Source Extract
from a speech by Sir Winston Churchill in
the House of Commons, March 1938.
|
Sources
Source Extract
from a speech by Sir Winston Churchill in
the House of Commons, March 1938.
We cannot leave the Austrian question where it is . . . The public mind has been concentrated upon the moral and sentimental aspects of the Nazi conquest of Austria - a small country brutally struck down, its Government scattered to the winds, the oppression of the Nazi party doctrine imposed upon a Catholic population and upon the working classes of Austria and of Vienna . . . But there are some things which I have not seen brought out in the public Press .
Vienna is the centre of all the communications of all the countries which formed the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, and of all the countries lying to the south east of Europe. A long stretch of the Danube is now in German hands. This mastery of Vienna gives to Nazi Germany military and economic control of the whole of the communications of south eastern Europe, by road, by river and by rail. What is the effect of this upon what is called the balance of power? . .
Source Extract
from J. Gurney, Crusade in Spain (1974)
The Spanish Civil War seemed to provide the chance for a single individual to take a positive and effective stand on an issue which seemed to be absolutely clear. Either you were opposed to the growth of Fascism and went out to fight against it, or you acquiesced in its crimes and were guilty of permitting its growth. There were many people who claimed it was a foreign quarrel and that nobody other than the Spaniards should involve themselves in it. But for myself and many others like me, it was a war of principle, and principles do not have national boundaries. By fighting against Fascism in Spain, we would be fighting against it in our own country, and every other.
Source
Austria is no longer an independent country. It is one of the States that comprise Germany. It was natural and inevitable that such a union should occur sooner or later. Even in the Treaty of Versailles the possibility of it was foreseen . . . Strictly speaking, there is no good reason for disapproving the union of Germany and Austria, but there is solid ground for disapproving Germany's method of annexation
[War mongers say that] Germany's next step . . . will be to annex Czecho-Slovakia . . . Czecho-Slovakia as a so-called nation fails to enlist British sympathies. It is not a nation at all. It is an ill-sorted gathering of peoples, thrown together by the makers of the Treaty of Versailles . . . There could be no more ironic tragedy than that we should be involved in war for the sake of preserving the unwarrantable frontiers of Czecho-Slovakia .
Even in the face of all that has passed, why should it be assumed that Germany and Italy are potential enemies? It is worthwhile now-it is more desirable than ever before to try to secure an understanding with these two countries. It is the lack of understanding between nations that breeds wars. Knowing that, it is surely the duty of the Cabinet, not to breathe fire and slaughter (as some would now have them do), but patiently and with goodwill to seek to find some path that leads to fuller mutual understanding and thus to . . . peace.
Source Extract
It seems to me that if we are to keep Europe from war we must concentrate on Hitler's offer, letting bygones be bygones, and, perhaps, even go to the length of complimenting the German people on a constructive and comprehensive gesture towards peace. This would please them and restore to them a measure of the self-esteem they crave for. France, paralysed by past experience and fear, has tried to keep her heel on Germany since the war. This cannot and ought not to be done. Britain has too long allowed herself to be influenced by the French outlook, and now we have a chance to break away and view the new proposals from our, instead of their, standpoint. I consider Hitler's offer a God-given opportunity that must not be let slip.
Source Extract
In the inter-war years it was the expression of a battle scarred generation's faith and hope that negotiations and agreements could replace wars as a means of settling disputes between countries. This naturally appealed to radicals and pacifists, who denied that Germany had been solely responsible for the First World; who believed that conflict could have been avoided by negotiation and good will; who maintained that the war had solved nothing; who claimed that Germany had been unjustly treated at the peace conference; and who put their trust in universal disarmament and the League of Nations . . But these feelings were not restricted to left wingers. It was Neville Chamberlain, the Conservative Prime Minister, who declared that, "In war there are no winners. There is nothing but suffering and ruin for those who are involved."
Source Extract
[The opportunity must be taken] to enlighten public opinion which was assuming that Germany was "the white sheep" and not "the black sheep"...
Another idea which ought to be combatted was the prevalent one that the occupation of the Rhineland was no threat to France. It was a threat because so long as the Rhineland was demilitarised, the Germans, in order to invade France through Belgium as in 1914, would have to use large forces to hold the Rhineland and their striking forces would be reduced. After occupying the Rhineland, they could fortify it, hold the frontier with a relatively small force, and greatly increase their striking force on the northern bank.
Back to Internal Assessment Requirements
Back to Appeasement and Road to War Contents
