[lit-ideas] Hitler . . . does not want war
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Lit-Ideas" <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:28:29 -0800
How soon did Britain ramp up once they recognized the threat Hitler
represented? Not very.
On page 340 of On the Origins of War, and the Preservation of Peace, Donald
Kagan writes, "The British refused to heed the warnings entirely. Mein
Kampf was not taken seriously but regard as the ravings of a rabble rouser
that would be discarded once he assumed the responsibilities of power.
Typical was the view the weekly magazine The Spectator expressed a couple of
years later:
It is true, and a pity, that the notorious volume [Mein Kampf]
Is still circulated in unrevised form and regarded as the gospel of
the
Nazi movement. But even so, if there is some incompatibility
between the policies embodied in a volume written in prison by a
defeated rebel in 1924 and those proclaimed to the world by the
titular head of the German Reich in 1935, it is reasonable to regard
the latter as the more authoritative, pending proof to the contrary.
"Such proof, of course, was not long in coming, but it was not enough to
break through the resistance of the appeasement mentality. An expert on
German affairs who would later take the lead in criticism of the Nazis and
of their appeasement insisted in March 1933 that 'Hitler . . . does not want
war. He is susceptible to reason in foreign policy. . . . He may be
described as the most moderate member of his party.' Only during the
question period after his speech did he admit that he had not yet read Mein
Kampf.
"Accepting the warnings of Hitler's evil regime and intentions would have
implied taking action against him, but the mood of the country seemed firmly
opposed even to the thought of armaments and war, for whatever reason. Only
a month after Hitler took power, in February 1933, the Oxford Union held a
debate on the motion: 'That this House will in no circumstances fight for
its King and Country.' A noted writer and lecturer, C. E. M. Joad, spoke
for the affirmative, asserting that the question was put wrongly. It should
have read: 'that this House would never commit murder on a large scale
whenever the Government decided it should do so.' . . . He ridiculed the
last war as an exercise in futility and recommended that even if Britain
were invaded 'only at most a policy of passive resistance should be
adopted.' The motion passed 275 to 153: when, later on, a motion was
proposed to expunge the 'King and Country' motion from the record, the
proposal was defeated 750 to 138. . . . the vote must be seen as reflecting
widespread resistance among those educated in universities to any idea of
pursuing national interests and security or trying to preserve the peace
through armaments and deterrence. In 1927 the Cambridge Union had voted for
'uncompromising pacifism,' and in 1933 in more than twenty universities
resolutions like that of the Oxford Union were approved. Whether such
actions came to the notice or affected the thinking of Hitler or Mussolini
can be debated, but it is hard to believe they failed to attract the
attention of British politicians.
"A surer and more potent influence came from a by-election in the London
district of East Fulham in 1934. The Labour candidate portrayed his
Conservative opponent, who favored maintaining Britain's military strength,
as a warmonger. George Lansbury, the Labour Party leader, made a campaign
speech in which he promised to 'close every recruiting station, disband the
Army and disarm the Air Force,' and the Labour candidate won . . . 'East
Fulham frightened the government out of what sense they had.' "
Comment: Right here on Lit-Ideas more than one person pooh-poohed the
notion that Ahmadinejad's speeches in which he promised to wipe Israel out
of existence ought to be taken seriously. An individual, Irene, assured me
on Lit-Ideas that Ahmadinejad was a reasonable man, "susceptible to reason
in foreign policy." Let Bush sit down with him. Surely something good will
come from that.
Without doubt there are many today who would vote just as the Oxford Union
did, even being fully apprised of what Hitler did later on. They would use
some reasoning like Phil's: Just because appeasement didn't work in the
past doesn't mean it wouldn't work now. They would resolve, "this [fill in
the blank] will in no circumstances fight for [America]. It will never
commit murder [an expression also used by Mike Geary] on a large scale
whenever the Government decided to do so."
The intellectual descendents of the Oxford Union are saying some of the same
things their forebears said back in 1933. The great university town
Berkeley tried to kick the Marine Corps recruiters out of it. Does anyone
need a special investigation to inform them as to the predominate view in
Berkeley about American military preparedness?
Fortunately for America, the view that predominated in Britain in 1933 is a
minority view in America in 2008. We have plenty of Oxford Union-types
speaking out, but fortunately for us, they don't run foreign policy - at
least not yet. Mike Geary I know has high hopes for Barak Obama. Things
could change. But even if Obama turned out to be everything Geary is hoping
for, Britain was still able to ramp up and do a Battle of Britain and
presumably we could eventually correct any Oxford-Union-type errors . . .
eventually.
Lawrence Helm
San Jacinto
Other related posts:
