Chamberlain

I don't see a formal connection between the First Vienna Award and the Munich Pact Annex. The FVA seems to ratify a fait accompli, and it doesn't contradict Buchanan's version in any way. The wiki account for the FVA shows Hitler acting as a arbiter, and the signatories were Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Germany and Italy, Britain and France for once were not involved.

 

The details weren't put on paper, the general idea was that the interested parties should have negotiated a solution between themselves.
That was actually a shroud move, the Allies avoided another (mini) Munchen and associated charges of appeasement.

The ceded territories were occupied by the Hungarians between November 5 and 10, 1938 - three days after the award was granted so it wasn't a fait accompli.

The story of the conflict is that the Czech capitulated almost immediately, by admitting that the demands of the Sudeten Germans were legitimate - that was a huge mistake.
If they were legitimate then if followed maybe they should have been allowed to join their fatherland - Germany.
Actually, the only problem was Hitler's boorish behavior in the last days, it seems he really wanted war.

It should be remembered the Czechs gained the populated almost entirely by Germans territories by fraudulent means - by presenting fake maps during the peace conference.
And they promised the Germans would be granted wide-ranging autonomy, the same they enjoyed in Switzerland, and then reneged on their promise.

 

We know that Hitler really wanted war with Poland, since unprovoked Germany invaded Poland. And, we also know exactly why Hitler invaded Poland, his objective was to regain control of Danzig and the Corridor. Note that after one month Germany had conquered Poland, and it then floated peace offers to Britain, agreeing to withdraw from the areas it controlled in Poland save Danzig and the Corridor. Germany made peace proposals again after the fall of France. Britain would have none of it.

By the same token, we know that Britain wanted a war with Germany, since unprovoked Britain declared war on Germany. But Britain did not want a war between just Britain and Germany, Britain wanted a war with Britain, France, and all the British territories against Germany. Britain wanted a world war and the objective was to destroy Germany. It was Britain that turned a regional conflict that was concluded in a month with limited objectives into WW II that lasted four years and killed xy million persons.

Now, we could try to determine why Britain wanted to destroy Germany. The answer is not difficult to find.

 

Ahhh, I got it...The British disguised as Germans, disguised as Poles, attacked Gleiwitz radio station.

And how is the job at IHR going?

 

Hitler attacked a defensive French-British-Polish alliance not Poland, i.e. a contemporary micro-NATO.
The existence of the alliance wasn't any secret, he knew what he was doing, he hoped the British being cowards and appeasers would do nothing.
Well, the British weren't cowards.

That Britain waited a couple of days before officially declaring war was them being nice and trying to give peace another chance.

 

"Hitler attacked a defensive French-British-Polish alliance not Poland,"

That is just nonsense. However,

"i.e. a contemporary micro-NATO."

is exactly right. The underlying cause of WW I, WW II, and the current 'wars' being fought by the US (40,000 bombs in 2017) has been known since 1912 when Homer Lea wrote in "Day of the Saxon"

There can be no retention of present British sovereignty without the repression of territorial and political expansion of other nations - a condition that must culminate in war, one war if the Empire is destroyed, a series of wars if it is victorious.

An empire like Britain then and the US now extends it control to the far reaches of the world by claiming that written documents, 'treaties', give in the right to wage war on any peoples anywhere in the world for any reason.**

And the absurdity of this in the case of WW II is extreme, where we have Britain, that at the time exercised control of 25% of the earth's surface and most of the seas by force of arms, denying Germany the right to reclaim the German city of Danzig. It was not a case where Poland had fought for and won Danzig, instead it had been stolen from Germany by Woodrow Wilson and the 'internationalists' at Versailles.

Some of the commentary from 'The Unnecessary War' regarding Chambelain's announcement of the Polish guarantee ...

"Englishmen who possessed strategic vision were, with few exceptions, appalled", writes Manchester.

"This is the maddest single action this country has ever taken" M.P. Robert Boothsby told Churchill.

"We are taking a fightful gamble" said Lloyd George. Told by Chamberlain that the pact with Poland will deter Hitler. the prime minister "burst out laughing". If the British army general staff approved this, said Lloyd George, they "ought to be confined to a lunatic asylum".

Chamberlain's "reversal was so abrupt and unacceptable as to make war inevitable" wrote Liddell Hart: "The Polish guarantee was 'foolish, futile, and provocative, an ill-considered gesture that placed Britain's destiny in the hand of Polish rulers, men of very dubious and unstable judgement. The Polish Guarantee was the surest way to produce an early explosion, and a world war. It contained the maximum temptation with manifest provocation. It incited Hitler to demonstrate the futility of such a guarantee to a country out of the reach of the West, while making the stiff-necked Poles even less inclined to consider any concession to him, and at the same time making it impossible from him to back down without 'losing face'."

The legendary military strategist and historian Major-General J.F.C. Fuller relates "Well I guess your Mr. Prime Minister has made the greatest military blunder since the Stamp Act. There is no reason you should not guarantee a powder factory, as long as the rules are observed, but to guarantee one full of lunatics is a little dangerous".

Churchill, writing nine years after the fact - "And now Great Britain advances, taking France by the hand, to guarantee the integrity of Poland, of that very Poland which with hyena appetite which only six months before had joined in the pillage and destruction of Czechoslovakia. Moreover, how could we protect Poland and make good on the guarantee? Here was a decision made at the worst possible moment and on the least satisfactory ground, which would surely lead to the slaughter of tens of millions of people'.

And NATO creates exactly the same circumstance now, where a glass of spilled milk in Montenegro can be the cause of WW III. It is perfectly insane.

Another consideration is that the guarantee was not 'defensive' is that Britain and France did absolutely nothing to 'defend' Poland. When Germany attacked Poland Britain was not capable of doing much of anything and did almost nothing. France had also guaranteed Poland, and had many divisions in the field, but it too did nothing. The guarantee was a blank check for England and France to attack Germany, Poland was played and abandoned on day 1.

** Note the US now does not need a treaty, agreement, or alliance, to bomb a country, it just does it! See Countries bombed by the United States

 

The "Polish guarantee" has nothing to do with anything.
The truth is that On 25 August 1939 the United Kingdom and Poland signed a defensive alliance, and among others declared:

Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power.

It was a common defensive alliance, Poland was required to join the fight if Britain was attacked too.

Britain kept her word, gave all the support and assistance in its power - and as a result, one of the most genocidal regimes on this planet was destroyed six years later.

Britain didn't guarantee the integrity of Poland, didn't promise to come to her defense - it was "all the support and assistance in its power." Britain didn't even have an army worth speaking of so "all the support" was more than good enough.
The Poles weren't Czechs and would defend themselves in any circumstances, with or without British/French help.

That is idiotic and ignorant beyond belief, even Czech historians don't think that way.
They don't blame Britain (as Britain owned the Czech nothing) or Poland (Poland had nothing to with the decision to capitulate), they blame their own politicians.
Who didn't protect their country properly, didn't prepare it for war, refused Polish offers of a common defensive alliance against the Germans, and against the Soviets.

 

If a politician is so unstable he feels the need to demonstrate something by declaring world war, he proves beyond doubt he needs killing.

btw according to historians and his own words he planned an attack on France for years, Poland happened to be an obstacle in that planning.

 

"and as a result, one of the most genocidal regimes on this planet was destroyed six years later."

?????

When the war started the Germans had not killed anyone and not a single shot had been fired. Germany was not a 'genocidal regime' in any sense.

At the end of the war the most genocidal regime in history sitting at the victors table -

 

Sources on this peace proposals PLS.
The one after the fall of France has been brought up numerous times and no one has been able to substantiate it. I.e. at this point it's regarded by most as historical fiction.

It was not unprovoked. Britain had as noted by others a defense treaty with Poland and had publicly stated they would come to Poland's aid if Germany attacked.

Quite clearly Britain didn't want to destroy Germany. It doesn't take much reading on the interwar years to figure that out.

Homer Lee obviously didn't know what he was talking about. The US isn't now and never has been an Empire by the mid 20th century Britain was one in name only.

Try constructing a logical argument sometime it might actually convince someone. The status of Britain and what they controlled at the time is irrelevant to the opposition to Germany attacking Poland. As to whether it was won or lost. Germany lost WWI and Danzig was part of the treaty. That's not theft that's fact. Now the treaty was clearly less than fair but that's anther matter. It's also pretty clear that Hitler wanted more than Danzig and the Corridor.

Thus illustrating that not only is your historical understanding of WWII deficient your understanding of NATO is as well.

??? Treaties don't allow you to bomb countries. The violation or activation of one may do so but there are plenty of other acts that allow an armed response as well.

 

Looks like we have a denier. Nazi Germany was clearly "one of the most genocidal regimes" in history. Indeed the term was created to describe what they did.

You really believe that? How history deficient can one be. I suggest for an easy example to counter that fallacious idea you look up Krystalnacht. Here I'll even do it for you:
Kristallnacht - Wikipedia
There's also a long thread over on the Axis History Forum I believe on the Nazi executioners.

It was a genocideal regime in the truest sense of the word.

Depending on exactly how you define the term that may or may not be correct. The USSR was clearly one of the most homicidal regimes in history exactly where it ranks with Imperial Japan and Communist China would depend again on how you define things and how good your data is.

 

Till 1939 the Nazis murdered in gas chambers about 150,000 German people with mental or physical defects - in cold blood.

 

deleted - double post

 

I'm worn out from working on a related project ... so I'll just hit a few points now, will be back tomorrow ...

"Sources on this peace proposals PLS.
The one after the fall of France has been brought up numerous times and no one has been able to substantiate it. I.e. at this point it's regarded by most as historical fiction."

Just so happens that's what I've been working on .... (so I can cut and paste) ....

The book '1939 - The War that Had Many Fathers' by G. Schultze-Rhonof gives a day by day account from Aug. 23 to the outbreak of the war, the account spans 54 pages describes a seemingly endless series of meetings and shuttle diplomacy between British and German officials, including Chamberlain, Neville Henderson, Lord Halifax, Hitler, Goring, Ribbenthrop, as well as a Swedish diplomat, Birger Dahlarus, called in by Goring, who make many trips between London and Berlin. Poland continued to refuse to meet with the Germans. Hitler attempted to take his case by publishing the sixteen points of his proposed agreement.

https://i.imgur.com/87olc3L.jpg

In this short clip Schultze-Rhonof describes the British reaction to the publication of the Sixteen Points -

<<<<< see whole vid below >>>>>>


There was considerable back and forth and nuanced changes in position, but no substantial concessions were made by either side, and no agreement was reached. Schultze-Rhonof describes the Danzig negotiations in this one hour video

On Sept. 1 Germany invaded Poland, and in less than one month the war with Poland was over.

In late September Birger Dahlerus was shuttling between London and Berlin discussion options for ending the war. He met with met with Chamberlain and Halifax themselves.

wiki: Hitler's peace proposals, as presented by Dahlerus in a mellow form at the meeting amounted to the following: a rump Poland in complete vassalage to Germany, annexation to Germany of the old Reich territories in Poland, restoration of the lost German colonies or compensation for them, a promise of no further aggression, subject to "suitable guarantees" and the settlement of the Jewish question by using Poland "as a sink in which to empty the Jews".

On October 6 1939 Hitler made a 'victory' speech to the Reichstag and indicated that Germany wanted resolve the difficulties with the west without military action.

https://i.imgur.com/VMx9dI6.jpg

John Toland's 'Adolf Hitler' describes secret negotiations:

“There is only one chance,” Fritz Hesse in London phoned Hewel of the Wilhelmstrasse, “namely that we immediately move out of Poland and offer reparation payment for damages. If Hitler does that there is probably one chance in a million of avoiding the catastrophe.” Within two hours Hewel called back. A deep voice broke in, Ribbentrop’s. “You know who is speaking,” he said but asked not to be mentioned by name. “Please go immediately to your confidant—you know who I mean [he was referring to Sir Horace Wilson]—and tell him this: the Führer is prepared to move out of Poland and to offer reparation damages provided that we receive Danzig and a road through the Corridor, if England will act as mediator in the German-Polish conflict. You are empowered by the Führer to submit this proposal to the British cabinet and initiate negotiations immediately.” ..... Hesse asked Ribbentrop to repeat the offer. He did, adding, “So there will be no misunderstanding, point out again that you are acting on the express instructions of Hitler and that this is no private action of mine.”

Britain and France made no official response that I can find.

The war continued, but, as Britain was not prepared to attack Germany, and France was disinclined, a stalemate, the next six months of the war are referred to as the Phoney war in English, in French the Drôle de guerre, in German the Sitzkrieg.

On May 10 1940 the Germans began an attack on France and the low countries. In six weeks this phase of the war was complete and on June 22, 1940 an armistice was signed between Germany and France.

HItler addressed the Reichstag in a speech that is known as the Last Appeal to Reason, excerpted below

"... From London I now hear a cry – it’s not the cry of the mass of people, but rather of politicians – that the war must now, all the more, be continued ... Believe me, my deputies, I feel an inner disgust at this kind of unscrupulous parliamentarian destroyers of peoples and countries ... It never has been my intention to wage wars, but rather to build a new social state of the highest cultural level. Every year of this war keeps me from this work ... Mr. Churchill has now once again declared that he wants war ... I am fully aware that with our response, which one day will come, will also come nameless suffering and misfortune for many people ...

“... In this hour I feel compelled, standing before my conscience, to direct yet another appeal to reason in England. I believe I can do this as I am not pleading for something as the vanquished, but rather, as the victor speaking in the name of reason. I see no compelling reason for this war to continue. I am grieved to think of the sacrifices it will claim ... Possibly Mr. Churchill again will brush aside this statement of mine by saying that it is merely an expression of fear and of doubt in our final victory. In that case I shall have relieved my conscience in regard to the things to come.”

The Germans went to the extraordinary step of taking the appeal to the British people and dropped leaflets over London A Last Appeal to Reason | The Mein Kampf Project at Christogenea.org

 

A single sentence, i.e.

Especially in the midst of a 2hour long propaganda speech is not a peace proposal.

 

Birger Dahlerus was a private person with an inflated ego, a good friend of Goering - basically a Nazi pawn. So that was basically a Nazi narration.

Germany was without money, food, and friends, and no - Stalin wasn't Germany's friend, he was one of those friends in "with such friends you don't need enemies."
There was no reason to capitulate and accept Hitler's demands. In 1940 Britain wasn't defeated and time was on her side.
This was demonstrated very quickly when the battle of Britain had been won and Hitler humiliated.

By the time Hitler declared he was a "new social state of the highest cultural level" builder his death squads had murdered tens of thousands of Poles, in their efforts to decapitate the nation by destroying its elites. And Auschwitz was built - can't be denied to the highest, although not cultural standards.