was dealt with in the fifth of the Fourteen Points. It provided for a "free, open-minded and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims." At the Paris Peace Conference there was no attempt to arrive at this ''absolutely impartial adjustment." Long before the conference convened there had developed in the minds of prominent publicists in Britain, France, and the United States the opinion that Germany had forfeited all rights to her colonial dominion that had been conquered by Allied forces during the war. The usual argument in favor of this forfeiture was that German colonial administrators had cruelly mistreated the natives. Professor Thorstein Veblen wrote on this topic with his accustomed pontifical certitude: "In the Imperial colonial policy colonies are conceived to stand to their Imperial guardian or master in a relation between that of stepchild and that of an indentured servant; to be dealt with summarily and at discretion and to be made use of without scruple."12 In Britain, Edwyn Bevan argued that the return of her colonies would not "be to content Germany but to keep up her appetite for colonial expansion; it would be to restore a condition of things essentially unstable."13 In 1917 the American Commission of Inquiry, under the direction of Dr. Sidney E. Mezes, asked Dr. George L. Beer to prepare a series of studies on the colonial question with special reference to German colonial policy. Beer had long been regarded as an outstanding expert on the commercial policy of England during the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. In an imposing series of volumes he had "presented the 'English point of view'"

with regard to colonial administration.14 After the outbreak of the first World War, his sympathies were very decidedly with the Allies, and particularly with the British Empire.15 It was only natural that Dr. Beer, despite his alleged historical objectivity, would strongly condemn German colonial policy. In February, 1918, he turned over to Dr. Mezes his manuscript on the German colonies in Africa. After weighing a considerable amount of data he came to the conclusion that Germany had totally failed UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 87 to "appreciate the duties of colonial trusteeship."16 Therefore, she should lose her colonial dominions. Dr. Beer accompanied the American delegation to the Paris Peace Conference as a colonial expert and it is evident that he influenced the opinions of President Wilson, who stated on July 10, 1919, that the German colonies had not "been governed; they had been exploited merely, without thought of the interest or even the ordinary human rights of their inhabitants/'17 This accusation of the President was quite groundless. A careful American scholar who made a trip to the Cameroons in order to get an accurate picture of the prewar situation summarizes his viewpoint as follows: . . . My own conclusion is that Germany's colonial accomplishments in thirty short years constitute a record of unusual achievement and entitle her to a very high rank as a successful colonial power, a view quite different from that reached in 1919. . . . I feel that if Germany had been allowed to continue as a colonial power after the war, her civil rule would have compared favorably with the very best that the world knows today.18 The Germans were deeply incensed because the Allied governments refused to count the colonies as an important credit item in the reparation account. Some Germans had estimated the value of the colonies at nine billion dollars. If this estimate had been cut in half, there would still have been a large sum that could have been used to reduce the tremendous financial burden imposed upon weary German backs. Such action would have "spared Germany the additional humiliation of losing all her overseas possessions under the hypocritical guise of humanitarian motives."19 These needless humiliations prepared the way for the tragedy of 1939. It is evident that the revelations in the Nuremberg documents concerning Hitler's plans for expansion are merely the last chapter in a long and depressing book that began at Versailles.

PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE 4. THE PROBLEM OF POLAND In the discussion of questions relating to Poland, President Wilson had the advice of Professor Robert H. Lord, whose monograph on the Second Partition of Poland was supposed to make him an authority on the problems of 1919. His lack of objectivity was as striking as that of Professor Beer. It was largely a case of hysterical rather than historical scholarship.20 While the President was formulating his Fourteen Points, some of the experts on the American Commission of Inquiry suggested that an independent Polish state be erected with boundaries based "on a fair balance of national and economic considerations, giving due weight to the necessity for adequate access to the sea."21 In the thirteenth of the Fourteen Points President Wilson changed the phraseology of this suggestion so that more stress would be laid upon ethnographic factors: "An independent Polish State should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea. . . ."

5. DANZIG If Poland were to be given access to the Baltic Sea, the port of Danzig would be of fundamental importance. In order to guide the President in this difficult matter of Polish boundaries, the American experts prepared two reports (January, February, 1919) ,22 In dealing with Danzig, they granted it to Poland because of economic considerations. They conveniently overlooked the fact that, from the viewpoint of population, Danzig was 97 per cent German. On February 23, 1919, while Wilson was in the United States, Colonel House cabled to him concerning the disposition of Danzig: "Our experts also believe this [the cession of Danzig to Poland] to be the best solution."23 But the President was unwilling to confirm this suggestion, so the question of Danzig was postponed until March 17, when Lloyd George carried on a brisk exchange of opinions with Colonel House and Clemenceau. Two UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 89 days later the British Prime Minister flatly refused to accept the proposal to cede both Danzig and the German Kreis of Marienwerder to Poland. He was not greatly impressed with the fact that the members of the Polish Commission and a large array of experts were in favor of this decision.24 Despite pressure from Colonel House and Dr. Mezes (brotherin-law of Colonel House), President Wilson (March 28) rushed to the support of Lloyd George. On April 5, he and Lloyd George reached an understanding that the city and area of Danzig should become a free city with local autonomy under a commissioner of the League of Nations but connected with Poland by a customs union and port facilities. The foreign relations of the free city were to be under Polish control.25 To the Germans this large measure of Polish control over the city of Danzig was profoundly irritating, and at times the actions of the Polish authorities in connection with foreign relations and the establishment of export duties seemed unnecessarily provocative. From the viewpoint of economics, Polish control over Danzig had the most serious implications. By altering the customs tariff Poland could seriously affect the trade of the port, and, through control of the railroads of the free city, the Polish government could extend important favors to the competing port of Gdingen.26 This situation led Gustav Stresemann, one of the most moderate of German statesmen, to remark in September, 1925, that the * 'third great task of Germany is the . . . recovery of Danzig."27 In 1931 the quiet, unaggressive Centrist leader, Heinrich Bruening, sounded out certain European governments in order to ascertain whether they would favor territorial revision at the expense of Poland.28 But this pressure to recover lost territory suddenly ended in Germany on January 26, 1934, when Marshal Pilsudski concluded with Hitler the wellknown nonaggression treaty.29 The price Poland paid for this agreement was an immediate acquiescence in a German program aimed at the nazification of Danzig.30 When Polish statesmen, after Pilsudski's death, tried to reverse this movement by courting British and French favor, they opened the floodgates that permitted the Nazi-Soviet tide quickly to inundate all of Poland.

9° PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE 6. THE POLISH CORRIDOR A Polish Corridor through German territory to the Baltic Sea was distinctly forecast in the thirteenth point of the Wilson program which expressly declared that Poland should be granted "free and secure access to the sea." This wide "right of way" was to go through territory inhabited by "indisputably Polish populations." The American experts in their reports of January-February, 1919, outlined, however, a broad Polish path to the sea through the German provinces of Posen and West Prussia. They admitted the hardships this action would entail upon some 1,600,000 Germans in East Prussia, but they regarded the benefits conferred upon many millions of Poles as of more significance.81 When the reports of these experts were accepted by the Polish Commission and were written into the text of the Treaty of Versailles, it meant that the valley of the Vistula had been placed under Polish control. In order to shut the Germans of East Prussia away from any contact with the Vistula, "a zone fifty yards in width along the east bank was given to Poland, so that along their ancient waterway the East Prussians have no riparian rights.

Though the river flows within a stone's throw of their doors, they may not use it."82 The Corridor itself was a wedge of territory which ran inland from the Baltic Sea for 45 miles, with a width of 20 miles at the coast, 60 miles in the center, and 140 miles in the south. Transportation across it was made difficult by Polish authorities who "instead of maintaining and developing the existing excellent system of communications by rail and road, river and canal, ... at once scrapped a large part of it in the determination to divert the natural and historical direction of traffic." With reference to conditions in the Corridor in 1933, Professor Dawson wrote as follows: "It is true that a few transit trains cross the Corridor daily, but as they may neither put down nor pick up traffic on the way, this piece of now Polish territory, so far as provision for communication and transport goes, might be unpopulated."38 Traffic along the highways crossing the Corridor was also very unsatisfactory. In UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 91 1931 Colonel Powell discovered that only the main east-and-west highways were open for vehicular traffic and this was "hampered by every device that the ingenuity of the Poles can suggest. Here I speak from personal experience, for I have driven my car across the Corridor four times/'34 In 1938 and 1939 Hitler tried in vain to secure from the Polish government the right to construct a railroad and motor road across the Corridor. Relying upon British support, the Polish Foreign Office, in the spring of 1939, rejected any thought of granting these concessions. This action so deeply angered Hitler that he began to sound out the Soviet government with reference to a treaty that would mean the fourth partition of Poland. Polish diplomats had not learned the simple lesson that concessions may prevent a catastrophe.

7. UPPER SILESIA During the sessions of the Paris Peace Conference the decision with reference to Upper Silesia was one of the clearest indications that hysteria and not objective history guided the conclusions of some of the American experts. This was particularly the case with regard to Professor Robert H. Lord. He was strongly of the opinion that Upper Silesia should go to Poland without a plebiscite being held to ascertain the desires of the inhabitants. When the treaty was turned over to the German delegation the Upper Silesian article was subjected to a great deal of cogent criticism. Lloyd George was convinced by the German arguments but President Wilson still gave some heed to Professor Lord, who complained that Germany had been sovereign over Upper Silesia for only two centuries. Even though Mr. Lamont countered with the remark that this territory had not "belonged to Poland for 400 years," the President retained a lingering faith in the vehement protestations of Professor Lord. But this faith received a further shock when the learned professor opposed the holding of a plebiscite in Upper Silesia. Lloyd George then pertinently inquired why plebiscites were to be held "in Allenstein, Schleswig, Klagenfurt but not in Silesia."35 There was no real answer Professor Lord could give to 92 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE sustain his position so a provision was inserted in the treaty with reference to a plebiscite in Upper Silesia.

But this plebiscite was held in an atmosphere of terrorism. The International Commission that took over the administration of the voting area consisted of three members: General Le Rond (France), Colonel Sir Harold Percival (Britain), and General De Marinis (Italy). France immediately sent 8,000 troops to dominate Upper Silesia and then procured the appointment of General Le Rond as the head of the civil administration. Although the Allied governments had assured the German delegation at Paris (June 16, 1919) that the International Commission would insist upon the "full impartiality of the vote," they broke faith in this regard as well as in others. Every possible concession was given to the Poles in the plebiscite area but when the vote was taken on March 20, 1921, the results were a great shock to the French and Poles: 707,554, or 59.6 per cent, voted to remain under German control, while 478,802, or 40.4 per cent, elected to be placed under Polish administration.36 When one considers the indefensible tactics of the French before the plebiscite was held it is surprising that the vote was so pro-German. One of the best accounts of the situation in Upper Silesia in 1919-20 is given in the monograph by Professor Rene Martel, The Eastern Frontiers oi Germany: ... On April 4, 1919, the Polish Supreme National Council of Upper Silesia got into touch with Korfanty. Adalbert Korfanty, a former journalist and a popular leader, was the man of action for whom Dmowski was looking to prepare and organize the rising. . . . On May 1, 1919, the Polish secret societies . . . demonstrated their patriotic sentiments by pursuing the Germans. The Terror had begun. . . . The secret organization which he [Korfanty] had built up ...

continued to exist until the plebiscite. . . . The Germans were tortured, mutilated, put to death and the corpses defiled; villages and chateaux were pillaged, burnt or blown up. The German Government has published on the subject a series of White Papers, illustrated by photographs. . . . The UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 93 scenes which have thus been perpetuated pictorially surpass in horror the worst imaginable atrocities.37 When these bloody Polish outbreaks were finally suppressed, the League of Nations entrusted the task of partitioning Upper Silesia to a commission composed of representatives of Belgium, Brazil, China, Japan, and Spain. The unneutral composition of this commission is worth noting and their decision reflected their prejudices. Under its terms Poland received nearly five-sixths of the industrial area in dispute. She also was granted "80 per cent of the coal-bearing area . . . besides all the iron ore mines; nearly all the zinc and lead ore mines and a large majority of the works dependent on the primary industries/'38 In commenting upon the farce of this plebiscite, Sir Robert Donald remarks: . . . Harder to bear than the material loss were the exasperating and cruel moral wrongs and injustices inflicted upon the German community. It is possible that had the Allies transferred Upper Silesia to Poland, basing their action upon no other law than brute force, Germany would have resigned herself to the inevitable. . . . But to inflict upon her the tragic farce of the plebiscite, with all its accompaniments of deceit, broken pledges, massacres, cruel outrages, carried out in an atmosphere of political putrescence, was to add insult to injury, moral torture to robbery under arms.39 Despite Wilson's reassuring words about a peace that should not be punitive, Germany had been stripped and severely whipped.

After these impressive examples of Allied ill-faith it was not difficult for Nazi statesmen to plan for expansion without much thought about the usual principles of international law. Law is based upon logic and at Versailles Woodrow Wilson had frankly condemned the science of right reasoning: "Logic! Logic! I don't give a damn for logic." Hitler could not have made a more damning pronouncement.

94 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE 8. OCCUPATION OF THE RHINELAND President Wilson was not always on the wrong side of the diplomatic fence at Paris. In the matter of the Rhineland occupation he adopted a vigorous role which completely blocked the execution of an ambitious French program. One of the main French objectives in 1919 was the separation of the entire left bank of the Rhine from Germany and the establishment of autonomous republics friendly to France. Wilson refused to accept this program even though it was ardently advocated by Colonel House.40 With the support of Lloyd George he was able to write into the Treaty of Versailles a moderate provision: "German territory situated to the west of the Rhine, together with the bridgeheads, will be occupied by Allied and Associated troops for a period of fifteen years from the coming into force of the present treaty."41 The last contingent of the American Army of Occupation left the Rhineland in February, 1923; some of the Allied troops remained until 1930. The mere fact that German soil was occupied for a decade aroused resentment in most German minds. This resentment was turned into a feeling of outrage when France quartered a considerable number of her Negro colonial troops in private residences in parts of the Rhine territory. Their insulting and at times brutal conduct toward the German women was regarded as an indication that France would go to extreme lengths to humiliate Germany. In December, 1921, General Henry T. Allen sent to Secretary Hughes a complaint that had been filed with the High Commission by a delegation of German workingmen: "We fear to leave our homes and go to work leaving our wives and daughters in our houses with these men. This question troubles us more than houses and more food."42 Felix Morley, during a vacation in France in 1920, was sharply critical of French behavior: "If England and America would leave France to herself, there wouldn't be a Frenchman on German soil after a week."43 Three years later, the American consul at Cologne wrote to Secretary Hughes a sharp indictment of French practices in the Rhineland. He reported that once UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 95 in a while German officials were handcuffed and the German police "beaten and kicked." At Aachen civilians and officials were "horsewhipped."44 Memories of these insults lingered in German minds and helped to produce a climate of opinion that seemingly justified many of the items in Hitler's program of expansion and revenge.

9. THE STARVATION BLOCKADE The Armistice of November 11, 1918, did not put an end to the Allied blockade of Germany. For many months after the war was over the Allied governments did not permit food shipments to the millions of hungry persons in Germany. This callous attitude on the part of the Allied delegations in Paris shocked the Labor party in England which sponsored the humane "save the children" movement. Funds were raised to buy food "when owing to the blockade, starvation stalked gaunt and livid through the streets of thousands of German towns."45 In Paris, President Wilson appealed "again and again for a free exportation of foodstuffs to the half-starving populations of Central Europe, but always the French Government thwarted him. This French policy filled [Henry] White, who had small grandchildren in Germany and heard much from his daughter of the desperate plight of the people, with futile indignation."46 The impact of the blockade upon the German people was described by George E. R. Gedye, who was sent in February, 1919, upon an inspection tour of Germany: . . . Hospital conditions were appalling. A steady average of 10 per cent of the patients had died during the war years from lack of fats, milk and good flour. Camphor, glycerine and cod-liver oil were unprocurable. This resulted in high infant mortality. . . . We saw some terrible sights in the children's hospital, such as the "starvation babies" with ugly, swollen heads. . . . Such were the conditions in Unoccupied Territory. Our report naturally urged the immediate opening of the frontiers for fats, milk and flour . . . but the terrible blockade was maintained as a result of French insistence ...

96 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE until the Treaty of Versailles was signed in June, 1919. . . . No severity of punishment could restrain the AngloAmerican divisions on the Rhine from sharing their rations with their starving German fellow-creatures.47 Finally, under the terms of the Brussels Agreement (March 14, 1919), provision was made for the shipment of food to Germany, but before these supplies were made available tens of thousands of Germans had gone through the tortures of slow starvation. It is estimated that about 800,000 perished as a result of the blockade. At Versailles the beads in a long rosary of hatred and despair had been forged for the Germans by the Big Four. After 1919 they were counted over numberless times by large groups of unfortunate persons whose health had been wrecked by malnutrition. They neither forgot nor forgave. 10. GERMAN REACTION TO THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES On May 7, 1919, the German delegation in Paris was formally presented with the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. When Johann Giesberts read through the long bill of indictment he burst out with vehemence: "This shameful treaty has broken me, for I believed in Wilson until today. I believed him to be an honest man, and now that scoundrel sends us such a treaty."48 On May 12, at a great mass meeting in Berlin, Konstantin Fehrenbach, one of the leaders of the Centrist party, alluded to the attitude that future generations in Germany would adopt relative to the treaty and ended his speech with words of warning that later were implemented by Hitler: 'The will to break the chains of slavery will be implanted from childhood on."49 These chains were confirmed by the KelloggBriand Peace Pact which bestowed a formal blessing upon the injustices of Versailles.

They could be broken only by force. When Hitler began to snap them, one by one, the noise was heard around the world and the American public was solemnly informed by Secretaries Stimson and Hull that a wild German bull was breaking the choicest dishes in the china shop of world peace. At Nuremberg men were hanged UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 97 because they had planned to break these vessels filled with national hatreds. Nothing was said of the pseudo statesmen who prepared at Paris the witches' brew that poisoned German minds. The Nazi movement had its roots deep in the fertile soil of Versailles, and its rank growth was watered by the tears of millions of disillusioned Germans. II. AMERICAN RELATIONS WITH GERMANY, 19191936 1. THE AFTERMATH OF THE WORLD WAR The American attitude toward the Weimar Republic in the years immediately after the war was one of watchful waiting. In the Department of State there was a definite fear that sparks of Bolshevism from Russia might find an easy lodgment in the broken structure of Germany and thus start a fire that would burn away all the landmarks of the old German way of life. This fear was increased by the remarks of certain Germans who had held important diplomatic posts under the Kaiser. In October, 1919, Count von Bernstorff stressed the importance of establishing close connections between Germany and Russia: "Russia is the country which we can most conveniently exploit. Russia needs capital and intelligence which our industry can provide. Above all, now that Bolshevism is beginning in Germany, we are becoming 'cousin-germains' of the Russians. We must come to terms with the Bolsheviks."50 The mounting unrest in Germany had many unpleasant expressions. In November, 1919, there was a large demonstration in Heidelberg in which anti-Semitism and a spirit of excessive nationalism were clearly in evidence.51 By April, 1921, anti-Semitism reached a peak in certain German cities although it was strongly opposed by Catholic prelates like the Cardinal of Munich.52 After 98 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE 1933, Hitler merely played upon prejudices that had long existed in Germany.

Fervid expressions of nationalism were in part caused by the loud talk of certain Allied statesmen with reference to holding trials for many prominent German leaders as war criminals. This talk led the ex-Kaiser, Wilhelm II, to write to President Wilson and offer to serve as a victim in place of other Germans: "If the Allied and Associated Governments want a victim let them take me instead of the nine hundred Germans who have commited no offence other than that of serving their country in the war."53 There was no real need for the ex-Kaiser to make this offer. The American government was strongly opposed to any war-criminal trials. On February 6, 1920, Secretary Lansing sent a significant instruction to the American Embassy in Paris: "This Government has not yet ratified the Treaty; it is not joining in the demand of the Allies, and it is in no way backing the insistence of the Allies in the immediate carrying out of the demand [for the delivery of German war criminals] ,"54 The Allies soon abandoned the project of trying Germans as war criminals. Apparently, however, they strongly resented the attitude of Secretary Lansing in this matter because they soon showed a non-co-operative spirit with regard to the payment of the costs of the American Army of Occupation. The Wilson administration had expected the payments to be made promptly out of German reparations, but this action was blocked for several years. In 1923 the British representative on the Reparation Commission expressed a doubt whether the United States, having rejected the Treaty of Versailles, could assert any just claim to be paid for the Rhineland occupation.55 Similar statements deeply angered George B. Lockwood, secretary of the Republican National Committee, who wrote to Secretary Hughes to express his indignation at the situation. He was sure that the "haggling and pettifogging, duplicity and downright dishonesty that has characterized the attitude of Great Britain and the other Allied Powers in their treatment of America's claims" indicated a strong desire to "bilk"

the United States out of any payments for occupation costs.56 UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 99 On May 25, 1923, the governments of Belgium, Britain, France, and Italy signed an agreement with the United States providing for the reimbursement of these payments (out of German reparations) over a period of twelve years.57 Although the Allies had finally consented to this reimbursement according to a long-range plan, Secretary Hughes noted that in their own case they had insisted that the payments for occupation be "met in full as they fell due/' It seemed to him that "they should have distributed the money received for these arms costs equitably; instead, they kept these moneys and left us out."58 In the matter of reparations there was further friction. Under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles provision was made for the appointment of a Reparation Commission which would determine the amount owed by Germany and prepare a schedule for "discharging the entire obligation within a period of thirty years from May 1, 1921." Up to that date the German government was to pay the equivalent of five billion dollars. Early in 1921 Germany claimed that she had completed this payment in the form of gold, securities, coal, and other commodities, but the Reparation Commission declared that less than half of the required sum had really been paid. The German government then appealed to the United States to "mediate the reparations question and to fix the sum to be paid ... to the Allied Powers."59 Secretary Hughes refused to be drawn into this dispute, but he did admonish the Weimar Republic to make "directly to the Allied Governments clear, definite, and adequate proposals which would in all respects meet its just obligations."60 On April 28, 1921, the Reparation Commission announced that the total German indemnity had been fixed at 132,000,000,000 gold marks or approximately $33,000,000,000. The schedule of payments was forwarded to Germany on May 5 and was promptly accepted.61 Although the first installment of $250,000,000 was paid on August 31, the decline in the value of the mark indicated fundamental financial difficulties in Germany. During 1922 the German government asked for a moratorium extending two and one-half years.

Britain was inclined to favor this request; France was bitterly op100 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE posed to it. Under French pressure the Reparation Commission finally declared that Germany was in default and Poincare insisted upon reprisals. The American government was deeply interested in this German problem. Peace between Germany and the United States had been effected under the terms of a joint resolution signed by President Harding on July 2, 1921.62 This action had been followed by a treaty (August 25, 1921) which went into effect on November 11 of that year.63 Under the terms of these instruments all the rights, privileges, indemnities, and reparations to which the United States was entitled under the Armistice and the Treaty of Versailles were "expressly reserved." Separate peace with Germany would not mean the loss of any of America's hard-won rights. These rights would have no value in a Germany whose economic structure was destroyed. Therefore American representatives abroad looked with strong disapproval upon Poincare's determination to press for prompt payment of impossible reparations. In Rome Ambassador Child talked the situation over with Barthou, the mouthpiece of Poincare. He reported to Secretary Hughes that this conversation revealed that Barthou had "an anti-German prejudice so strong as to vitiate sound judgment." He thought it might be necessary for the "world to weigh the necessity of acting independently of the French Government in joint appeals to public opinion."64 In the following month Ambassador Herrick, who was usually quite Francophile, wrote to Secretary Hughes and deprecated the attitude of Poincare with reference to pressure upon Germany: "There is now definitely no hope of making any impression on Poincare personally. He has learned nothing and forgotten nothing, not from lack of intelligence but rather from definite purpose. . . . He has staked his political life and reputation on his aggressive policy. If you want to do anything effective to stop this, you must in my judgment make some public utterance with the idea of helping reasonable French opinion."65 But Hughes replied that an appeal to the French people over the head of their government was a dangerous proceeding: "Previous efforts of this sort have caused more trouble than they cured."66 UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 101 In January, 1923, French troops moved into the Ruhr as far east as Dortmund. The British government regarded this action as illegal and refused to support it. Occupation of the Ruhr would paralyze German industry and seriously affect reparations and British trade with Germany. In order to counter this French policy of pressure, German workers in the Ruhr laid down their tools.

Mines and factories shut down and telephone, telegraph, and railway services were discontinued. All reparation payments to Allied governments ceased. The American commercial attache in Berlin looked at this French invasion of the Ruhr as an attempt permanently to "emasculate Germany as a Great Power."67 The American ambassador reported in a similar vein: 'The people have been treated as a subject and alien race; their trade has been harassed and largely destroyed; ineffectual troops have been quartered here and there in their villages. Apparently everything that would arouse hostility, and nothing that would conciliate, has been done. As a result, the Rhineland population today is savagely anti-French."68 To Herbert Hoover the repressive policy of the French had a world impact. French interference with the coal trade of the Ruhr would upset "the entire coal market of the world and would make life more difficult everywhere/'69 The most graphic description of French terrorism in the Ruhr is given in George E. R. Gedye's The Revolver Republic: In Essen I saw a boy, one morning, sobbing bitterly after being thrashed by a French officer for failing to yield the pavement to him, and in Recklinghausen the French pursued with their riding-whips into the theatre some men who had taken refuge there, stopped the performance of "King Lear/' and drove out the whole audience. . . . On the night of 11th March the bodies of a French chasseur subaltern and a Regie station master were found near Buer. . . . The next morning a seven o'clock curfew was proclaimed in Buer.

. . . The order to be indoors by seven had been issued on a Sunday after many people had gone off on excursions for the day. On their return, all-unwitting, they were beaten with 102 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE riding-whips, struck with rifle butts, chased through the streets by French soldiers, and shot at. A workman named Fabeck was shot dead as he stood with his young wife waiting for a tram.70 These repressive tactics of France finally bore fruit in the agreement of September 26, 1923, when Germany promised to abandon the policy of passive resistance. But the price of victory had been very high. The British government had not looked with favor upon the occupation of the Ruhr with the consequent collapse of Germany's economic structure, and opinion in neutral countries was sharply critical. In France the fall in the value of the franc caused milder counsels to prevail. The way was thus prepared for discussions which led to the adoption of the Dawes Plan. The Inter-Allied Agreement providing for this plan was signed in London on August 30, 1924, and the evacuation of French troops from the Ruhr began immediately.71 But the Dawes Plan had some evident flaws. It was silent with reference to the total reparations bill. Therefore, in a technical sense, the old total bill of $33,000,000,000, fixed by the Reparation Commission, was still in force. It should have been apparent to the socalled financial experts that Germany could not continue making huge annual reparations payments for an indefinite period.

They should also have realized that no Great Power would be content to remain in the financial and political chains that were riveted upon Germany under the terms of the plan. In this regard the Commercial and Financial Chronicle made some highly pertinent remarks: Nothing like the proposed procedure is to be found in history. Germany is to be taken over and administered in the same way as a corporation no longer able to meet its obligations is taken over by the law and transferred to the hands of the bankruptcy commissioners. ... In reality a foreign control of internal affairs has been imposed such as never before existed either in our times or in the past. . . . Never before UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 10 3 has it been proposed to take such complete possession of the wealth of a nation.72 Payments under the Dawes Plan increased each year until they reached (in the fifth year) 2,500,000,000 marks. The German government was able to make them only because of the large volume of foreign loans. But it should have been obvious that such a system could not continue. When this fact became evident in 1929, a new group of financial experts met in Paris with Owen D.

Young as chairman. On June 7, 1929, this committee handed to the Reparation Commission, and to the governments concerned, a financial agreement that was conveniently called the Young Plan. Under its terms the total indemnity bill was reduced to $8,032500,000 and was capitalized at ^Vi per cent. The period for its payments was limited to fifty-eight and one half years. The Reparation Commission was abolished in favor of a Bank for International Settlements which would enjoy broad powers. As a concession to Germany, the extensive financial and political controls outlined under the Dawes Plan were abandoned.73 The Young Plan went into effect in 1930 but it was a panacea that failed to cure the ills of a world that was on the brink of a breakdown. Some ascribed this desperate situation to an inadequate gold supply; others thought in terms of a surplus of silver. Technology was blamed because it had enabled man to multiply the output of industrial and agricultural products to the point where the world market was flooded with cheap commodities. Aristide Briand pointed to an economic federation of Europe as the best means of surmounting the difficulties that threatened to engulf the Continent, but the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr. Johann Schober, expressed the opinion that it would be expedient not to push things too fast. Perhaps the best step along the road to eventual European federation would be an Austro-German customs union!

In March, 1931, this proposed union was formally announced by the governments of Austria and Germany with a cogent explanation of its objectives. Although Britain was favorable to this arrangement, France affected to see political motives back of this IO4 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE union and strongly opposed it. Her refusal to grant a much-needed loan to the principal bank in Austria (the Kredit Anstalt) helped to undermine confidence in the stability of that institution. This, in turn, had its effect upon the German economic structure that was already tottering under the weight of a large unfavorable trade balance.74 Realizing that Austria and Germany were going through a period of frenzied finance, President Hoover (June 20) proposed a oneyear world moratorium, from July 1, with reference to "all payments on inter-governmental debts, reparations and relief debts, both principal and interest . . . not including obligations of governments held by private parties/' He made it clear, however, that this action would not mean "the cancellation of the debts" due to the United States.75 When France delayed acceptance of this proposal the situation in Europe grew rapidly worse. During the seventeen days "that France held up the Hoover Plan, a run on the German banks and the calling in of shortterm credits drained the country of some $300,000,000. All banks in Germany for a time were closed. The Hoover Plan would have saved Germany $406,000,000 this year."76 With Germany in financial chaos, Secretary Stimson decided to pay a visit to Berlin in order to get a close-up of the situation. The German press, "without a single discordant note," gave him a "hearty welcome and the occasion was seized to express in frontpage editorials the gratitude felt for America's . . . friendliness towards Germany."77 Stimson had a long conversation with Dr. Bruening, the German Chancellor. It was not long before they discovered that they had fought along the Western Front in opposing forces that had repeatedly clashed. The warrior tie at once drew them close together and with President Hindenburg it was the same thing. To Stimson, the president of the Weimar Republic appeared as an "impressive, fine old man."78 But it required more than Stimson's good will to save the Weimar Republic. The failure of the Allies to carry out the disarmament pledges of the Treaty of Versailles; the heavy burden of the Young Plan with its consequent crushing taxation, and the difficulUNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 10 5 ties in securing a market for manufactured goods, made the situation in Germany seem almost hopeless. In the spring of 1932 Bruening realized that generous concessions on the part of the Allies were badly needed in order to check the tide of National Socialism that was beginning to rise in a menacing manner.

In America there was little appreciation of the growing power of Hitler. The Omaha World-Herald scorned him as an ''insignificant little man";79 the Boston Evening Transcript denounced him as the "incarnation of mischief/'80 but few Americans realized that he was an alarming challenge to Bruening. Their eyes were partly opened on March 13 when Hitler polled some eleven million votes. It was now apparent to the Cleveland Plain Dealer that "much as one may desire to believe that Hitlerism has received its death blow, the figures warrant no such assumption/'81 The only way to banish the shadow of Hitlerism was to strengthen the supports of the Bruening government. But France refused to see this plain fact. Indeed, there is evidence to indicate that certain French statesmen conspired to destroy the Bruening government. According to Bruening himself, . . . one major factor in Hitler's rise . . . was the fact that he received large sums of money from foreign countries in 1923 and later [France, Poland, and Czechoslovakia], and was well paid for sabotaging the passive resistance in the Ruhr district. ... In later years he [Hitler] was paid to excite unrest and encourage revolution in Germany by people who imagined that this might weaken Germany permanently and make the survival of any constitutional, central government impossible.82 In partial support of this statement by Dr. Bruening there is the following paragraph from Louis P. Lochner's intriguing book, What About Germany?: If there was one foreign statesman who thoroughly misjudged Hitler and his movement, it was Andre Frangois-Poncet, the French Ambassador to Berlin. From what I know of 106 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE behind-the-scenes activities towards the end of the Bruening era in 1932, I am forced to conclude that no other diplomat is more directly responsible for the elevation to power of Adolph Hitler than this brilliant, forever-wisecracking French politician. According to Franc, ois-Poncet, the incorruptible Chancellor, Heinrich Bruening, was too brainy and experienced in the wily game of international politics. Hitler, on the other hand, was a fool and a political dilettante. . . .

With the Nazi leader in power, he thought it would be much easier to effect deals which would be favorable to France.83 At any rate, the French government, in the spring of 1932, greatly helped to bring about Bruening's fall. When the Disarmament Conference met in Geneva in February, 1932, Bruening presented a program that he thought would find favor in Germany. Ramsay MacDonald and Secretary Stimson expressed their approval of the Bruening proposal, but Tardieu, of France, resorted to the usual French tactics of delay. When Bruening returned to Berlin with empty hands, Hindenburg summoned him to the President's office and criticized him so sharply that resignation was the only course left open to him.84 When Bruening fell, the fate of the Weimar Republic was sealed. And the fault did not lie solely upon the shoulders of France. Walter Lippmann summarized the situation in a lucid commentary: Now that he [Bruening] has fallen, tributes will be paid ... all over the world, and everywhere there will be great regret that so experienced and upright a statesman is no longer the German spokesman. He is the best liked and most trusted man in Europe. . . . He has lacked only men of equal stature in other countries with whom he could work.

. . . Though it appears that he has fallen because of intrigues by the Nationalists [in Germany], what undermined him and made the intrigues possible was the failure of France, Great Britain and the United States to take a single constructive step toward the restoration of international confiUNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE IO7 dence and of the trade and credit which would depend upon it.85 The weak governments of von Papen and Schleicher were merely brief preludes to the government of Adolph Hitler which began in January, 1933, when President Hindenburg asked him to assume the office of Chancellor. 2. DISARMAMENT REMAINS A CONSTANT FACTOR IN THE UNEASY EQUATION OF EUROPEAN PEACE The fall of the Bruening government emphasized the difficulties surrounding the problem of disarmament. It was the same old story of broken pledges by the Allied Powers. They had the plausible excuse that the phraseology of Article VIII of the Covenant of the League of Nations was ambiguous: 'The Members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations." In discussing this phraseology, Lord Davies makes the following pertinent comment: ''Here is an attempt to compromise, to square the circle, to combine as a basis for reduction two incompatible principles, namely the old doctrine of absolute selfdefence . . . and the alternative idea of a police function/'86 It was inevitable that statesmen would differ with reference to the interpretation of this article. Andre Tardieu asserted that its language did not bind France to any plan for disarmament. Although there was a "legal obligation" to which Germany had subscribed, there was nothing to which France was bound except a "desire" to reduce her armaments.87 Aristide Briand did not agree with Tardieu in this matter. He argued that France was bound by Article VIII to agree to some plan for disarmament. She had partly carried out this pledge by making substantial reductions in her armaments, but was unable to go any further unless other nations took adequate steps to insure French security.88 The American view relative to disarmament was clearly stated by Professor James T. Shotwell: "Germany had been disarmed with 108 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE the understanding . . . that the other signatories would also voluntarily limit their armaments with due regard to what Germany was forced to do/'89 In 1933 the American position was given cogent expression by Norman H. Davis, who told the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments that "it would neither have been just nor wise, nor was it intended, that the Central Powers should be subject for all times to a special treatment in armaments. There is and has been a corresponding duty on the part of the other Powers, parties to the peace treaties, that by successive stages they too would bring their armaments down to a level strictly determined by the needs of selfdefence/'90 It was to this conference that Prime Minister MacDonald presented (March, 1933) his plan for disarmament. The proposed size of European armies was bound to arouse resentment in Germany: Czechoslovakia, 100,000; France, 200,000 for home country and 200,000 for overseas; Germany, 200,000; Italy, 200,000, and 50,000 for overseas; Poland, 200,000; Russia, 5oo,ooo.91 In order to ascertain with precision the viewpoint of Chancellor Hitler, President Roosevelt decided to send Norman H. Davis to Berlin for a conversation relative to disarmament. On the afternoon of April 8, 1933, Davis had a long conference with Hitler, who immediately referred to the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles which he regarded as "designed to keep Germany forever in a state of inferiority and to discredit them in the eyes of the world." He thought it was ridiculous for France to have any fear of Germany.

France was the most heavily armed nation in the world; Germany had the pitifully small force allowed her under the terms of Versailles. The only reason why "France could have any apprehension of Germany was because she knew she was doing an unjust thing in trying to force Germany forever to live under treaty conditions which no self-respecting nation could tolerate/' In conclusion, Hitler remarked that while he did not want "war, the Germans could not forever live under the terms of a Treaty [Versailles] which was iniquitous and based entirely upon false premises as to Germany's war guilt/'92 With these ominous words ringing in his ears, Davis hurried to the Disarmament Conference at Geneva to discuss the MacDonald UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE IO9 Plan with its proposed army limitations that Germany would never accept. On April 25 he received definite instructions from Secretary Hull: Please be guided by the broad policy of United States in consistently pressing for immediate and practical actual disarmament. Our ultimate goal is twofold: First, reduction of present annual costs of armament maintenance in all national budgets and, Second, arrival at a goal of domestic policing armaments in as few years as possible. . . . We regard the MacDonald Plan as a definite and excellent step towards the ultimate objective, but that is a step only and must be followed by succeeding steps.93 In hurried attempts to expedite a solution of the disarmament problem, Prime Ministers MacDonald and Herriot paid visits to Washington, but they accomplished little. On April 26 President Roosevelt had an extended conference with Herriot during which many important topics were discussed. Herriot expressed the opinion that the most "dangerous spot in Europe" was the Polish Corridor. The President immediately observed that he could "not understand why some mechanical arrangement could not be made by which Germany and East Prussia could not be more closely united either by air communication, by elevated train service or, if necessary, by underground tunnels." But Herriot immediately responded with warm praise of the existing train and highway service between the two frontiers. He then, unwittingly, put his finger upon the real difficulty in arriving at any understanding between Germany and Poland by describing "the artistic qualities of the Poles; how difficult they were to negotiate with and how even the French . . . found them exceedingly difficult to restrain and quiet them whenever they became excited." At the end of the conference, Herriot "did not offer any suggestion for overcoming the Polish Corridor danger spot nor did he seem to feel that there was any solution to the problem."94 It was this "danger spot" that, in 1939, was one of the prime causes of the outbreak of hostilities. Herriot realized that the "artisHO PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE tic qualities" of the Poles made it impossible to suggest to them a real solution of the Corridor question. These same qualities were even more in evidence in the summer of 1939 when the Polish ambassador in Paris was not on speaking terms with either Bonnet or Daladier. Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad!

Even with regard to disarmament the Poles were a little "mad" and their demands for an army equivalent to that of Germany caused serious uneasiness in Hitler's mind. He remembered only too well the bloody forays of Korfanty's irregulars before and after the plebiscite in Upper Silesia. A Polish army of 200,000, together with a Russian army of 500,000, constituted a most dangerous threat to Germany's Eastern Front. The MacDonald Plan was not welcomed in Berlin. But any arguments for an increase in Germany's military forces met with instant opposition in Washington. On May 6 Dr. Schacht had a conference with President Roosevelt, who quickly informed him that "the United States will insist that Germany remain in statu quo in armament." At the same time he was informed that the American government would "support every possible effort to have the offensive armament of every other nation brought down to the German level." At the conclusion of the conference, the President intimated "as strongly as possible" that he regarded "Germany as the only possible obstacle to a Disarmament Treaty and that he hoped Dr. Schacht would give this point of view to Hitler as quickly as possible."95 Hitler responded by calling a meeting of the Reichstag, on May 17, to hear his address on the question of disarmament. In order to influence the remarks of the German Chancellor upon that occasion, President Roosevelt hurriedly issued (May 16) a statement to the "Chiefs of State of all countries participating in the General Disarmament or International Monetary and Economic Conferences." He stressed the hope that peace might be assured "through practical measures of disarmament and that all of us may carry to victory our common struggle against economic chaos." These practical measures include the "complete elimination of all offensive weapons." In addition to this momentous step all nations "should enter into a solemn and definite pact of nonaggression."96 UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 111 On May 17 Hitler answered the Roosevelt proposals in a very general manner. He professed to find in the suggestions of the President some items he could support as a means of overcoming "the international crisis." Although Germany would still insist upon "actual equality of rights as regards disarmament/' she would not resort to force in order to achieve her objectives.97 These conciliatory remarks of Hitler brought instant relief to many Americans. The Cincinnati Enquirer thought that Hitler had thrown upon other shoulders the responsibility for real disarmament,98 while the Christian Science Monitor expressed the belief that the movement for world peace had been greatly strengthened.99 Encouraged by these signs of agreement, Norman Davis announced, on May 22, that the American government was ready to consult with other nations in the event of a threat to world peace and would take no action to hinder the efforts of other nations to restrain the activities of aggressor nations.100 America was moving down the road to collective security.

3. PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT SENDS WILLIAM E. DODD TO GERMANY AS A GESTURE OF GOOD WILL During the first six months of his tenure as Chancellor, Hitler made many moves in the direction of a strong government. One of the most significant moves that attracted attention in America was the suppression of all political parties other than that of National Socialism. To Mr. Messersmith, U.S. Consul-General in Berlin, this dissolution "of the many parties which had brought about Parliamentary chaos and the breakdown of Parliamentary government was a helpful step toward the return of effective Parliamentary government eventually." The outlook in Germany was "decidedly more optimistic" than it had been "at any time since March 5."101 After reading some of these rose-colored dispatches from Berlin, President Roosevelt decided to send Professor William E. Dodd, a wellknown historian, to Berlin as the American ambassador. It was an appointment suggested by Daniel C. Roper and Colonel House and it was not a happy one. Dodd knew little about the 112 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE problems of American foreign policy and less about the practice of diplomacy. He had no sympathy with the Nazi regime and found far more to criticize than to praise. There were many points of friction between Germany and the United States and one of the first that demanded prompt settlement was the matter of German defaults on American private loans.

4. FINANCIAL FRICTION BETWEEN GERMANY AND THE UNITED STATES These loans poured into Germany after the Dawes Plan went into operation in 1924. Without them the German government could never have paid Allied exactions. But the world business depression which began in 1929 reached a low point two years later. Reference has already been made to French delay in accepting the Hoover Plan, with consequent economic paralysis in Germany. In January, 1932, Chancellor Bruening declared that the German government had advanced to France some 19,000,000,000 reichsmarks, while the total expenditures in France for reconstruction had amounted to only 14,000,000,000 reichsmarks. Further payments in accordance with this scale meant economic disaster for Germany and for the world.102 The Lausanne Conference (June 16-July 8, 1932) put an end to German economic thralldom.103 But the situation in Germany under Hitler became so serious that, on July 9, 1933, Dr. Schacht, president of the Reichsbank, issued a regulation which decreed a transfer moratorium on the interest and sinking fund payments on foreign debts, estimated at approximately 17,000,000,000 reichsmarks.104 Private banking interests in the United States were deeply concerned over this action because about 40 per cent of the German external debt ($1,800,000,000) was owed to American creditors. John Foster Dulles, as the representative of American bankers, sent a sharp protest to Schacht with reference to his transfer moratorium,105 but the president of the Reichsbank was evidently awaiting the outcome of the World Economic Conference before making a reply. The success of this conference depended upon a mild declaration of financial policy by President Roosevelt. When he refused to take this step he UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 113 "torpedoed" the conference and all Europe "exploded with resentment."106 He had pushed the Humpty Dumpty of world finance from the wall of expectancy and then he chided Europe because the pieces flew so far and wide.

When Dr. Schacht continued his policy of suspension of the payments due American bankers, President Roosevelt, though the fault lay on his own shoulders, was sharply critical of the president of the Reichsbank and of Germany generally. The Dodd mission to Germany had a most unfortunate background. 5. THE NAZI GOVERNMENT SHOWS ITS DISLIKE OF DODD BY MISTREATING AMERICAN CITIZENS Ambassador Dodd was not long in Berlin before he angered the Nazi government by refusing to attend the party celebration at Nuremberg. His excuse was too transparent to be diplomatic: "I cannot absent myself from Berlin long enough to have the pleasure of accepting/'107 The Nazis repaid this hostility by treating certain Americans with studied incivility. On September 9, a son of H. V. Kaltenborn, noted radio commentator, was assaulted because he did not give the Nazi salute while watching a parade of storm troopers.108 When Dodd complained to von Neurath about this unfortunate incident, the Foreign Minister merely murmured: "The SA. men are so uncontrollable that I am afraid we cannot stop them/'109 6. GERMANY MOVES OUT OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS This rising spirit of nationalism was given further expression in 1933 by Hitler himself. The disarmament question provided the occasion for a dramatic manifestation of it. During the summer of 1933, Norman H. Davis, the American representative at Geneva, held many conversations with British and French delegates to the Disarmament Conference in an effort to find some formula that would solve the disarmament problem. Finally, on October 14, Sir John Simon presented a plan which aimed at achieving "equality of status" in eight years.110 To Hitler this long postponement of 114 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE any real settlement of the disarmament question was an indication that the Allied governments had no real intention to disarm. They had made a mockery of Article VIII of the Covenant of the League of Nations with its implied promise of general disarmament and he believed the Simon plan was another exercise in deceit. In the face of many years of broken pledges on the part of League members, there was now nothing left to do but withdraw from the League.

He gave assurances that this action had no aggressive implications.111 When Ambassador Dodd discussed with Hitler this matter of the withdrawal from the League of Nations, the Fuehrer became "clearly excited" and launched into a lengthy criticism of the injustices of the Treaty of Versailles. When Dodd made the soothing remark that there was "evident injustice in the French attitude," the Fuehrer immediately subsided into a mood of sweet reasonableness and the interview ended on a friendly note.112 Hitler could afford to be reasonable because he was fast moulding the German mind along the lines he desired. On November 12 there was a national election in the Reich on the matter of Germany's withdrawal from the League. The result was an overwhelming confirmation of the Fuehrer's policy. The Nazi candidates for office received some 39,500,000 votes out of a total of 43,000,000. Nazism was moving from one victory to another.113 7. FLIES IN THE OINTMENT OF DIPLOMACY The victorious march of Nazism in Germany disturbed many Americans who believed that its implications pointed to eventual war on the Continent. The propaganda of Dr. Goebbels failed to explain in a satisfactory manner some actions of the Nazi government. The Reichsbank continued its policy of discriminating against American holders of German bonds and the Foreign Minister explained to Ambassador Dodd that it was a mere matter of international exchange. If America increased her purchase of German goods the situation could be rapidly remedied.114 There was a partial American boycott of German manufactures and this had resulted in an unfavorable balance of trade as far as the Reich was UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 115 concerned. In Europe, Germany enjoyed a highly favorable balance of trade with Britain, France, and the Netherlands and therefore was inclined to treat them with more consideration.115 Secretary Hull did not relish this lesson in economics, so he kept pressing the German government for a change in policy. On June 16 he instructed Ambassador Dodd to express the "strongest regret" that the Reichsbank was still discriminating against American creditors,116 and eleven days later he filed a long protest against Nazi fiscal policy.117 He was determined to make full use of the nuisance value of this debt difficulty. Dodd was distinctly embarrassed by this continual pressure from the State Department and at times recorded his feelings in his Diary: "What more can I say than I have said a score of times? Germany is in a terrible plight."118 In America this fact was recognized by many newspapers. The Seattle Times119 and the Atlanta Constitution120 were frank in their opinion that the Nazi government had done nothing more than take a page out of the financial books of European nations that had defaulted on large loans from the American government during the World War.

But this American sympathy for hard-pressed Germany did not soften American criticism of the anti-Semitic policy of the Nazi government. Harsh decrees against the Jews evoked widespread objection throughout the United States and led to an increasingly unfavorable climate of opinion. This fact was given clear illustration when advertisements appeared in certain New York newspapers calling attention to a mock trial of Chancellor Hitler, to be staged in Madison Square Garden on March 7, 1934. When Ambassador Luther rushed to the Department of State to register a protest against this insult to the Fuehrer, he was given a cold brushofT by Secretary Hull.121 In Berlin Ambassador Dodd had a long conversation with Hitler, who was "unusually cordial." When Dodd referred to the Jewish problem in different countries the Fuehrer interrupted his discourse several times with sharp comments upon the "damned Jews." He finally informed Dodd that if the Jews continued their "activity" in Germany, "we shall make a complete end of them."122 At this time Hitler's bark was far worse than his bite and he soon 116 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE decided that it was good policy to conciliate the United States by adopting a more humane policy toward the Jews. He wanted no more mock trials in New York. On March 12 he directed that Columbia House, where many Jews had been mistreated, should be closed, and he insisted that "warrants must be proved before anyone could be detained for more than twenty-four hours on any charge."123 Anti-Semitism was conveniently shelved for the time being.

8. HITLER PURGES THE NAZI PARTY AND SHOCKS AMERICAN SENSIBILITIES In the early months of 1934 there was manifest in certain circles in Germany a rising criticism of the policy of Chancellor Hitler. Some Nazi leaders had not approved the Fuehrer's softer policy toward the Jews. Others were worried over the "financial and economic situation" in the Reich,124 and Kurt Schmitt, the Minister of Economics, complained to Ambassador Dodd that the repressive measures instituted against the Jews, Protestants, and Catholics had stirred up such "intense hostility" in America and England that the economic outlook grew bleaker each day.125 It was widely known that Roehm was bitterly opposed to any reduction in the number of the storm troopers and some believed that he was plotting with General von Schleicher for a major change in the organization of the Nazi party. A feeling of revolution was in the air.

On June 17, at the University of Marburg, Franz von Papen made a speech that one could best understand by reading between the lines. In one significant sentence he gave a cue to Hitler's next move. After referring to the failure of the "official organs of public opinion" to throw sufficient light to dispel the mysterious darkness that hid the spirit of the German people, von Papen then remarked that it was probably necessary for a statesman to appear who would "call a spade a spade."126 The Springfield Republican made the canny surmise that von Papen's speech was "the signal for some important development in the internal affairs of Germany."127 This development was not long in coming. On June 30 Hitler inaugurated a bloody purge which UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE liy took the lives of many important Nazis who were no longer useful to the party. In the United States there was a great deal of speculation about the implications of this purge. Drew Pearson and Robert Allen predicted a dark future for Hitler/28 the Buffalo News thought that the Fuehrer might be "sitting on a powder keg/'129 and Oswald G.

Villard expressed the opinion that the purge marked "the beginning of the end of Hitler."130 Other commentators were equally hopeful that the "Nazi nightmare" would soon end. Opinion here was so unfriendly to the Fuehrer that it was evident that the purge marked a definite point in American regard for Nazi Germany. Spokesmen for oppressed minorities in the Reich would find a credulous audience for any stories told of unbounded brutality. 9. GENERAL HUGH S. JOHNSON EXPRESSES HIS INDIGNATION AT THE BLOODY PARTY PURGE **^ When the news of Hitler's party purge came to General Hugh S. Johnson, he announced that such brutalities made him "physically and very actively sick."131 This acidulous criticism of Nazi political practices evoked an immediate protest from the German charge d'affaires in Washington. Secretary Hull assured him that General Johnson was speaking "as an individual and not for the Department of State or for the Administration/'132 but the German press was not satisfied with this explanation and numberless attacks were made upon the General and upon freedom of speech in the United States. It was pointed out that Johnson was "the head of the NIRA" and therefore an important representative of the Roosevelt administration. His remarks, therefore, had an official color that could not be changed by glib official explanation.133 10. THE DEATH OF PRESIDENT HINDENBURG IS REGARDED WITH OPEN DISMAY THROUGHOUT AMERICA These frequent clashes between America and Nazi Germany gave deep concern to a large group of Americans who feared that eventual conflict might be caused by these serious disagreements.

Il8 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE Hitler was becoming increasingly unpopular in the United States, and his administration seemed a challenge to the peace of Europe. It had long been felt that President Hindenburg was an effective check upon the Fuehrer's radical tendencies, and the news of Hindenburg's death (August 1) had an ominous tinge. Hitler made an effort to quiet these apprehensions by delivering two orations that were carefully phrased and discreetly toned down to such an extent that no challenge was discernible in either of them. His eyes were on the approaching Saar plebiscite. It would be expedient to conciliate public opinion in Europe and America. When the plebiscite was held on January 13, 1935, the vote was 477,119 in favor of union with the Reich and only 46,613 in favor of continuance of the existing regime.134 Hitler had won another victory. 11. THE ANGLO-FRENCH DECLARATION OF FEBRUARY 3, 1935 This rapidly rising spirit of nationalism under Hitler pushed France into immediate action. In January, 1935, Laval paid a hurried visit to Rome, where he concluded with Mussolini a consultative agreement with reference to Austria. The next step in the direction of preserving the peace of Europe was the Anglo-French Declaration of February 3. This was to form the basis for a * 'general [settlement freely negotiated among other Powers, including Germany/' The more important items would be a plan for disarmament, an Eastern pact of mutual assistance, a Central European pact for maintaining the independence of Austria, and an air convention that would provide assistance to any of the signatory Powers that suffered from unprovoked aggression.135 On February 14 Hitler gave a conciliatory answer to the British and French ambassadors in Berlin and approved in principle the terms of an air pact for the protection of the signatory Powers. But he thought that the proposed Eastern and Central European pacts should receive further discussion and elaboration. This attitude of delay was disturbing to the New York Times which plaintively remarked: 'The Third Reich now looks forward to a long period of negotiation. For her every delay is a gain."136 UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE H9 12. FEAR OF HITLER PUSHES EUROPE INTO ANOTHER TREATY PROVIDING FOR COLLECTIVE SECURITY—THE STRESA FRONT Hitler did not delay long in exciting the fear of Europe. On March 16 he denounced the arms provisions in the Treaty of Versailles. France had recently raised the term of service in her armies and Germany regarded the army of the Soviet Union (960,000) as excessively large. Because of this Franco-Russian threat he thought it necessary to increase German military strength to 550,000 troops.137 To William Allen White this action by Hitler was "another milestone on the road to ruin which Europe has been travelling for several years. In less than a year Germany will announce that she is fortifying the left bank of the Rhine."138 In order to prevent such a contingency, Mussolini invited representatives of Britain and France to a conference at Stresa. After a brief period of discussion the three Powers issued, on April 14, a communique to the effect that a common front had been erected against the German movement for rearmament.139 The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette took this Stresa Declaration seriously and expressed the opinion that it represented the "best hope of peace/'140 but the New Orleans Times-Picayune believed that the conference had left "in the air most of the questions that were considered/'141 13. THE FRANCO-RUSSIAN PACT OF MAY 2, 1935 is BALANCED BY THE ANGLO-GERMAN NAVAL AGREEMENT OF JUNE 18 It was soon evident that France did not place much reliance upon the Stresa Front. On May 2, 1935, the Laval government signed an important mutual assistance pact with Soviet Russia.142 This provoked Hitler (May 21) to criticize French action as a threat to capitalism throughout Europe. Capitalism and communism had no real common ground on which their representatives

could meet with safety. He then indicated his willingness to become a party to treaties aimed at localizing conflicts and isolating aggressor nations.143 This was welcome news to British statesmen who initiated nego12O PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE tiations that led to the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of June 18. In accordance with its terms the strength of the German fleet was fixed at 35 per cent of the total tonnage of the British Commonwealth of Nations. This pact aroused sharp resentment in France and Italy, where Britain was denounced for "conniving with the Reich" in a breach of the Treaty of Versailles.144 In Germany the treaty was most welcome because it permitted the Reich to have a navy not only three times as large as the naval armament allowed in the peace settlement of 1919 but it also granted eventual parity with Britain in submarines.145 In the United States the New York Times chided Britain for "allowing itself to do what in another it condemns as a breach of international law/'146 while the Chicago Daily News regarded the agreement as a great triumph of German diplomacy.147 The Stresa Front had been broken by Britain.

14. THE "BREMEN" INCIDENT CAUSES NEW TENSION IN GERMAN-AMERICAN RELATIONS While British statesmen were breaking the Stresa Front, Communist agents in the United States were promoting further friction in GermanAmerican relations. On July 25, 1935, the Third Division of the Police Department of New York City received a copy of a circular issued by the Communist party which called for a "demonstration" on Pier 86 at midnight on July 26 "on the occasion of the sailing of the S.S. Bremen." All Catholics, Jews, and anti-Fascists were urged to "flood the pier with anti-fascist workers."148 On the evening of July 26 some Communist agitators were able to sneak on board the Bremen and at 11:45 *neY began to assault the German sailors. When the New York police rushed to Pier 86 to stop this rioting they were attacked and firearms were freely used. During this commotion some Communists were able to reach the flagstaff of the Bremen and hurl the German Swastika pennon into the Hudson River.

In response to a German protest against the implications of this incident, the Department of State expressed regret that "the GerUNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 121 man national emblem should not have received that respect to which it is entitled/'149 There was no assurance that Communists in New York City would not be able to repeat the insult of July 26. The Secretary of State regarded the incident as closed, but the German Foreign Office was displeased with this cool settlement of the affair and it remained an important item in unfinished business. III. AN ITALIAN INTERLUDE: THE ITALOETHIOPIAN WAR 1. ITALY PLAYS THE GAME OF "REALPOLITIK" TO GOOD ADVANTAGE Italian colonial expansion in Africa began in July, 1882, when the Italian government acquired some territory on the Bay of Assab. Using this concession as a wedge for further penetration, the Italian sphere of influence grew rapidly until in May, 1889, a nominal protectorate over Abyssinia was established.150 On March 24 and April 15, 1891, an AngloItalian agreement was concluded which recognized Italian control over a large portion of northeast Africa.151 This Italian expansion was not favorably regarded by France.

Munitions of war were sent to Ethiopia and the Emperor Menelik was encouraged to denounce the Treaty of Ucciali with its concessions to Italy. On March 1, 1896, he decisively defeated the Italian army at Adowa and the independence of Ethiopia was formally recognized. But the fate of Ethiopia would be decided in Europe. Political necessities required that France adopt a conciliatory policy toward Italy after the turn of the twentieth century. In December, 1900, the French Foreign Office negotiated a secret accord with Italy that earmarked Tripoli as a future Italian colony.152 Six years later, a tripartite arrangement was concluded which expressed British and French acquiescence in eventual Italian control over Ethi122 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE opia. When Russia then agreed to the Racconigi bargain of October, 1909, the road to Tripoli was open. Emboldened by this series of diplomatic deals, Italy provoked war with Turkey in 1911 and secured the cession of Libya.153 By astute diplomacy Italy had been steadily increasing her colonial empire in Africa, and, when she broke away from the Triple Alliance in 1915 and entered the World War on the side of the Allies, she seemed on the road to further concessions. But her quarrel with Allied statesmen at Versailles was most injudicious, and when she temporarily left the Peace Conference a decision was made to leave her "completely out in the cold." She later received promises of "compensations elsewhere, but they were never satisfactorily forthcoming." The Allied failure to carr} out these promises caused enduring bitterness in Italy "and led not only to the rape of Ethiopia in 1935 but to Mussolini's 'stab in the back' of 1940."154 2. BRITAIN GIVES A FRIENDLY NOD TO ITALIAN ASPIRATIONS IN AFRICA In 1925 the British government gave a belated nod to Italian aspirations in northeast Africa by exchanging some important notes with the Italian government. This new accord meant that Britain would support the construction of an Italian railway from Eritrea across Ethiopia to Somaliland and would recognize Italy's exclusive right to exploit the resources of western Ethiopia.155 Encouraged by this British support, Mussolini went ahead and concluded with Ethiopia a pact of friendship (August 2, 1928) and an additional convention which provided for the construction of a motor road from the port of Assab to Dessie. But the government of Ethiopia soon found excuses that prevented the execution of these agreements, and this ill-faith was "one of the strongest grievances of the Italian Government against Abyssinia."156 3. THE WALWAL INCIDENT POINTS TOWARD EVENTUAL WAR The list of Italian grievances against Ethiopia received many additions from the lawless way wild tribesmen would ravage the UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 123 frontiers of Eritrea and Somaliland. The Walwal incident resulted from one of these raids. For several years Italians had been in possession of Walwal without any protest from Ethiopia. In December, 1934, hostilities broke out at this spot between Ethiopian and Italian armed forces but actual warfare did not ensue because of the obligations assumed by Italy under the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Pact of Paris. Consideration also had to be given to the procedures outlined in the ItaloEthiopian Arbitration Treaty of 1928.

On January 3, 1935, Ethiopia made a formal appeal to the League of Nations and invoked the application of Article XI of the Covenant.157 When the Council of the League met, on January 11, some action would have to be taken. In order to anticipate this action, Laval paid a visit to Rome and made a treaty with Mussolini (January 7, 1935) which gave Italy a block of shares in the Jibuti railroad; a considerable strip of territory to be added to Italian Libya, and a similar strip to be joined to Eritrea. For these concessions Mussolini agreed to consult with France in the event of any threat to the status quo in Europe. These published terms of the agreement told only half the story. There is little doubt that Laval secretly granted other concessions to Mussolini. In return for Italian cooperation in Europe, he was "willing to sacrifice anything, even the League of Nations itself, as events proved."158 With French support of Italian objectives in Ethiopia, Mussolini adopted tactics of delay which finally caused the Council of the League to adopt a resolution (May 25) requesting the Italian and Ethiopian governments to arrive at some settlement of their dispute by August 25.159 4. AMERICAN REACTION TO THE ITALOETHIOPIAN DISPUTE The attitude of the Department of State, at the beginning of the ItaloEthiopian dispute, was colored by a background of friendly relations with Italy. In July, 1931, Secretary Stimson had paid a visit to Rome where he had friendly conversations with Mussolini and Dino Grandi, the Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs. The 124 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE Duce responded to Stimson's pleas for disarmament by an emphatic statement that Italy stood for both "disarmament and peace."160 When Stimson left Rome he issued a press statement that stressed the "essential sympathy which exists between the people of Italy and America/'161 In November, 1931, Dino Grandi made a trip to the United States to confirm these friendly relations.

But this amicable accord soon disappeared during the early years of the Roosevelt administration when Italy unveiled her desire to expand in Africa. After 1933 the Department of State began to look at Europe through English eyes, and Anthony Eden controlled most of that vision. In 1935 he had some significant conversations with Hugh Wilson, the American ambassador at Geneva. Eden constantly talked in high-level terms and stressed his attachment to lofty ideals. It was embarrassing for him to have to deal with such a "shifty soul" as Pierre Laval, who was willing to give Italy "a free hand" in Abyssinia in return for support against Germany. Wilson himself had conceived a certain esteem for Laval who was "developing into the type of Foreign Minister that Briand was."162 Eden had his troubles not only with Laval but also with Mussolini. The Duce's appetite for colonial dominion was deeply disturbing to the British Foreign Secretary. He tried to curb it with a modest offer of Ethiopian territory. He thought that Haile Selassie would be willing to cede to Italy a portion of the Ogaden and would also be ready to grant certain economic concessions that might help to bolster Italy's hard-pressed economy. But the Duce rejected these very limited proposals. He flatly stated that he wished to "control Abyssinia."163 Such a frank avowal of lust for land was a shock to the sensitive ears of Eden, who began to harbor an intense dislike for the Duce.

After he left Rome, Virginio Gayda remarked in the Italian press that Eden's proposals had not satisfied "Italy's requirements for security and economic expansion/' Chambrun, the French ambassador in Rome, was not in accord with the Eden viewpoint. He believed that some "gesture was essential to vindicate the honor and prestige of Italy. This could be effected by the cession of Adowa."164 But Emperor Haile Selassie was not ready for concessions to UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 125 Italy. It would be better to appeal to the American government to invoke the Pact of Paris as a means of checking any Italian advance into Ethiopia. Secretary Hull made a cautious reply to this appeal: he was loath to believe that Italy would resort "to other than pacific means as a method of dealing with this controversy."165 To many Americans of a one-world persuasion this reply by Secretary Hull was most disheartening. Professor Quincy Wright hurriedly informed Hull that a failure "on our part to do anything" in this crisis would be a severe "blow to the cause of peace."166 Under the impact of this professional protest, Hull summoned the Italian ambassador to the Department of State and endeavored to impress upon him America's "increasing concern" over the ItaloEthiopian dispute.167 On July 12 Hull took the further step of issuing a statement that reminded the signatories of the Pact of Paris that the provisions of that treaty were still "binding."168 When Secretary Hull's elaboration of the obvious was completely understood by backward European diplomats, President Roosevelt moved into the picture on August 1 by voicing the hope that "an amicable solution" would be found for the ItaloEthiopian dispute.169 Some weeks later he sent a message directly to Mussolini (August 18) in which he once more expressed the hope that the "controversy between Italy and Ethiopia will be resolved without resort to armed conflict."170 The Duce at once replied that he appreciated the "character of the message and its expression of friendliness," but war with Ethiopia was inevitable.171 President Roosevelt was determined to have the last word on this matter of approaching conflict. On September 4 a statement was issued at the White House to the effect that ''dollar diplomacy" was no "longer recognized by the American Government."172 Italy should pursue high ideas rather than material wealth!

5. PIERRE LAVAL BELIEVES THAT MUSSOLINI SHOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO SAVE FACE Pierre Laval believed that the key to Mussolini's cooperation with France was material wealth rather than any joint pursuit of high ideals. He thought it was essential that the Duce be permitted 126 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE to gain at least one important victory in Ethiopia before pressure was exerted upon him in favor of peace. Anthony Eden was not so realistic. In Britain the peace societies, the Church, and influential members of the Labor party were calling for some effective action that would compel Italy to adopt a pacific policy. Such action might take the form of farreaching sanctions, and these might mean war. Britain was ready to assume this risk and "do its part" if hostilities took place. There was really no need for France to ask for "specific assurances" in this regard. Britain would do her duty.173 While Laval was pondering this indirect assurance of British support in the event of war between France and Italy, the arbitral commission that had been dealing with the Walwal incident rendered a decision that neither Ethiopia nor Italy was responsible for the brief outbreak of hostilities.174 Encouraged by this dubious decision, Baron Aloisi presented to the League of Nations the case of Italy. It was a sharp indictment of the Ethiopian design for living with its dark threads of slavery and cannibalism. The League answered this indictment by appointing a committee of five to look into the ItaloEthiopian dispute with a view of suggesting a peaceful solution.175 While the committee was making its study of this dispute, Eden and Laval resumed their conversation as to the best policy to pursue. Eden was skeptical of the high-level talk of Ciano, who was insisting that Italy had a mission to benefit the whole world by unlocking the door to the vast resources of Ethiopia. Effective sanctions would probably make Ciano talk sense. But Laval was fearful that war would follow such action and he could see no reason why the peace of Europe should be broken because of a Quixotic desire on the part of Britain to protect backward Ethiopia from a civilizing Italian conquest.

To make matters worse, Laval soon discovered that he had on his hands not only Eden but Sir Samuel Hoare also. On September 11 the British Foreign Secretary addressed the Assembly of the League of Nations and made it painfully clear that Britain would support League action against aggressors with "unwavering fidelity/'176 These were bold words with frightening overtones for Laval.

UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 127 When he pushed Hoare for some "formal commitments in Europe" with reference to a possible outbreak of hostilities over the application of sanctions against Italy, the Foreign Secretary lapsed into vague generalities that looked like counterfeit currency in the exacting market of world politics.177 While Laval was pursuing the elusive Samuel Hoare, the Emperor Haile Selassie asked the American minister at Addis Ababa if the American government would serve as a mediator in the ItaloEthiopian dispute.178 Hull immediately rejected this appeal because mediation was "not practicable" during a period when the League of Nations was handling this matter.179 Laval and Eden would have to continue their battle of wits. 6. FRANCE FINDS IT DIFFICULT TO BALANCE BRITAIN AGAINST ITALY Laval finally thought he might catch the wary Britons with the bait of acquiescence in their apparent desire for sanctions. On September 13, with his tongue pressed hard against his cheek, he informed the Assembly of the League that France would be "faithful to the League Covenant." She would not "fail in her obligations."180 Anthony Eden was delighted with these pledges from Laval, and in France the press expressed the view that he had "turned a difficult corner, advanced the cause of peace and increased France's prestige."181 At Geneva, however, there was increasing apprehension over the possibility of war. Massigli, the French representative at Geneva, expressed to Hugh Wilson the fear that Mussolini was a "mad man": no argument and no threat had any effect upon him.182 Eden himself suddenly began to fear that it was "too late to stop hostilities." Where they would lead no one could tell.

7. ITALY REJECTS THE SUGGESTION OF THE COMMITTEE OF FIVE In order to prevent the outbreak of these long-feared hostilities the League Committee of Five suggested the establishment of a League protectorate over Ethiopia. There would, of course, be some recognition of Italy's special interest in the economic develop128 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE ment of Ethiopia.183 Mussolini promptly rejected this suggestion of the Committee of Five in a note which British representatives at Geneva termed "extremely brusque."184 The Duce then submitted a proposal for the settlement of the ItaloEthiopian dispute. It would undoubtedly be effective because it contemplated Italian acquisition of a large part of the Emperor Haile Selassie's dominion.185 Sir Samuel Hoare felt a little outraged at this unabashed Italian bid for a large slice of Ethiopia. It was clearly necessary for the United States to assist in a concerted effort to stop Mussolini.

Ambassador Bingham referred this matter to Secretary Hull, who assured Hoare that the American government would "not decline an invitation to consult through diplomatic channels with a view to the invocation of the Pact of Paris." But he thought that such consultation might appear to "encroach upon the explicit functions of the Covenant of the League" and therefore would be undesirable. In the event of hostilities between Italy and Ethiopia, Britain could count upon an embargo upon arms, munitions, and implements of war from the United States to the belligerents.186 To the Emperor Haile Selassie the Department of State made a promise of "moral support."187 This high-sounding verbiage awakened an echo in London. In response to a French inquiry as to what Britain would do in the event of a "violation of the Covenant of the League of Nations and a resort to force by some European State," Hoare replied in double talk that was far from reassuring to France.188 It was apparent that there would be no real concert of Powers to resist any Italian advance into Ethiopia. When this fact was clear to Mussolini on October 2, he issued orders for his legions to cross the frontiers of the weakly defended empire of Haile Selassie. On the following day, Italian troops began a long march which many British newspapers prophesied would end in disaster.

The disaster was reserved for Haile Selassie and not for Mussolini. 8. AMERICAN REACTION TO THE ITALOETHIOPIAN WAR Although Mussolini did not issue a declaration of war when his troops marched into Ethiopia, President Roosevelt thought that UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 129 the American government should immediately recognize that an actual state of war existed. On October 5, a proclamation was issued which placed an embargo upon the shipment of arms and munitions of war to belligerent nations.189 After carrying out the terms of the Neutrality Act by this embargo, Secretary Hull then inquired about the course the British government might take in this emergency. He learned that the Foreign Office was of the opinion that eventually "there would be sanctions" invoked against Italy.190 While the Department of State was considering the situation arising out of the ItaloEthiopian conflict, the Council of the League of Nations appointed a Committee of Six to report upon the course the League should pursue. On October 7 this Committee named Italy as an "aggressor," and the Council confirmed this decision.191 On October 11 the Assembly of the League took similar action and appointed a Coordination Committee to consider the matter of sanctions against Italy.

At this point Secretary Hull assured the League that the Department of State was deeply interested in the steps that had been taken by League authorities and would not "overlook any measures that we may be able to take consistent with our policy." It should be clearly understood, however, that the United States would act "independently in the light of circumstances as they develop."192 Anthony Eden was deeply disappointed in the attitude assumed by Secretary Hull, and he strongly urged that France and the United States take the initiative in invoking the KelloggBriand Peace Pact.193 But Secretary Hull adhered to his position and once more emphatically stated that the American government would continue to act upon its own initiative and would proceed "separately and independently of all other Governments."194 But in order to show his good will toward the League Hull issued, on November 15, a statement that was really a declaration of economic warfare against Italy: The American people are entitled to know that there are certain commodities such as oil, copper, trucks, tractors, scrap iron and scrap steel which are essential war materials. . . .

130 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE According to recent Government trade reports a considerably increased amount of these is being exported for war purposes. This class of trade is directly contrary to the policy of this Government. . . .195 This statement was made public just three days before the League sanctions against Italy went into effect (November 18). The list of commodities referred to by Secretary Hull as "essential war materials" was more extensive than the one issued by the League and it contained the important item of petroleum. Indirectly, the Department of State was endeavoring to restrict American exports to Italy of materials that could be used for warlike purposes. It was an independent policy but its main objective was to support the League in its attempt to prevent aggression. It was also an indirect step down the road to war. 9. THE HOARE-LAVAL AGREEMENT, DECEMBER 8, 1935 Sanctions against Italy took the form of an embargo upon munitions and implements of war, another embargo against Italian exports, a ban upon exports to Italy, and a financial boycott. It was significant that coal, oil, and copper were not included in the list of exports that were forbidden shipment to Italy. There was a lot of loose talk about stopping all shipments of oil to the land of the Duce but nothing effective was accomplished. It was soon evident that sanctions would not be successful.

Despite this ineffective functioning of sanctions against Italy, the Duce felt a rapidly increasing hostility toward both Britain and France, and Premier Laval renewed his old objections to this dubious experiment. Sir Samuel Hoare believed there was a substantial basis for this Laval viewpoint so he paid an important visit to Paris and soon gave his blessing to an arrangement known as the HoareLaval Agreement (December 8, 1935). In accordance with its terms, Italy would be placed in a dominant position in Ethiopia.196 In Britain the news of the HoareLaval Agreement aroused widespread criticism. The London Star called the agreement a travesty which was "horrifying men with a sense of justice,"197 and multiUNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 131 tudes of shocked Britons were of the same opinion. Prime Minister Baldwin thought it was expedient for Hoare to leave the cabinet at once, and Anthony Eden was pushed into his place. Sartor Resartus was no longer read in England and few seemed to suspect that a mere tailor's model had moved into the Foreign Office.

Eden had no realization of the fact that the HoareLaval Agreement might save the Stresa Front and thus keep intact the bulwark against German aggression. He was insistent that no major concessions be granted to the Duce and thus he helped to speed the establishment of the Rome-Berlin Axis. By acting as a champion for Haile Selassie he really bore a spear for Adolf Hitler. 10. ADOLF HITLER CELEBRATES THE COLLAPSE OF THE STRESA FRONT BY MOVING INTO THE RHINELAND The Stresa Front did not crumble at once after the League began its application of sanctions against Italy. It was a gradual disintegration and the old structure could have been saved by the cement of concessions to Italy. On March 7 Hitler announced to the world that he had liquidated the Locarno Pact and was about to occupy the Rhineland. On the day following this momentous announcement, Mussolini informed the Committee of Thirteen (of the League) that he accepted in principle their plea for a restoration of peace. It should be clear, however, that the "military situation"

must be the basis for negotiations.198 The American minister in Addis Ababa ridiculed these terms and strongly denied that Italy had won decisive military successes. Ethiopia was still determined to "eject the invader from her territory."199 This determination existed only in the mind of the American minister. Italian armies were rapidly closing in upon Addis Ababa, and on May 2 the Emperor and family hurriedly fled from their endangered capital. Three days later, Italian troops entered the city and Mussolini issued a proclamation that the war was over.200 The Duce had conquered Ethiopia despite the sanctions of the League of Nations and he was now ready to cast a friendly eye in the direction of another dictator who had successfully defied the League. Anthony Eden and Franklin D. Roosevelt had accom132 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE plished wonders in breaking down the barriers that had separated Mussolini and Hitler. Roosevelt and Secretary Hull would continue their labors as saboteurs of any diplomatic fences that might keep Mussolini in the safe camp of the Democracies, and their theme song as they blew off self-esteem was a variation of the nonrecognition melody introduced in 1931 bv Secretary Stimson in his hymn of hate against the Japanese.

11. PRIME MINISTER CHAMBERLAIN TRIES IN VAIN TO CATCH SOME BIG ITALIAN FLIES WITH THE HONEY OF DIPLOMACY After the Italian conquest of Ethiopia in May, 1936, Chamberlain clearly realized that British opposition to the Duce's plans for expansion in Africa had helped to accelerate a rapprochement between Italy and Germany. In order to halt this trend, the British government adopted a new policy of conciliation. In response to increasing pressure, the League Assembly (July 4) voted to end sanctions against Italy. After this action many members of the League forgot their former opposition to de jure recognition of the Italian empire in Africa and issued letters of credence accrediting their envoys to "His Majesty the King of Italy, Emperor of Ethiopia." On January 5, 1938, the Italian government published a statement which indicated that seventeen States, most of them members of the League, had granted de jure recognition, and eleven States, including Britain and France, had extended de facto recognition to the Italian absorption of Ethiopia.

On January 14, 1938, Lord Halifax frankly disclosed to President Roosevelt the intention of the British government to abandon the nonrecognition policy so dear to the heart of Secretary Hull. Three days later (January 17), the President sent a personal letter to Prime Minister Chamberlain protesting against this proposed British action. Chamberlain, believing that a policy of appeasement was vitally necessary as far as Italy was concerned, gave little heed to the President's plea and, on April 16, 1938, concluded an AngloItalian Agreement which completely recognized Italian sovereignty over Ethiopia.201 Britain could no longer afford the luxury of a parallel policy with the United States.

UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 133 President Roosevelt was not favorably impressed with Chamberlain's realistic policy and he refused to follow his example with reference to any recognition of the Italian conquest of Ethiopia. When Mussolini sent Signor Fulvio Suvich as the new ambassador to the United States (October, 1936), the President was careful to receive him only as the envoy from the "King of Italy/'202 Two years later (November 11, 1938), when a birthday telegram of congratulation was sent to Victor Emmanuel III, it was addressed merely to the "King of Italy."203 The Roosevelt administration clung tenaciously to a formula of nonrecognition that could serve no useful purpose. As a distinguished authority in the field of international law cogently remarked: "Conceived of as a solution of the centuries-old problem of the cause and cure of war, it appears somewhat fatuous/'204 Fatuity in the conduct of American foreign relations made millions of Americans later on pay a staggering price in blood, sweat, and tears.

IV. THE EVE OF CONFLICT 1. THE AFTERMATH OF LOCARNO The Italian conquest of Ethiopia and Hitler's liquidation of the Locarno Treaty gave Europe a bad case of the jitters. On February 12, 1936, Anthony Eden had informed the House of Commons that the British government would "faithfully fulfill" all the obligations of Locarno.205 When Hitler boldly sent his troops into the Rhineland on March 7, many statesmen wondered what steps Britain would take to implement Eden's recent declaration. Eden himself advised against any "hasty action," and the British press supported this viewpoint. The Observer counseled the British public to keep "cool heads and just hearts," while the Sunday Dis134 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE patch remarked that the Locarno Treaty was a commitment to which the people of Britain had never given "their sanction."206 The French press was bitter over the British disinclination to take the German occupation of the Rhineland seriously. Tabouis, in L'GEuvre, claimed that a "strict liaison had been established between London and Berlin" and baldly stated that, during Lord Londonderry's visit to Berlin, after King George's funeral, Hitler "made known to him that the military occupation of the demilitarized zone would be accomplished early in March." Ambassador Straus then added this item to his dispatch to Secretary Hull: "The Embassy has reason to believe that Madame Tabouis' information is in the main correct."207 When the Rhineland matter was transferred to the League of Nations the Council adopted a resolution declaring Germany guilty of a violation of both the Versailles and Locarno treaties and the British representative voted in favor of this resolution. But French public opinion regarded the "tentative London accords" as quite "fragile,"208 and Eden's assurances, in his speech of March 26, did not dissipate their fears of a British sellout to Germany.

Hitler's farreaching peace plan of March 31 was also looked upon by France with deep suspicion.209 At Geneva, the French representative expressed the opinion that all efforts to conciliate Germany should cease, but Eden insisted that the British government should take time to explore the possibilities suggested by the recent Hitler peace proposals.210 This exploration soon proved futile. Germany would not agree to suggestions that she consent to a nonaggression pact with Soviet Russia and she would not give a pledge to respect the remaining operative clauses of the Treaty of Versailles. This non-co-operative attitude on the part of the Nazi government made Europe fear that a second World War would not be long delayed, and Prime Minister Van Zeeland, of Belgium, confided to Ambassador Bullitt that he regarded the future "most pessimistically."211 Worst of all, the shadow of bolshevism now began to creep slowly over Europe. To Ambassador Dodd, in Berlin, French lack of iarsighted leadership had largely been responsible for this dangerous situation: UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE I35 Under French leadership the League itself became partisan and only emphasized the duration of the dictated peace of Versailles and divided Europe into opposed camps. Germany's refusal in March, 1935, longer to endure this situation shattered the delicately poised artificiality and ... all of Europe was thrown into a ferment and a scramble for adjustment.

Heretofore the Bolshevik menace in Europe has been typified by the subterranean activities of the Third International. . . . Latterly, however, . . . there seems to have been a significant and aggressive change in Russian sponsorship of World Revolution. . . . Through the Franco-Soviet alliance, through the apprehensions felt in many quarters in Europe over Germany's renaissance, and through Russia's adroit diplomatic maneuvers, the Soviets have been able to pose as the saviour to those States in Europe most fearful of the rebirth of a powerful Germany.212 2. HITLER AND MUSSOLINI REACH AN IMPORTANT ACCORD OCTOBER 25, 1936 In the face of the growing Communist menace and because Franco-British pressure upon Mussolini had shattered the Stresa Front, it was inevitable that the Fuehrer and the Duce should reach some political accord. The visit of Lloyd George to Berchtesgaden in the summer of 1936 delayed for a short time the German drift toward Italy,213 but Eden never seemed to be sure of his political inclinations and could not be counted upon as a constant factor in the equation of European politics. While Eden was hesitant about making advances toward Germany, Ciano hurried to Berlin and showed Hitler a telegram from Sir Eric Phipps to the British Foreign Office in which the German government was stigmatized as a group of "dangerous adventurers." Hitler flew into the expected rage and the agreement of October 25, 1936, was the result of this stratagem.214 When this was followed by the German-Japanese Anti-Comintern Pact of November 26, European diplomats began to fear the I36 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE establishment of a strong Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis. In the United States the Baltimore Sun expressed the fear that "most of the world Powers are rushing pell-mell towards war/'215 while the Cleveland Plain Dealer was apprehensive that the pact might become "the opening wedge of the next war/'216 To the Des Moines Register it seemed evident that the United States might have to abandon its historic policy in the Far East or become involved in war.217 3. EUROPEAN STATESMEN GROPE AIMLESSLY IN THE DIRECTION OF A NEW LOCARNO There was a possibility that this drift toward war might be checked by a comprehensive rapprochement between France and Germany. Dr. Schacht, in Berlin, began to work feverishly in favor of some arrangement with France, and the German Foreign Minister had some "amicable conversations" with the French ambassador. When Premier Blum seemed inclined to take these peace feelers seriously, Anthony Eden paid a hurried visit to Paris and abruptly stopped this budding peace movement.218 On January 19 Eden made a speech in the House of Commons in which he developed the thesis that peace in Europe was indivisible. It could not be preserved by a series of bilateral agreements. He referred to Germany as a nation that had "exalted race and nationalism into a creed which is practiced with the same fervour as it is preached."219 On January 24 Premier Blum, in a speech at Lyon, repeated many of the arguments used by Eden. He was certain that "no engagements limited to France would guarantee the security of France."220 But, despite this speech of Blum, the French Foreign Office did not put a great deal of trust in the British government. Delbos, the Foreign Minister, was leaning toward a closer accord between France and Germany and he did not like the way Britain always checked such rapprochement. He expressed to Bullitt his dislike of British policy which aimed at "keeping France and Germany hostile to each other though not at war."221 This French suspicion of British policy made it easier for Hitler to take a more commanding tone in his relations with European Powers, and this fact made Belgium place a low estimate upon the UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 137 military potential of Britain and France. In April, 1937, the Belgian ambassadors in London and Paris made it very clear that their government would not permit "the foot of a German, British or

French soldier to be placed on her soil." Belgium was strongly opposed to any British or French plans that would make her soil "the battleground of the next war."222 The announcement of the Belgian government that it would follow a policy of neutrality in the event of a new European war was a shock to many European Foreign Offices. Czechoslovakia, France, and Poland immediately began to resurvey the situation. But they soon discovered they could elicit from Britain no definite promises of support in the event of an outbreak of a war in Europe caused by German aggression. The search for a new Locarno had proved fruitless. 4. MAYOR LAGUARDIA DOES HIS BEST TO EMBITTER GERMAN-AMERICAN RELATIONS While European statesmen were fumbling for some formula that would guarantee the peace of Europe, Mayor LaGuardia was doing his best to embitter GermanAmerican relations. On March 3, 1937, in an address before the women's division of the American Jewish Congress, he proposed that the 1939 World's Fair in New York City should have a temple dedicated to religious freedom: "Within that temple I'd have a Chamber of Horrors and as a climax I'd have a figure in it of that brown-shirted fanatic who is now menacing the peace of the world/'223 When the counselor of the German Embassy presented to the Department of State a protest against this verbal assault of Mayor LaGuardia upon Hitler, he was assured by Mr. Dunn, chief of the Division of Western European Affairs, that Secretary Hull "considered it most unfortunate that a city official should express himself in terms which might cause offence to a foreign government."224 On March 5, Secretary Hull himself issued a statement to the effect that he very earnestly deprecated the utterances which had "given offence to the German Government/'225 When the ebullient mayor repeated his critical remarks of Hitler, 138 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE the German press responded with such scurrility that Secretary Hull instructed Ambassador Dodd to make a formal protest against the "coarse and wholly indecent character" of these press attacks.226 American relations with Germany developed a new tension.

5. PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT PROPOSES AN INTERNATIONAL QUARANTINE AGAINST AGGRESSOR NATIONS This tension between Germany and the United States was increased when the President decided to denounce aggressor nations. In July, 1937, war broke out in the Far East after a clash between Chinese and Japanese troops. This conflict was really precipitated by Chinese Nationalist forces after they had come to an understanding with Russia. Stalin was delighted that the troops of Chiang Kaishek and the Chinese Communists could launch a common offensive against the Japanese who were trying to establish defensive positions that would hold back the Red tide. Although Ambassador Grew in Tokyo urgently requested the President to take a neutral stand in the undeclared war in the Far East, there were certain economic and political factors that propelled Mr. Roosevelt into action. The appointment of Hugo Black to the Supreme Court took on dangerous political overtones when it was learned that at one time he had worn the robes of a Klansman. Public attention must be diverted from this dangerous fact and from any real understanding of the economic crisis that was shaking the whole New Deal structure. The American gaze should be shifted from unsavory domestic scenes to distant lands where wicked dictators were threatening the foundations of the social order.

Although a considerable portion of the American press supported a Presidential proposal to quarantine aggressor nations,227 an even larger portion voiced a protest against such action because of the evident danger of American involvement in a second World War. The New York Herald Tribune feared that the President's "restless and adventurous nature" might be leading the United States into a very difficult situation.228 The New York Sun criticized the "hectoring and supercilious" tone of the President's address;229 the UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 139 Boston Herald insisted that America should not "embark on another costly attempt to reform the world";230 the Detroit Free Press was certain that the President's word would "accomplish nothing good";231 while America, the leading Catholic periodical, expressed the opinion that "the people of the United States positively are opposed to foreign imbroglios."232 6. HITLER MAKES A FRIENDLY GESTURE TOWARD THE UNITED STATES After the German ambassador in Washington assured his Foreign Office the President's address was "mainly, if not exclusively, directed against Japan,"233 Hitler decided to make a friendly gesture toward the United States. He had been considering for some time whether the activities of the GermanAmerican Bund in the United States were a help or a hindrance to his policies.

Finally, he decided to withdraw all official recognition from the Bund. On February 10, 1938, the Foreign Office instructed Ambassador Dieckhoff to inform Reich-Germans that they could no longer be members of the GermanAmerican Bund or of any substitute organizations.234 Some weeks after Germany had made this friendly gesture, Foreign Minister Ribbentrop had a conversation with Ambassador Wilson. When Ribbentrop complained of the continued hostility of the American press, Wilson assured him that this animosity was largely confined to the press on "the East coast which was dependent on banks and trusts." In the hearts of the American people as a whole there was still "much sympathy for Germany."235 7. HITLER PLAYS HOST TO LORD HALIFAX AT BERCHTESGADEN While Hitler was making friendly gestures toward the United States he was planning a very different policy toward Austria. On November 5, 1937, he had an important conference with a group of trusted counselors in the Reich Chancellery—Field Marshal von Blomberg, Colonel General Baron von Fritsch, Admiral Raeder, 140 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE Colonel General Goering, Baron von Neurath, and Colonel Hossbach. During the discussion at this conference Hitler insisted that the prime need for Germany was Lebensraum. This could be solved "only by way of force." Germany's first aim should be to "conquer Czechoslovakia and Austria simultaneously." The date which appeared to him "as a possibility was the summer of 1938."236 In order to carry out these campaigns successfully it was advisable to keep on friendly relations with Great Britain. In the autumn of 1937 General Goering, as game warden of the Reich, extended a cordial invitation to Lord Halifax to visit Berlin in order to attend the International Exhibition of Hunting. As a wellknown master of foxhounds, Halifax should greatly enjoy this exhibition.

Before leaving for Berlin, Halifax had a long talk with Ambassador Ribbentrop. It was obvious that this visit to Germany would not be confined to hunting exhibitions. He was scheduled to have some important conversations with Hitler at Berchtesgaden, and they would deal mainly with the "Austrian and Czech questions."237 Halifax arrived in Berlin on November 10 and soon had a talk with General Goering, who frankly confided to him that Germany's immediate objective was the incorporation of Austria and the Sudetenland into the Reich. After being briefed by Goering with reference to the probable contents of his approaching conversations with Hitler, Halifax left for Berchtesgaden. On November 19, he had his momentous meeting with the Fuehrer. Hitler prefaced his remarks to Halifax with an attack upon the "French democracy" which was very difficult to deal with in a satisfactory manner. He was of the opinion, however, that it would be possible to make some arrangement between Britain, France, Germany, and Italy that might preserve the peace of Europe. But, first of all, Germany should be treated as a nation that "no longer bore the moral or material stigma of the Treaty of Versailles." He then adverted to the question of the return of German colonies and remarked that it would be difficult to arrive at a just solution of this problem because the British Conservatives would oppose important concessions. Lord Halifax at once challenged this asserUNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 141 tion and stoutly maintained that in Britain the government was not the "slave" of politicians with demagogic views.

In answer to a question from Lord Halifax, Hitler stated that he did not know if Germany would ever be interested in a re-entry into the League of Nations. As far as Austria was concerned, he professed to believe that the Austro-German Agreement of July 11, 1936, might 'lead to the removal of all difficulties." With reference to Czechoslovakia, the Czechs themselves were in a position "to clear away existing difficulties."238 It is apparent that Hitler, after carefully planning the absorption of Austria and Czechoslovakia, was endeavoring to lull any suspicions that might arise in the mind of Halifax. In this he was highly successful because Halifax assured Prime Minister Chamberlain that Hitler was anxious to achieve his aims in an orderly fashion. 8. CHANCELLOR SCHUSCHNIGG GETS A TASTE OF BERCHTESGADEN HOSPITALITY After having given assurances to Lord Halifax with reference to the objectives of German policy, Hitler next sent an invitation to Chancellor Schuschnigg, of Austria, to visit Berchtesgaden. From the moment of his arrival, on November 12, he was subjected to a long list of indignities. After eleven hours of unceasing pressure he finally broke down and signed an agreement that marked the beginning of the end of Austrian independence.239 Dr. Artur SeyssInquart was taken into the Austrian cabinet as Minister of the Interior and Public Security. With such an indefatigable Nazi in an important position it would not be long before Austria would be ready for German absorption.240 Schuschnigg himself accelerated this Nazi objective by suddenly announcing, on March 9, that he would soon (March 13) hold a plebiscite on the question of Austrian independence. Lord Halifax defended this announcement in a spirited conversation with Ribben trop. When the German Foreign Minister attacked this action of Schuschnigg, Halifax remarked that it seemed astonishing to him "to assert that the head of a State should not have a plebiscite if he wanted one." Henderson, in Berlin, agreed with Halifax that 142 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE German methods were "indefensible/' but he thought that Schuschnigg's sudden determination to call for a plebiscite was "precipitous and unwise/'241 Chamberlain agreed with this Henderson judgment and stressed more than ever the importance of a policy of appeasement. During a luncheon with Ribbentrop he assured the German Foreign Minister that he desired Hitler to know of Britain's "most sincere desire for an understanding with Germany. Halifax interjected himself into this luncheon and excitedly remarked that Nazi threats of force in Austria constituted an "intolerable method" of exerting pressure upon Schuschnigg. He then inquired whether a plebiscite on the "pattern of the Saar" vote could be held on a later date. Chamberlain at once cut him off with the remark that this procedure did not "seem required by the situation." This rebuff sobered Halifax, who mildly declared that he would not insist upon the matter of a plebiscite.242 He had recently assumed the duties of Foreign Secretary after Eden's resignation (February 20), and he was not in any position to hold out against the Prime Minister.

9. THE NAZI LEGIONS MARCH INTO VIENNA WITHOUT MEETING THE OPPOSING FORCES OF A SINGLE EUROPEAN STATE This anger on the part of Lord Halifax concerning Hitler's pressure upon Austria was apparently short-lived. In the spring of 1938 Chamberlain was ardently pursuing a policy of appeasement and Halifax knew this fact before he entered the cabinet. In a note to Dino Grandi, the Italian ambassador in London, Chamberlain emphasized his desire to work along with the Rome-Berlin Axis which he considered a "most valuable pillar of European peace." This conviction, he was "happy to confirm," was shared by his friend "Lord Halifax." He wished the Duce to know that he wished not only to conclude a "strong and permanent treaty" with "Fascist Italy" but also with "National Socialist Germany."243 Hitler, however, had no time to negotiate this "strong and permanent treaty" with Britain. He had his eyes upon Austria and had to make an immediate deal with Mussolini. On March 11 he UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 143 sent Prince Philip of Hesse to Rome with a letter to the Duce alleging that Austria was rapidly cementing close ties with Czechoslovakia and that the resulting menace to German security made Austrian absorption necessary.244 This specious letter was accepted by Mussolini at face value and Hesse telephoned to the Fuehrer that the Duce had remarked that the fate of Austria was "immaterial to him." The impact of these reassuring words upon Hitler was so great that he became hysterical with gratitude. He requested Hesse to inform Mussolini that he would never forget this acquiescence in Nazi plans: "If he should ever need help or be in any danger, ... I shall stick to him . . .

even if the whole world were against him."245 The final step was to insist that President Miklas appoint SeyssInquart as Chancellor. When this was done, German troops crossed the Austrian frontier (March 12), and on March 14 Hitler entered Vienna in triumph. The Nazi program was being carried out, item by item. 10. AMERICAN REACTION TO THE NAZI ABSORPTION OF AUSTRIA According to the dispatches of Ambassador Dieckhoff, Secretary Hull, on March 12, did not seem to be unduly disturbed by the news from Vienna and did not utter a single word of disapproval during a conversation with the German ambassador. Two days later Secretary Hull was still courteous, but Sumner Welles gave "expression to a sort of malevolent bitterness."246 In Berlin Dr. Goebbels, during a conversation with Ambassador Wilson, deprecated the hostile tone of the American press but thought that GermanAmerican relations could be definitely improved. Wilson then remarked that in former years American affection for Germany had been unusually strong. This affection had been seriously weakened by recent friction with the Reich: "The bonds between the two lands went so deep that we could not regard what happened in Germany with indifference." The situation resolved itself into an ambivalent love-hate complex.

Goebbels was impressed with this "new and interesting point of 144 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE view" presented by the American ambassador and asked him to make frequent visits so they could discuss matters of common interest.247 It was evident to Ambassador Wilson that the German government was anxious to remain on friendly terms with the Department of State. He was entirely willing to return some of the friendly gestures that were being made in his direction, so he decided to accept the invitation that had been extended to him to attend the Nazi party celebration in September at Nuremberg. As soon as the B'nai Israel Centre of Brooklyn, New York, heard of this decision, a strong protest was made to the Department of State. Attendance at Nuremberg would be a "tacit condonance of the Nazi program of racial and minority persecution."248 Secretary Hull refused to accept this viewpoint, so Ambassador Wilson went to Nuremberg with his British and French colleagues.

It was the last Nuremberg celebration that any American ambassador would attend. In the United States the press continued its unceasing attack upon the Nazi way of life and at times there were, in many parts of the country, strong evidences of contempt that were not overlooked by German officials. At certain amusement parks caricatures of Hitler were used at archery stands and in certain cities the Fuehrer was depicted on toilet paper and on other articles of toilet use. These vulgarities indicated a hostile climate of opinion that would ultimately end in the devastating storm of war. This storm would not be long delayed. 11. GERMAN PRESSURE UPON CZECHOSLOVAKIA PRODUCES THE MAY CRISIS German absorption of Austria was merely the first item in the German program of expansion. The second item was the Sudeten question in Czechoslovakia. In this regard it must be conceded that Benes had pursued a policy toward the large German minority in the Sudetenland that had aroused deep resentment and thus prepared the way for the Nazi program. Much of Henlein's "misery propaganda" was based UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 145 on fact. There is far more unemployment in the German districts than in the Czech, and the Germans are inadequately represented in official posts. . . . The Czechs foolishly adopted a policy of unification instead of a loose federalism.

By the Minority Treaties and by the Czech constitution, the Germans were promised equality of rights. They took this to mean equality in a triune state of Czechs, Slovaks, and Germans; whereas Masaryk formed a ''National State of the Czechs and the Slovaks," with the Germans . . . possessing only the rights of a minority. In no sense partners, the Germans felt themselves tricked from the beginning. In their resentment they lodged nineteen petitions before the League of Nations in six years, but without much result. . . . From the autumn of 1933 onwards, Konrad Henlein rallied them in the S.D.P. [Sudeten Deutsche Partei].249 In 1938 Hitler decided to use this Sudeten Deutsche Partei for his own purposes. In his conversation with Konrad Henlein and Karl H. Frank, he informed them that he "intended to settle the Sudeten German problem in the not-too-distant future." In the meantime Henlein was to make demands upon the Czech government that could never be satisfied.250 The Karlsbad Programme, issued by Henlein on April 24, was prepared in accordance with the Fuehrer's instructions and was farreaching in its implications. A few days before this program had been published, Hitler had an important conference with General Keitel in which a plan of operations against Czechoslovakia was discussed at length.251 Sudeten discontent and German preparations for war would proceed hand in hand.

While Hitler was preparing for action against Czechoslovakia, Prime Minister Chamberlain was still clinging to his policy of appeasement. On March 22 Lord Halifax informed Sir Eric Phipps, in Paris, that the French government should clearly understand that a German attack upon Czechoslovakia would not automatically bring a British army into the field to defend the Czech frontiers.252 Two days later Chamberlain confirmed Halifax's statement, and then at an informal luncheon party given by Lady Astor 146 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE to American and Canadian correspondents, he frankly confessed that Britain would not fight for "Czechoslovakia in the event of German aggression, and that the Czechoslovak State could not continue to exist in its present form."253 The Czech government did not seem greatly concerned about the reluctance of Britain to assume any responsibility for checking German aggression. If pushed too far by Germany, it had decided to fight and, in order to indicate its intention in this regard, a partial mobilization was ordered on May 20. The crisis deepened when a Czech policeman fired upon and killed two German motorcyclists who did not answer his challenge. News of this incident infuriated Foreign Minister Ribbentrop who warned Nevile Henderson that Germany would not wait "much longer and if provocation continued her 75 millions would act as one man."254 Britain now tried to restrain Germany by indirect threats. During a conversation with the German ambassador in London, Halifax stated that if German troops crossed the Czech border, France would hasten to the aid of Czechoslovakia. In the "event of a European conflict it was impossible to foresee whether Britain would not be drawn into it."255 This British warning had a definite effect upon Hitler's plans. He lost no time in giving assurances to the Czech ambassador in Berlin with reference to Germany's intentions. Czechoslovakia had won a diplomatic victory, but it was not long-lasting. On May 30 Hitler issued a directive for "Operation Green." This was to be carried out by October 1, 1938, at the latest." Munich was in the making.

12. LORD RUNCIMAN DECIDES THAT CZECHOSLOVAKIA IS AN "ACCURSED LAND" It was obvious to the British government that the May Crisis in Czechoslovakia had not ended upon a note of confidence for the future. The friction between the Czechs and the Sudeten Germans was increasing each day and it needed only a small incident to produce war. Perhaps a special mission by some distinguished Britisher might accomplish some good! With this idea in mind, Chamberlain decided to send Lord Runciman to Prague to study the situaUNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 147 tion. In order to satisfy Czech sensibilities he was to serve merely as a "mediator and adviser." After talking the situation over with President Benes, he had several conversations with Sudeten German leaders and took careful note of their arguments. He discovered that the National Minorities Statute, passed by the Czech Parliament, did not meet the demands of Hitler, and the socalled Czech "Plan No. 2" was unacceptable to the Sudetens. Sir Nevile Henderson, in Berlin, thought that the only way to break this deadlock was for the Czech government to offer concessions that were so reasonable that Hitler could not reject them. This plan of appeasement would have to be formulated at once by Czech leaders because German patience was wearing very thin. Benes, it should be remembered, was a "small man" whose position in his own country was fast growing "quite untenable."256 Under British pressure, Benes produced his "Plan No. 3." The British Minister at Prague was "very much disappointed" at its contents,257 and Lord Runciman was so disturbed by the course of events that he confessed to Lord Halifax that Czechoslovakia was an "accursed land" in which there were many signs of "bad government."258 He found Konrad Henlein, the Sudeten leader, a "courteous, friendly and honest man. It might be expedient for Britain to support the eight points of the Karlsbad Programme."259 Newton, the British minister in Prague, supported the Runciman viewpoint. He strongly advised President Benes 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."

In his dispatch to Lord Halifax, Newton had some sharp words to say about Czech insincerity with reference to former promises that had not been fulfilled. The failure of President Benes to live up to these promises to the Sudeten Germans had made a "very bad impression."260 13. PRESIDENT BENES PURSUES A POLICY OF DELAY Even under British pressure Benes moved very slowly along the road to concessions to the Sudeten Germans. On September 4 Mr.

I48 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE Newton talked to him "pretty plainly" about his "delays" in presenting terms to Henlein. Lord Runciman complained to Lord Halifax about Benes: "Nothing can excuse his [Benes'] slow movements and dilatory negotiations of the past five months."261 Prime Minister Hodza became so concerned about the actions of Benes that he removed from his hands (September 6) the control of the negotiations with the Sudeten leaders. But it was too late. The Sudeten German delegation was impressed with the sincerity of Hodza, but because of certain incidents that had just occurred at Maehrisch-Ostrau all negotiations would have to be broken off until that matter was "cleared up."262 They were never resumed. On September 13, after outbreaks in the Sudetenland, the Czech government declared martial law in that area. Nevile Henderson was now certain that war was just around the corner unless something substantial was done for the Sudeten Germans.263 After Prime Minister Chamberlain read these telegrams from Berlin and Prague he felt he must make an immediate move in the direction of appeasement. He sent a message to Hitler suggesting a conference at which the problems clamoring for settlement could be discussed. The Fuehrer replied that he was "absolutely at the disposal" of the Prime Minister.264 Berchtesgaden would soon have another distinguished visitor.

14. PRIME MINISTER CHAMBERLAIN PREPARES THE WAY FOR CAPITULATION AT MUNICH Chamberlain's decision to go to Berchtesgaden nipped in the bud a plot to push aside Hitler and prevent the outbreak of a second World War. Appeasement at Munich made Hitler's policy seem so successful that it was impossible at that time to stage a Putsch against him. If Chamberlain had acted "tough" and rejected all thought of further concessions, the plot, involving many of the most important officers in the German Army, might have succeeded. His generous attitude made war inevitable on Hitler's terms.265 It is apparent that he was inclined to give the Fuehrer the benefit UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 149 of every doubt and, as Keith Feiling points out, he probably carried with him to Berchtesgaden a none-too-favorable view of the conditions of affairs in Czechoslovakia under the administration of Benes.260 It was time for a change.

In his conversations at Berchtesgaden with Hitler it was made plain to him that the Sudetenland would have to be ceded to the Reich or there would be war. The Fuehrer was clear on the point that he "did not want a lot of Czechs, all he wanted was Sudeten Germans/'267 Chamberlain felt he could not make any decision on the Sudetenland problem until he had discussed the matter with his cabinet. This conversation on September 15 had been like a diplomatic skirmish. He now knew what Hitler apparently wanted and he would place the terms before his cabinet colleagues. After discussing with Prime Minister Daladier and Foreign Minister Bonnet all the angles of the diplomatic situation, he was ready for further conversations with Hitler. Britain and France were now agreed that the Sudetenland districts "mainly inhabited by Sudeten-Deutsch" should be transferred to the Reich. The details covering these transfers could be settled by some l'international body including a Czech representative."268 When these terms were sent to Prague, on September 19, the Czech government replied the next day in a note that requested Britain and France to reconsider the situation.269 On September 21 the Czechs were bluntly told to accept the terms outlined in the Franco-British note or else not to count upon any assistance from those nations. This was an ultimatum that the Czech cabinet had to accept, even though it was an invitation to disaster.

The way was now open for Chamberlain's second conversation with Hitler. This took place at Godesberg-on-the-Rhine because of its convenient location. The date was September 22, a time of year when the weather along the Rhine could prove Mark Twain's assertion that summer in Germany "is the perfection of the beautiful." But Chamberlain soon discovered that Hitler was not primarily interested in esthetic considerations. He was in a more exacting mood than he had been at Berchtesgaden. He was now insistent that a frontier line be drawn "at once" indicating the 150 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE areas that should be ceded to Germany. The Czechs should withdraw immediately from these districts which should be occupied by German troops. On the morning of September 23 Chamberlain sent a note to the Fuehrer expressing a fear that if German troops "in the immediate future" should occupy any Sudeten areas there would be a clash with Czech troops and war might ensue.270 Hitler's answer contained such a small compromise that Chamberlain, on the evening of September 23-24 had his second conversation with the Fuehrer.

It was largely fruitless. Hitler did, however, make one small concession: he promised to postpone the date of the entry of German troops into the Sudetenland until October 1. He also gave an assurance that the annexation of this portion of Czechoslovakia would satisfy his territorial ambitions in Europe.271 15. CHAMBERLAIN MAKES A PLEA FOR PEACE When Chamberlain returned to London after this unsatisfactory meeting at Godesberg, he had important conversations with Premier Daladier and General Gamelin, the French Chief of Staff. After extending to them a pledge that the British government would not "see France overrun or defeated by Germany/' he wrote a letter to Hitler (September 26) requesting him to arrange for a meeting between representatives of Germany and Czechoslovakia for the purpose of settling by agreement "the way in which the territory [Sudetenland] is to be handed over."272 On this same day, after receiving an urgent dispatch from Ambassador Kennedy indicating the importance of some American action, President Roosevelt sent a personal message to Benes and to Hitler.

Roosevelt pointed out the terrible destruction that a second World War would entail upon Europe and referred to the fact that even distant America could not escape some "measure of the consequences of such a world catastrophe." He then called attention to the obligations of the KelloggBriand Pact and appealed to both Hitler and BeneS to continue negotiations looking to a "peaceful, fair and constructive settlement of the questions at issue."273 UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 151 President Benes sent a prompt and favorable reply. Hitler was busily engaged upon the task of putting the finishing touches upon a speech he was to make at the Sportspalast in Berlin on the evening of September 26. He had no time for an early reply to the President's plea. Chamberlain did not place too much reliance upon the favorable effect of President Roosevelt's plea to Hitler. In a further effort to preserve peace, he sent Sir Horace Wilson to Berlin to have a final audience with the Fuehrer. He was armed with an instruction that definitely indicated that Britain would follow France in giving assistance to Czechoslovakia if she were attacked by Germany.

Owing to Hitler's excitable mood it was thought best not to confront him with this British ultimatum. During the conversation which both Sir Horace Wilson and Nevile Henderson had with the Fuehrer there were many explosions of anger from Hitler. Finally he shouted that the Sudetenland must be "free on 1st October/' and he must have an affirmative reply to this demand "within two days."274 On the following day (September 27) Hitler had a second conversation with Sir Horace Wilson, who now communicated to him the British ultimatum. The Fuehrer promptly went into one of his characteristic rages and shouted: "If France and England strike, let them do so/'275 But despite these bold words, Hitler began to have some misgivings about the effect of British intervention in a European war arising out of German aggression upon Czechoslovakia. Perhaps a few honeyed words would weaken Chamberlain's resolute stand!

On September 27 he sent a letter to the Prime Minister 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."276 He also decided that it was time to send a formal answer to President Roosevelt's appeal for peace. In this communication he stressed his adherence to the principle of selfdetermination and sharply criticized President Wilson's betrayal of it during the sessions of the Paris Peace Conference. When officials in Washington 152 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE had gained a better understanding of the problem of the Sudetenland they would adopt a different attitude.277 Hitler's telegram evoked a second plea from the President in favor of world peace. He tried to convince the Fuehrer that it was a waste of time to look back upon alleged mistakes committed at Versailles. The fate "of the world today and tomorrow" was the question that demanded an immediate answer. A second World War was as "unnecessary as it was unjustifiable." If the Fuehrer followed a path to a peaceful settlement of the Sudetenland difficulty he would gain the gratitude of "hundreds of millions throughout the world."278 The President also directed an appeal to Mussolini to lend his assistance in this search for a formula of peace.279 A second World War would mean the useless "destruction of millions of men, women and children in Europe."

16. APPEASEMENT AT MUNICH On September 28 Prime Minister Chamberlain made his appeal to Mussolini to support British efforts for peace.280 The Duce responded by sending a message to Hitler asking him to postpone action "for at least 24 hours" so that the search for peace could be continued.281 In Berlin, Hitler had received another letter from Prime Minister Chamberlain. He now suggested the calling of a conference between the representatives of Britain, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, and Italy for the purpose of discussing the Sudeten problem.282 From France came a note even more conciliatory than the one from Chamberlain. Under the pressure of these appeals, Hitler felt constrained to invite Mussolini, Prime Minister Chamberlain, and the French Premier (Daladier) to Munich for a conference on the following day (September 29). This conference did little more than underwrite the program of appeasement already agreed upon by Britain and France. On the morning of September 30 the articles of agreement were formally signed after a preliminary debate in which Daladier, apparently to impress posterity, showed a combative spirit which was soon tamed UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 153 by General Goering. The Sudetenland was ceded to Germany. It was divided into four zones whose occupation by German troops would commence on October 1 and continue until October 7. The details of the settlement were entrusted to an international commission whose members would include representatives of Britain, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, and Italy.283 In America, Secretary Hull was cautious about evaluating the outcome at Munich. On September 30 he issued the following noncommittal statement: "As to immediate peace results, it is unnecessary to say that they afford a universal sense of relief. I am not undertaking to pass upon the merits of the differences to which the Four-Power Pact signed at Munich on yesterday related."284 Sumner Wells was not so cautious. In a radio address, on October 3, he described the steps taken by President Roosevelt just prior to the conference and then remarked that "today, perhaps more than at any time during the past two decades, there was presented the opportunity for the establishment by the nations of the world of a new world order based on justice and law."285 The role of Roosevelt in this Munich settlement is difficult to establish. His appeals to Hitler and Mussolini made little impression upon these dictators. Chamberlain and Daladier were undoubtedly affected by his pleas for peace and were anxious to find some formula that would prevent the outbreak of war. But, in the event of war, Chamberlain thought that he would have the support of President Roosevelt. On August 30 he had a conference with Ambassador Kennedy relative to the crisis in Europe. Kennedy made the comment that "if Hitler seized Czechoslovakia 'it will be Hell!'" He then assured Chamberlain 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." As the conversation proceeded, he made a final important observation: "He was convinced that President Roosevelt had decided to 'go in with Chamberlain; whatever course Chamberlain desires to adopt he would think right/ "286 This assurance was certainly a blank check given to the British Prime Minister at a critical moment before his capitulation at Munich. It is possible that it confirmed his obvious tendency 154 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE toward appeasement and thus played into the hands of Hitler. It gave him confidence that, if war developed later, he could count on American aid. Some writers regard Roosevelt's messages as the most powerful factor inducing Chamberlain to refrain from resisting Hitler by force at this time.

In Washington, Roosevelt made no rash promises. On September 15 he sent a personal letter to Ambassador Phillips in Rome. In the event of war, he believed that the American people would be 90 per cent "anti-German and anti-Italian." He would not encourage "them to be neutral in thought" but instead would strongly stimulate "their natural sympathy while at the same time avoiding any thought of sending troops to Europe."287 The Polish government took advantage of German pressure upon Czechoslovakia by making a demand for the cession of the area around Teschen. This action disturbed President Roosevelt, who sent a memorandum to Secretary Hull with the request that the following thought be conveyed unofficially to Foreign Minister Beck of Poland: "The President feels that he can, as an old friend, suggest his disappointment at the Polish record of the past week. . . . He did not like what came very close to being a threatening attitude."288 The Polish government continued its threatening attitude and on October 2 secured the cession of the Teschen district. There was no further presidential admonition to Foreign Minister Beck.

The settlement at Munich had averted a definite threat of war and the Chief Executive luxuriated in that fact. In a letter to Prime Minister Mackenzie King, of Canada, he gave voice to this feeling of relief: "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."289 A week later he confided to Ambassador Phillips, in Rome, that he was "not a bit upset over the final result."290 It is usually agreed that Munich was a significant victory for Hitler. For this reason it is a little disturbing to read this Roosevelt comment upon the results of Munich. To the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Jerzy Potocki, this comment had a perfectly clear meaning: UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 155 I can only say that President Roosevelt, as a clever player of politics and a connoisseur of American mentality, speedily steered public attention away from the domestic situation in order to fasten it on foreign policy. The way to achieve this was simple. One needed, on the one hand, to enhance the war menace overhanging the world on account of Chancellor Hitler, and, on the other hand, to create a specter by talking about the attack of the totalitarian states on the United States. The Munich pact came to President Roosevelt as a Godsend. He described it as the capitulation of France and England to bellicose German militarism. As was said here [Washington]: Hitler compelled Chamberlain at pistolpoint. Hence, France and England had no choice and had to conclude a shameful peace. The prevalent hatred against everything which is in any way connected with German National Socialism is further kindled by the brutal attitude against the Jews in Germany and by the emigre problem. In this action the Jewish intellectuals participated. . . . They want the President to become the champion of human rights, . . . and the man who in the future will punish troublemongers. These groups, people who want to pose as representatives of "Americanism" and "defenders of democracy" in the last analysis, are connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry. For this Jewish international, ... to put the President of the United States at this "ideal" post of champion of human rights, was a clever move. ... It is extremely convenient to divert public attention from anti-Semitism which is ever growing in the United States."291 During a conversation with Ambassador Bullitt, on a brief leave of absence from Paris, Potocki got a glimpse of the main objectives of the Roosevelt administration: "(1) The vitalizing foreign policy, under the leadership of President Roosevelt, severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian countries; (2) the United States preparation for war on sea, land, and air which will be carried out at an accelerated speed . . . will consume the colossal sum of 1,250 million dollars; (3) it is the decided opinion of the President 156 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE that France and Britain must put an end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian countries. They must not let themselves in for any discussions aiming at any kind of territorial changes; (4) they have the moral assurance that the United States will leave the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the side of Britain and France in case of war/'292 17. GERM AN-AMERICAN RELATIONS TAKE A DEFINITE TURN FOR THE WORSE While the world was speculating upon the results of the Munich surrender, certain events happened that made GermanAmerican relations take a turn for the worse. On November 7 a Jewish refugee from Poland (Herschel Grynszpan) paid a visit to the German Embassy in Paris and shot Ernst vom Rath, the third secretary, who died three days later. This assassination touched off a new series of anti-Semitic laws in Germany with a consequent impact upon the United States. At a press conference, President Roosevelt vehemently denounced the Nazi government for their harsh measures against the Jews and immediately recalled Ambassador Wilson from Berlin in order to get a "firsthand picture" of the situation.293 The German government responded by recalling Ambassador Dieckhoff from Washington, and thus relations between the two countries were seriously strained. But the Nazi leaders had no wish for war with the United States. Goering invited Mr. Gilbert, the American charge d'affaires, to his private residence for a friendly conversation. According to Gilbert, the "most cordial and friendly" atmosphere prevailed, and Goering stressed repeatedly that he was anxious to find a solution of "the Jewish problem." Outside of that difficulty he saw "no concrete problems which should trouble relations between the two countries."294 Goebbels and Schacht made similar gestures of friendship and it was obvious that they hoped to conciliate American opinion. 18. HITLER PLACES CZECHOSLOVAKIA UNDER PROTECTIVE CUSTODY These friendly German gestures were set at naught by the basic Nazi objectives in Europe. Hitler was laying plans for the absorpUNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE iyj tion of Czechoslovakia, although he knew that such action would arouse deep resentment in the United States. On January 21 he had an important conference with M. Chvalkovsky, the Czech Foreign Minister, and abruptly informed him that he would have to pursue a policy parallel to that followed by Germany. Moreover, the Czech Army would have to be radically reduced.295 On March 13 the Slovak premier, Monsignor Tiso, had a long conversation with Hitler and hurried home to Bratislava where he issued a proclamation of Slovak independence. President Hacha, of Czechoslovakia, received the next grim invitation to Berlin. When he arrived in the German capital, on the evening of March 14, he was rushed to the Chancellery to face Hitler. The alternatives were placed before him frankly: the Czechs could resist and suffer dreadful punishment or they could gracefully submit and be given some measure of autonomy. After some hours of resistance, Hacha finally agreed to Hitler's demands. Two days later Hitler entered Prague in triumph.296 The Nazi timetable was working to perfection.

In Britain, Chamberlain at first seemed to acquiesce in the Nazi coup but on March 17, at Birmingham, he sounded a note of sharp criticism. Whether this change of front was in response to American pressure can only be surmised. At any rate, he stated that if British security were imperilled the nation would not hesitate to go to war.297 19. THE PRELIMINARIES OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR In this new and exalted mood Chamberlain moved rapidly in the direction of a momentous pledge to Poland. In March, 1939, Hitler was exerting strong pressure upon Poland in favor of concessions which seemed quite reasonable. He wished to incorporate Danzig within the Reich (after confirming Polish economic privileges in the city) and desired permission to construct an extra-territorial motor road across the Corridor. In 1933 President Roosevelt had spoken of the possibility of a German elevated railway across the Corridor. But, in 1939, the Polish Foreign Minister refused to grant these concessions, and war clouds gathered along the Polish horizon.298 I58 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE In this case it would have been wise for Chamberlain to advise the Polish Foreign Office to make some show of conciliation toward Germany. Instead, he announced in the House of Commons (March 31) that if Germany attacked Poland, Britain would support the Poles with all her power. On April 6 he concluded an Anglo-Polish defensive agreement which made this British pledge more specific.299 Chamberlain then tried to drive a wedge between Hitler and Mussolini by making new concessions to Italy. The Duce took advantage of this attitude of weakness by seizing control of Albania (April 7). In the United States, Secretary Hull denounced the Italian invasion of Albania as an "additional threat to the peace of the world/'300 The next day (Easter Sunday, April 9), as President Roosevelt was leaving Warm Springs, Georgia, for Washington, he made a significant remark to some friends who followed him to the railway station: 'Til be back in the fall if we don't have a war/'301 This blunt announcement appeared to infuse new courage into Chamberlain, who announced in the House of Commons (April 13) that Britain had decided to include Greece and Rumania in her pledge of assistance against Nazi aggression.302 When it is remembered that up to this time Britain had not even made provision for conscription for the purpose of augmenting her pitifully small army, it is obvious that Chamberlain was either criminally deluding the small nations of Europe with promises of aid that could not be effective, or he was definitely counting upon American intervention in a second World War.

This hope of American intervention was given additional strength on April 14 when President Roosevelt, apparently working for a "good record," in case the United States entered a second World War, made an address in which he trenchantly criticized the Fascist and Naxi methods of expansion: "Do we really have to assume that nations can find no better methods of realizing their destinies than those which were used by the Huns and Vandals 1500 years ago?"303 While he was making this address he was also sending by cable an appeal to Hitler and Mussolini against any further aggressive moves that might lead to war. He asked them to give assurance UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 159 that their armed forces would "not attack or invade/' for a period of ten years at least, the territories or possessions of a long list of nations.304 Mussolini made no direct answer to this appeal, but, on April 20, in addressing a meeting of influential Fascists in Rome, he stated that Italy was not impressed "by Messiah-like" messages.305 Hitler's reply was given in an address to the Reichstag on April 28.

He rejected completely the President's proposals. Hitler apparently delayed his address until he could present statements by a number of the countries listed by President Roosevelt that they did not fear any attack by Germany. He stressed the betrayal of Germany by Wilson after the Armistice and he directed attention to subject peoples ruled by the socalled "democratic states." In his concluding passage, Hitler stated that: "I cannot feel myself responsible for the fate of the world, because this world had taken no interest in the pitiful state of my own people." Hitler's satirical handling of the Roosevelt proposals is authentically reported to have made the President extremely angry. 20. RUSSIA MAKES A SECOND WORLD WAR POSSIBLE BY ENTERING INTO A TREATY WITH HITLER As Chamberlain began to realize more clearly that neither Hitler nor Mussolini was interested in a program of peace, he slowly turned in the direction of another dictator—Josef Stalin. But Soviet Russia was a very dubious partner for a democracy. On April 11 Lord Halifax had a conference with Maisky, the Russian ambassador in London, and found him quite "cynical about the whole situation." But the Foreign Office was determined to go ahead, despite its suspicions of Soviet good faith. On April 15, Sir William Seeds, the British ambassador in Moscow, presented to Litvinov a suggestion that the Soviet government, following British and French action, should make upon its own initiative a public declaration that "in the event of any act of aggression against any neighboring State to the Soviet Union which that State were to resist, the assistance of the Soviet Government would be given if the desire for it were expressed."306 The Soviet government replied with a counterproposal that l6o PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and France conclude an accord for immediate military support in case of aggression similar to the pact recently concluded between Great Britain and Poland. According to Polish authorities, the terms of the Russian proposals also included permission for Soviet troops to enter Poland by northern and southern routes, and a declaration by Britain that her guarantee of Poland applied only to her western frontier. Finally, it was said that Russia demanded a "free hand in the Baltic States" and a Polish-Russian treaty of farreaching implications.307 In the meantime discussions were being carried on in Berlin and Moscow with reference to a treaty that would settle all questions at issue between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. On July 6 Soviet-German talks made a real advance when Dr. Karl Schnurre, head of the Eastern European Division of the German Foreign Office, outlined to the members of a Soviet economic mission to Berlin a scheme for a gradual rapprochement between Germany and Russia. By August 4 Molotov became definitely interested in this new political alignment and six days later Astakhov, head of the Soviet economic mission, told Dr. Schnurre that he had received from Moscow instructions stressing the desire of the Soviet government for better relations with Germany. When the British and French military missions reached Moscow on August 11, they soon found it impossible to satisfy Soviet demands which included permission for Russian troops to pass through Poland. On August 19 a Soviet-German commercial agreement was signed in Berlin and on the twenty-third a nonaggression and consultative pact was signed in Moscow. Hitler was now ready for war with Poland and was assured of Russian cooperation.308 To meet this rapid thrust of strong, well-trained, and well-armed German forces, Poland had only her own weak army. Chamberlain, despite his brave words, could not send a single soldier to Poland to stem this German tide. Moreover, it was not until April 26 that Chamberlain announced a plan for military conscription. Although the House of Commons approved a bill for conscription on April 27, this measure merely added some two hundred thousand troops

to the British Army, and it was not until July that the first contingent of British recruits was called to the colors. The French Army UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE l6l was tragically weak, so far as an air force was concerned, and it should have been apparent that none of the loud boasts of General Gamelin could be effectively implemented. Poland was betrayed by both Britain and France and her own statesmen were too stupid to understand the simplest lessons in Realpolitik. 21. BRITAIN BLOCKS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE A MORATORIUM ON WAR While the British were delaying the important matter of implementing conscription they were also showing a hostility toward the idea of a moratorium on war. This situation is clearly shown in their attitude with reference to the efforts of Hamilton Fish to postpone any thought of war until the Interparliamentary Union could search for a formula of peace.

In the summer of 1939 Representative Fish led a large delegation of Americans to the meeting of the Interparliamentary Union at Oslo. The sessions of the Union were to begin on August 15. In order to secure a close-up of the situation in Germany, Mr. Fish stopped off at Salzburg on August 14 for a talk with the German Foreign Minister. He found Ribbentrop "gracious and charming" and blessed with an unusual command of English. After a detailed review of the Danzig question, the Foreign Minister frankly informed him that "unless Danzig was restored and German minority rights guaranteed war would break out in ten days/' He ignored Mr. Fish's arguments for "a peaceful settlement of the Polish dispute and would offer no suggestions as to the preservation of peace through any action that might be initiated at the Interparliamentary Union conference." After a brief resume of Hitler's attempts to arrive at an understanding with Britain, he remarked that, as a result of repeated British rebuffs, "Hitler would stop at nothing to destroy the British Empire, even to the last German soldier."309 Hitler may have made such a statement about the British in a moment of hysterical anger, but it surely did not represent his real attitude toward the British Empire, which he held in highest esteem. His real attitude toward the destruction of the British Empire, when the destruction would have been an easy matter for 162 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE Hitler, is best expressed in his conversation with German General Blumentritt, immediately after Dunkirk: He [Hitler] then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of the Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but "where there is planing there are shavings flying." He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church—saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany's position on the Continent. The return of Germany's lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere.310 Since this statement agrees with Hitler's measured statements elsewhere and with his diplomatic and military actions, it may be accepted as sincere. It disposes for all time of the repeated assertions of Churchill and others that Britain had to fight against Hitler for sheer self-preservation. A competent publicist has graphically but accurately contrasted the attitudes of Hitler and Stalin toward Britain: "Hitler merely wanted to 'crash' the Carleton Club [the select club of British officials and aristocrats]; Stalin wanted to smash it."

To return to Mr. Fish, when he arrived at Oslo on the morning of August 15, he found the British just as stubborn as the Germans with regard to any concerted efforts to preserve peace. On August 17 he addressed the Interparliamentary Union on the subject of "the peaceful settlement of international disputes." At the conclusion of this address he introduced a resolution calling for "a moratorium on war for thirty days or more with a view to the settlement of international disputes by arbitration, mediation, and peaceful methods."311 The leader of the British delegation at Oslo, Colonel Arthur UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 163 Evans, showed prompt opposition to the resolution introduced by Mr. Fish and proposed an amendment to it.312 The objections of Colonel Evans found a convenient mouthpiece in Mr. C. J. Hambro, of Norway, who was both fluent and insulting. In the face of a long record of generous contributions to pressing problems of relief in Europe, Mr. Hambro accused the United States of being very niggardly in the matter of contributions for the help of refugees. After this sneering and unjustified attack, Hambro then turned to the resolution offered by Hamilton Fish: I admire his [Mr. Fish's] optimism. . . . Can we facilitate the task of responsible statesmen by adopting any such resolution? Can we make the atmosphere clearer, ... or shall we make it more nebulous . . . and provoke new propaganda against an international body for adopting resolutions felt by some states to be outside the sphere of its competence?

. . . There is one thing especially that to my mind makes it absolutely impossible for any delegate from a small state to vote for any such resolution. We protest altogether against the very idea that four great Powers may be called upon to settle any conflict which touches our vital interests.313 In the face of this Anglo-Norwegian opposition to his resolution, Mr. Fish immediately withdrew it from consideration and thus perished another attempt to halt the tides of war. They were rising high on the continent of Europe and strong barriers would have to be erected at once if their destructive course were to be checked. They could not be erected by untimely sneers at the United States. 22. ANOTHER WORLD WAR ENGULFS EUROPE As the last week in August approached it was evident to most European diplomats that the existing crisis was fast moving toward war. The news of the nonaggression pact between Germany and Soviet Russia was a clear indication that Britain and France would have to withdraw their pledges to Poland or prepare for conflict.

But Chamberlain had no intention of withdrawing his pledge and 164 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE he sent Nevile Henderson to Berchtesgaden on August 23 to tell Hitler that Britain was determined to fulfill all her obligations to the Polish State.314 Two days later he entered into a new treaty with Poland that had farreaching implications. Should ''one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against the Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power/' The treaty also obligated Britain and Poland to maintain the status quo in vast areas of Europe.315 With the wretchedly weak British Army then in existence this obligation could not possibly be implemented and the treaty was merely a tragic farce. On the very day this treaty was signed, Hitler sent for Nevile Henderson to discuss the grave situation that was moving toward war. After stressing the "immediate necessity" of a settlement of the dispute between Germany and Poland, he adverted to the possibility of an Anglo-German alliance. He spoke "with calm and apparent sincerity" and described his proposals as a "last effort, for conscience' sake, to secure good relations with Great Britain."

After Henderson reminded Hitler that Britain could not "possibly go back on its word to Poland," the Fuehrer put a plane at the British ambassador's disposal for a flight back to London for a conference with Chamberlain.316 On August 28 he returned with the message that His Majesty's Government could not, "for any advantage offered to Great Britain, acquiesce in a settlement which put in jeopardy the independence of a State to whom they have given their guarantee." Direct negotiations between Germany and Poland were then suggested, and the opinion was voiced that a "reasonable solution of the differences between Germany and Poland could and should be effected between the two countries."317 On August 29 Hitler had another conference with Henderson and handed him a note which indicated an acceptance of direct negotiations with Poland. But the German government now insisted upon "the return of Danzig and the Polish Corridor to Germany." Moreover, a representative of the Polish government was expected on the following day to discuss these terms.318 UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 165 While this crisis was developing, the smaller European Powers tried desperately to find some formula for peace. In a last-minute attempt to bring hope to millions of terror-stricken people on the Continent, King Leopold, of Belgium, speaking for the socalled ''Oslo Powers" (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden), broadcast an appeal "to those in whose hands rests the fate of the world" to avoid "the catastrophe which threatens humanity."319 On the following day (August 24), Pope Pius XII issued a fervent plea for peace.320 From Washington, President Roosevelt sent several vain appeals for a pacific solution of existing difficulties. On August 23 he addressed King Victor Emmanuel, of Italy, in "behalf of the maintenance of world peace." The unheard voices of "countless millions of human beings ask that they shall not be vainly sacrificed again."321 To Hitler he sent a similar message, and on the same day dispatched an appeal to President Moscicki, of Poland.322 Moscicki replied that he would be glad to accept President Roosevelt as a mediator in the German-Polish dispute, and this led the President to send a second appeal to Hitler.323 The Fuehrer replied that he had "left nothing untried for the purpose of settling the dispute between Germany and Poland in a friendly manner. Even at the last hour he accepted an offer from the Government of Great Britain to mediate in this dispute. Owing to the attitude of the Polish Government, however, all these endeavors have remained without result."324 In the light of the fact that President Roosevelt had encouraged Britain, France, and Poland to take a stand relative to Germany that was likely, if not sure, to bring war, it is probable that his peace pleas in 1939 were made "for the record," in a manner comparable to his plea for peace to the Japanese Emperor, dispatched on the morning of December 7, 1941.

According to Hitler's note of August 29, which he handed to Sir Nevile Henderson, the Polish government was to send an emissary to Berlin within twenty-four hours. In the meantime the German government would draft proposals "acceptable to them, and, if possible, will make such proposals available for the British government also before the Polish negotiator arrives." Throughout August 30 l66 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE the British ambassador waited for these proposals. He knew that Poland would not send an emissary to Berlin where he would face a decidedly hostile atmosphere. In this regard both Poland and Britain made a serious blunder. It should have been obvious to them that the August crisis was no time for heroics. Neither Britain nor France could place a single soldier in Poland. Germany could crush the Polish Army in a matter of weeks, and with Russian assistance Poland would be completely defeated and partitioned. Danzig and the Polish Corridor were questions that had stared German statesmen in the face ever since 1919 and their solution in favor of Germany was inevitable. For Chamberlain and Halifax to bolster Poland's courage in this matter of defiance to two Great Powers that were poised to strike, was criminal folly.

At midnight on August 30 Sir Nevile Henderson called upon the German Foreign Minister who refused to invite the Polish ambassador to see him. Ribbentrop then picked up the German proposals for a negotiated settlement with Poland and read them rapidly to Henderson: . . . When he had finished, I accordingly asked him to let me see it [the text of proposals]. Herr von Ribbentrop refused categorically, threw the document with a contemptuous gesture on the table and said that it was now out of date since no Polish Emissary had arrived in Berlin by midnight. I observed that in that case the sentence in the German note of the 29th August to which I had drawn his and the Fuehrer's attention on the preceding evening had, in fact, constituted an ultimatum in spite of their categorical denials. Herr von Ribbentrop's answer to that was that the idea of an ultimatum was a figment of my own imagination and creation.325 On August 31 Mussolini proposed the calling of a five-power conference "with the object of reviewing clauses of the Treaty of Versailles which are the cause of the disturbance in the life of Europe." This peaceful gesture gave pause to Hitler's plans to invade Poland, but on the early morning of September 1, after news of UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 167 some "frontier incidents/' he ordered his troops to cross the Polish border. At ten-thirty that morning he also informed the Reichstag that he had been compelled to repel "Poland's attack" upon Germany. On the afternoon of September 2, Sir Nevile Henderson left at the Foreign Office a copy of Chamberlain's speech which laid down certain conditions of peace. On the following morning at nine o'clock he called at the Foreign Office and delivered an ultimatum which announced that unless assurances were given before eleven o'clock of the suspension of hostilities and the withdrawal of troops from Poland, Great Britain would be at war with the Third Reich from that hour.326 At twelve o'clock the French ambassador presented an ultimatum with a time limit fixed at five o'clock. When that hour arrived, Germany was formally at war with both Britain and France.327 World War II was ready to engulf all Europe and usher in the eventual triumph of Red Russia.

In the early days of the conflict, the reports from British Military Intelligence were rosy and General Ironside was inclined to be optimistic concerning the campaign in Poland. German strategy had been based upon the expectation of a quick victory. But some of the terrain leading into Poland was quite rugged, and if the Poles made it "tough" for the invading Germans "so that it required a couple of months to make any headway," Hitler's "hordes would have great difficulty in retreating or advancing."328 The American military attache in Berlin was equally optimistic with regard to checking the progress of the German military machine. The Poles were following a preconceived plan that envisaged "delaying the German advance with covering forces and stubbornly holding fortified areas. . . . They are making the Germans pay dearly for every kilometer gained and are exhausting the best German divisions." The Polish defense was "being carried out as planned by the Poles and the French and British missions, and appears to be succeeding."329 These dispatches from Berlin read like chapters from Alice in Wonderland, and in 1939 it appeared as though Neville Chamberlain was assuming the role of the Mad Hatter when he could not send even token assistance to the hard-pressed Poles. But nowadays it seems evident that the real Mad Hatter was Franklin D. Roosel68 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE velt, who pressed Chamberlain to give promises to the Poles when there was no possibility of fulfilling them. According to some reports, it was William C. Bullitt who cast Roosevelt in this grotesque role.

I recently received from Mr. Verne Marshall, former editor of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, a letter in which he made the following statements: President Roosevelt wrote a note to William Bullitt [in the summer of 1939], then Ambassador to France, directing him to advise the French Government that if, in the event of a Nazi attack upon Poland, France and England did not go to Poland's aid, those countries could expect no help from America if a general war developed. On the other hand, if France and England immediately declared war on Germany [in the event of a Nazi attack upon Poland], they could expect "all aid" from the United States. F.D.R/s instructions to Bullitt were to send this word along to "Joe" and "Tony," meaning Ambassadors Kennedy, in London, and Biddle, in Warsaw, respectively. F.D.R. . wanted Daladier, Chamberlain and Josef Beck to know of these instructions to Bullitt. Bullitt merely sent his note from F.D.R. to Kennedy in the diplomatic pouch from Paris.

Kennedy followed Bullitt's idea and forwarded it to Biddle. When the Nazis grabbed Warsaw and Beck disappeared, they must have come into possession of the F.D.R. note. The man who wrote the report I sent you saw it in Berlin in October, 1939.330 After receiving this letter from Verne Marshall I wrote at once to Mr. Bullitt and inquired about this instruction from the President. He replied as follows: "I have no memory of any instruction from President Roosevelt of the nature quoted in your letter to me and feel quite certain that no such instruction was ever sent to me by the President."331 Mr. Joseph Kennedy sent to me a similar negative answer with reference to this alleged instruction from the President, but the UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 169 Forrestal Diaries would indicate the probability that Bullitt did strongly urge President Roosevelt to exert pressure upon Prime Minister Chamberlain and that this request evoked a favorable response from the White House. The following excerpt has farreaching implications: 27 December 1945 Played golf today with Joe Kennedy [Joseph P. Kennedy, who was Roosevelt's Ambassador to Great Britain in the years immediately before the war]. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain's position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy's view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt's [William C. Bullitt, then Ambassador to France] urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn't fight; Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain's backside. Kennedy's response always was that putting iron up his backside did no good unless the British had some iron with which to fight, and they did not. . . .

What Kennedy told me in this conversation jibes substantially with the remarks Clarence Dillon had made to me already, to the general effect that Roosevelt had asked him in some manner to communicate privately with the British to the end that Chamberlain should have greater firmness in his dealings with Germany. Dillon told me that at Roosevelt's request he had talked with Lord Lothian in the same general 170 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE sense as Kennedy reported Roosevelt having urged him to do with Chamberlain. Lothian presumably was to communicate to Chamberlain the gist of his conversation with Dillon. Looking backward there is undoubtedly foundation for Kennedy's belief that Hitler's attack could have been deflected to Russia. . . .332 Mr. Kennedy is known to have a good memory and it is highly improbable that his statements to Secretary Forrestal were entirely untrustworthy. Ambassador Bullitt was doing a lot of talking in 1939. In Janary, 1939, he had a long conversation with Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish ambassador in Washington, and confided to him that the new foreign policy of the President "severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian countries." The President had also decided that Britain and France must put an end to "any sort of compromise with the totalitarian countries/'333 In February, 1939, Bullitt talked with Jules Lukasiewicz, the Polish ambassador in Paris, and assured him that, in the event of another world war, the United States would soon intervene "on the side of France and Britain."834 President Eduard BeneS reveals in his memoirs that he and President Roosevelt discussed the prospect of a European war when he, Benes, visited Hyde Park on May 29, 1939. BeneS earnestly insisted that the United States would have to enter such a war if Hitler were to be defeated.

These excerpts from the Forrestal Diaries, and from the dispatches of the Polish ambassadors in Washington and in Paris, afford a clear indication of the fact that President Roosevelt, through Bullitt, was exerting steady pressure upon Britain and France to stand up boldly to Nazi Germany. When this policy led to a war in which Nazi armed forces easily crushed French resistance, it is easy now to understand the poignancy of Premier Reynaud's pleas in 1940 to Roosevelt for prompt assistance. He and Daladier had taken the assurance of Bullitt seriously and the hysterical tone of Reynaud's repeated wires to the White House indicates a feeling of betrayal. From the battered walls of Warsaw there were loud murmurs about broken British promises. When UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 171 their muted echoes reached London, Neville Chamberlain must have remembered the "constant needling from Washington" in favor of a more resolute stand against Hitler, and Joseph Kennedy must have had reluctant recollections of the many occasions when the President "kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain's backside." Germany had been baited into a war with Britain and France when she would have preferred a conflict with Russia over the Ukraine. Chamberlain got plenty of iron up his backside, but it was Nazi hot metal that seared him and all Britain and helped to break into bits a proud empire that all the King's horses and all the King's men can never put together again.

There would seem to be only one logical explanation for Roosevelt's insistence on peace at the time of Munich and his pressure for an Anglo-French-Polish stand which he knew meant war in 1939, namely, that he did not want any war to start in Europe which might terminate so rapidly that the United States could not enter it. In September, 1938, the French, British, Russian, and Czech armies could have faced Hitler and might have defeated him rather rapidly. By summer, 1939, the situation had drastically changed. Russia became aligned with Germany and the Czech Army had been immobilized. War, in 1939, might stretch on indefinitely and afford Roosevelt ample time to involve the United States. No one at the time expected Hitler to crush France and England as quickly and easily as he did. Indeed, but for Hitler's stupidity in playing soft with Britain in 1940, the war would probably have ended so rapidly in German victory that Mr. Roosevelt could not have found his way into the conflict.

FOOTNOTES-CHAPTER 2 1. Oscar Cargill, Intellectual America: Ideas on the March (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1941), p. 504. 2. The correspondence dealing with the pre-Armistice agreement is printed 172 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE 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. 3. Paul Birdsall, Versailles Twenty Years After (New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, Inc., 1941), pp. 3^—36. 4. David Lloyd George, Memoirs or the Peace Conference (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1939), I, 306-9. 5. Harold Nicolson, Peacemaking, 1919 (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, Inc., 1939), p. 18. 6. Charles Seymour (ed.), The Intimate Papers of Colonel House (New York: Hough ton Mifflin Company, 1928), IV, 343. 7. Philip M. Burnett, Reparation at the Paris Peace Conference (New York: Columbia University Press, 1940), I, 63-64; Colonel E. M.

House and Charles Seymour (eds.), What Really Happened at Paris (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1921), pp. 271-72. 8. Burnett, op. cit., p. 69. 9. Ibid., pp. 832-33. 10. Birdsall, op cit., p. 258. 11. Thomas A. Bailey, Woodrow Wilson and the Lost Peace (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1944), p. 240. 12. Thorstein Veblen, An Inquiry Into the Nature oi Peace (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1917), p. 261. 13. Edwyn Bevan, The Method in the Madness (London: Longmans, Green & Company, 1917), pp. 305-6. 14. Arthur P. Scott, "George Louis Beer" in the Marcus W. Jernegan Essays in American Historiography; edited by W. T. Hutchinson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937), p. 315. 15. Ibid., p. 319. 16. George L. Beer, African Questions at the Paris Peace Conference; edited by Louis H. Gray (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1923), pp. 58-60. Bailey, op. cit., p. 163. Harry R. Rudin, Germany in the Cameroons, 1884-1 gi4; a Case Study in Modern Imperialism (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1938), pp. 11,414,419.

19. Bailey, op. cit., p. 167. 20. It 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 David Hunter Miller, My Diary at the Conference of Paris (21 vols.; privately printed by the Appeal Publishing Company, 1924-1928), I, 289. 21. Ray S. Baker, Woodrow Wilson and World Settlement (New York: Doubleday, Doran & Company, 1922), III, 37-38. 22. Miller, op. cit., IV, 224-26. 23. Seymour (ed.), op. cit, IV, 334-35. 24. Lloyd George, op. cit., II, 637-42. 25. Rene Martel, The Eastern Frontiers of Germany (London: Williams & Norgate, Ltd., 1930), pp. 49-50.

UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 173 26. William H. Dawson, Germany Under the Treaty (London: Longmans, Green & Company, 1933), pp-149-52. 27. Gustav Stiesemann: His Diaries, Letteis and Papers; edited and translated by Eric Sutton (London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1935-37), II, 503. 28. Casimir Smogerzewski, "Poland: Free, Peaceful, Strong," Foreign Affairs, July, 1935. At this time Bruening was holding the office of Chancellor. 29. Documents on International Affairs, 1934; edited by John W. WheelerBennett (New York: Oxford University Press, 1935), p-424. 30. M. S. Wertheimer, "The Nazification of Danzig," Foreign Policy Reports, June 1, 1936. 31. Miller, op. cit., IV, 224-28; VI, 49-52. 32. E. Alexander Powell, Thunder Over Europe (New York: Ives Washburn, Inc., 1931), p. 62. 33. Dawson, op. cit., pp. 102-9. See also I. F. D. Morrow and L. M. Sieveking, The Peace Settlement and the German Polish Borderlands (London: Oxford University Press, 1936).

34. Powell, op. cit., p. 66. 35. Baker, op. cit., Ill, 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: Thirty Years of American Diplomacy (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1930), p. 423. 36. In the learned account written by Georges Kaeckenbeeck, The International Experiment oi Upper Silesia (London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1942), p. 6, the vote is given as 707,605 for Germany, 479,359 for Poland. 37. Martel, op. cit., pp. 79-88. 38. Dawson, op. cit., pp. 206-9. 39. Sir Robert Donald, The Polish Corridor and the Consequences (London: Thornton Butterworth, Ltd., 1929), pp. 197-98. See also Sarah Wambaugh, Plebiscites Since the World War (Washington, D. C: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1933); W. J. Rose, The Drama oi Upper Silesia (Battleboro, Vt.: Stephen Daye Press, 1936); Colonel Graham S. Hutchinson, Silesia Revisited, 1929 (London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., Ltd., 1930).

40. Seymour (ed.), op. cit., IV, 347, 349, 383. 41. Articles 428-432 of the Treaty of Versailles, The Treaties oi Peace, 1919-1923 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1924), I, 254-55. 42. General Henry T. Allen to Secretary Hughes, December 22, 1921. 862T.01/346, MS, National Archives. 43. Ambassador Wallace to Secretary Hughes, Paris, April 27, 1920. 862.00/921, MS, National Archives. 44. Emil Sauer to Secretary Hughes, Cologne, February 16, 1923. 862.00/ 1215, MS, National Archives. 45. Dawson, op. cit., p. 84. 46. Nevins, op. cit., p. 372. See also Herbert Hoover, 'The Economic Administration During the Armistice," in What Really Happened at Pahs, pp. 348-69.

174 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE 47. George E. R. Gedye, The Revolver Republic; France's Bid for the Rhine (London: J. W. Arrowsmith, Ltd., 1930), pp. 29-31. 48. Alma Luckau, The German Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference (New York: Columbia University Press, 1941), p. 124. 49. Ibid., pp. 98-100. 50. American Embassy (Paris) to the Secretary of State, October 24, 1919. 862.00/754, MS, National Archives. 51. Dyar to the Secretary of State, Berlin, December 31, 1919. 862.00/776, MS, National Archives. 52. R. D. Murphy to the Secretary of State, January 5, 1924. 862.4016/12, MS, National Archives. 53. Ex-Kaiser Wilhelm II to President Wilson, February 9, 1920. 763.7219/9116, MS, National Archives. 54. Secretary Lansing to the American Embassy in Paris, February 6, 1920. 763.7219/89413, MS, National Archives. 55. Mr. Wadsworth to Secretary Hughes, Paris, May 16, 1923. 462.00R294/210, MS, National Archives.

56. George B. Lockwood to Secretary Hughes, Paris, May 24, 1923. 462.00R293/232, MS, National Archives. 57. Foreign Relations, 1923, II, 180. 58. Secretary Hughes to Ambassador Herrick, February 23, March 15, 1924. 462.00R296/176, 212, MS, National Archives. 59. Commissioner Dresel to Secretary Hughes, Berlin, April 20, 1921. 462.00R29/649, MS, National Archives. On the general subject of reparations see Carl Bergmann, The History of Reparations (London: Ernest Benn, 1927). 60. Secretary Hughes to the American Mission in Berlin, April 22, 1921. 462.00R29/684, MS, National Archives. 61. Foreign Relations, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, XIII, 862-67. 62. Ibid., pp. 18-19. 63. Ibid., pp. 22-25. 64. Ambassador Child to Secretary Hughes, Rome, October 24, 1922. 462.00R296/5, MS, National Archives. 65. Ambassador Herrick to Secretary Hughes, Paris, November 22, 1922. 462.00R29/2184, MS, National Archives.

66. Secretary Hughes to Mr. Boyden, November 24, 1922. 462.00R29/2187, MS, National Archives. 67. C. E. Herring to Secretary Hughes, Berlin, September 10, 1923. 462.00R29/3333, MS, National Archives. 68. Ambassador Houghton to Secretary Hughes, Berlin, July 27, 1923. 462.00R29/2923, MS, National Archives. 69. Interview between W. R. Castle and Herbert Hoover, March 7, 1923. 862T.01/687, MS, National Archives. 70. Gedye, op. cit., pp. 102,119-21. 71. Foreign Relations, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, XIII, 899-902. See also Charles G. Dawes, A Journal of Reparations (London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1939). 72. Quoted in Max Sering, Germany Under the Dawes Plan (London: P. S. King & Son, Ltd., 1929), pp. 64-65.

79 80 UNITED STATES AND THE ROAD TO WAR IN EUROPE 175 73. John W. WheelerBennett and H. Latimer, Information on the Reparation Settlement (London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1930). 74. P. Einzig, The World Economic Crisis, 1929-1931 (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1932); F. W. Lawrence, This Gold Crisis (London: Victor Gollancz, Ltd., 1931); League of Nations, World Production and Prices, 1925-1933 (Geneva: The Author, 1934). 75. New York Times, June 21, 1931. 76. Sherwood Eddy to Secretary Stimson, Berlin, September 1, 1931. GK 862.00/2616, MS, Department of State. 77. Frederick M. Sackett to Secretary Stimson, Berlin, July 30, 1931. 033.1140 Stimson, Henry L./144, MS, Department of State. 78. Memorandum of a conversation between Secretary Stimson and President von Hindenburg, Berlin, July 27, 1931. 033.1140 Stimson, Henry L./142V2, MS, Department of State. 9 March 13, 1932. 0. February 16, 1932.

81. April 12, 1932. 82. Dr. Heinrich Bruening to Rev. Edward J. Dunne, S.J., cited in E. J. Dunne, "The German Center Party in the Empire and the Republic," MS, dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Georgetown University Library. 83. Louis P. Lochner, What About Germany? (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, Inc., 1942), pp. 42-43. 84. John W. WheelerBennett, Hindenburg: Wooden Titan (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1936), pp. 368-85. 85. New York Herald Tribune, June 1, 1932. 86. Lord Davies, The Problem of the Twentieth Century: A Study in International Relationships (London: Ernest Benn, Ltd., 1934), p. 227. 87. Leon Blum, Peace and Disarmament (London: Jonathan Cape, Ltd., 1932), pp. 88-89. 88. Ibid., pp. 90-91. 89. James T. Shotwell, On the Rim oi the Abyss (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1936), p. 269. 90. John W. WheelerBennett, Documents on International Affairs, 1933 (London: Oxford University Press, 1934), p. 209.

91. Foreign Relations, 1933,1, 45. 92. Memorandum of a conversation between Norman H. Davis and Chancellor Hitler, Berlin, April 8, 1933, ibid., pp. 85-89. 93. Secretary Hull to Norman H. Davis, April 25, 1933, ibid., p. 107. 94. Memorandum of a conversation between President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Herriot, April 26, 1933, ibid., pp. 109-11. 95. Secretary Hull to the Ambassador in Great Britain (Bingham), May 8, 1933, ibid., pp. 130-31. 96. President Roosevelt to various chiefs of state, May 16, 1933, ibid., pp. M3-4597. New York Times, May 18,1933. 98. May 18, 1933. 99. May 18, 1933. 100. Department of State, Press Releases, May 22,1933.

176 PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE 101. George S. Messersmith to Secretary Hull, Berlin, July 10, 1933. 862.00/3033, MS, Department of State. 102. New York Times, January 10, 1932. 103. Final Act of the Lausanne Conference, Lausanne, July 9, 1932 (London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1932), Cmd. 4126; C. R. S. Harris, Germany's Foreign Indebtedness (London: Oxford University Press, *935)104. New York Times, June 10,1933. 105. Ibid., June 21, 1933. 106. Raymond Moley, After Seven Years (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1939)>PP-257~62107. Ambassador Dodd to the Acting Secretary of State, Berlin, August 23, 1933. 862.00/3061, MS, Department of State. 108. Department of State, Press Releases, September 9, 1933. 109. William E. Dodd, Diary, 1933-1938; edited by William E. Dodd, Jr., and Martha Dodd (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, Inc., 1941), pp. 44-47. 110. Department of State, Press Releases, October 14, 1933.