Выбрать главу

date settlement, and that security depended, not merely on public opinion but on ability to

bring effective military superiority to bear at the critical point. On the other hand, The

Round Table is resolutely in favour of adequate defensive armaments and of a vigorous

and if necessary defiant foreign policy at those points where we are sure that . . . we can

bring superior power effectively to bear. And for this purpose we consider that the

nations of the Commonwealth should not only act together themselves, but should also

work in the closest cooperation with all the democracies, especially the United States.”

In February 1938, Lord Lothian, "leader" of the Group, spoke in the House of Lords in

support of appeasement. This extraordinary speech was delivered in defense of the

retiring of Sir Robert Vansittart. Sir Robert, as Permanent Under Secretary in the Foreign

Office from 1930 to 1938, was a constant thorn in the side of the appeasers. The opening

of the third stage of appeasement at the end of 1937 made it necessary to get rid of him

and his objections to their policy. Accordingly, he was "promoted" to the newly created

post of Chief Diplomatic Adviser, and the Under Secretaryship was given to Sir

Alexander Cadogan of the Cecil Bloc. This action led to a debate in February 1938. Lord

Lothian intervened to insist that Sir Robert's new role would not be parallel to that of the

new Under Secretary but was restricted to advising only on "matters specifically referred

to him by the Secretary of State, and he is no longer responsible for the day to day work

of the Office." From this point, Lothian launched into a long attack on the League of

Nations, followed by a defense of Germany. In regard to the former, he expressed

satisfaction that

“the most dangerous aspect of the League of Nations—namely, the interpretation

which has habitually been put upon it by the League of Nations Union in this country—is

pretty well dead.... It seems to me that that [interpretation] is inevitably going to turn the

League of Nations itself not into an instrument for maintaining peace but into an

instrument for making war. That was not the original concept of the League at all. The

original concept of the League definitely left the way open for alteration after six months'

examination even if it meant war.... I think the League of Nations now, at last, is going to

have a chance of recovery, for the reason that this particular interpretation, which has

been its besetting sin, the one thing which has led to its failure from the beginning, is now

dead. . . . Therefore I am more hopeful of the League today than I have been for a good

long time, because it has ceased to be an instrument to try to perpetuate the status quo.”

When Lothian turned to the problem of Germany, his arguments became even more

ridiculous. "The fundamental problem of the world today is still the problem of

Germany.... Why is Germany the issue? In my view the fundamental reason is that at no

time in the years after 1919 has the rest of the world been willing to concede any

substantial justice or reasonable understanding to Germany, either when she was a

Republic or since she has become a Totalitarian State." There followed a long attack on

the war guilt thesis as applied to 1914, or even to 1870. This thesis Lothian

called"propaganda," and from this false propaganda he traced all the cruel treatment

given Germany since 1919. He disapproved of the Nazi Government's methods inside

Germany, but added: 'Ì do not think there is any doubt that modern Germany is the result

of the policy of the United States, whom I cannot absolve from responsibility, of

ourselves, and of France; and in this matter the responsibility of the United States and

ourselves is more than that of France for defaulting on the obligation to give France some

security so that she could allow Germany to recover."

It seems impossible that this could be the same man who was calling for the

extirpation of "Prussianism" in 1908-1918 and who was to call for the same crusade as

Ambassador in Washington in 1940.

In this same speech Lothian laid down what might be called the Milner Group solution

to this German problem, 1938 modeclass="underline"

“There is only one solution to this problem. You have got to combine collective

justice with collective security. You have got to give remedies to those nations which are

entitled to them.... You have got to be willing to concede to them—and one of them is

Germany—alterations in the status quo and you have also got to incur obligations with

other like-minded nations to resist changes which go beyond what impartial justice

regards as fair.... When we are willing to admit that we are ourselves largely responsible

for the tragedy that confronts us, for the fact that Germany is the center of the world

problem, and are willing to concede to Germany what a fair-minded and impartial

authority would say was a fair solution

of her problem, and if, in addition to that, we are willing to say, We will meet aggression

to secure more than this with the only means in which it can be met, then I consider there

is hope for the world.”

The fallacy in all of this rests on the fact that every concession to Germany made her

stronger, with no guarantee that she ever would stop; and if, after years of concessions,

she refused to stop, she might be too strong to be compelled to do so. The Milner Group

thesis was based not only on ignorance but also on logical deficiencies. The program of

the Chamberlain group was at least more consistent, since it involved no effort to stop

Germany at any point but aimed to solve the German problem by driving it into Russia.

Such an "immoral" solution could not be acceptable to the Milner Group, so they should

have had sense enough to stop Germany while she was weak.

Shortly after this speech, on 24 February 1938, Lothian intervened in the debate on

Eden's resignation to reject Eden's point of view and defend Chamberlain's. He rejected

the idea that Britain should commit herself to support Czechoslovakia against Germany

and criticized the President of Czechoslovakia for his failure to make concessions to

Republican Germany. He then repeated his speech of the week before, the chief addition

being a defense of the German remilitarization of the Rhineland in March 1936.

Four days after the seizure of Austria, Lothian again advised against any new pledges

to anyone and demanded rearmament and national service. In regard to rearmament he

said: "Unpreparedness and the belief that you are unwilling to accept that challenge or

that you do not mean what you say, does contribute to war. That will remain to be a

condition of the world until the nations are willing in some way to pool their sovereignty

in a common federation."

All of these ideas of Lothian's were explicitly restated by him in a speech at Chatham

House on 24 March 1938. He refuted the"war-guilt thesis," condemned the Versailles

settlement as "a very stiff Peace Treaty," insisted on revision, blamed all the disasters of

Europe on America's withdrawal from the League in 1920, called the Hitler government a

temporary "unnatural pathological state" solely caused by the stiff treaty and the failure to

revise it, defended the remilitarization of the Rhineland and the seizure of Austria,

condemned Czechoslovakia as "almost the only racially heterogeneous State left in

Europe," praised "nonintervention" in Spain, praised Chamberlain's statement of the same

day refusing to promise support to Czechoslovakia, and demanded "national service" as