Sir Neville Henderson
Sir Neville Henderson was the British ambassador to Germany in the 1930's and was a principal figure in the appeasement of Hitler that lead to World War II. I've been re-reading William Shire's classic The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich lately. In it, Shirer quotes historian Sir L.B. Namier's evaluation of Henderson: "Conceited, vain, self-opinionated, rigidly adhering to his preconceived ideas, he poured out telegrams, dispatches, and letters in unbelievable numbers and of formidable length, repeating a hundred times the same ill-founded views and ideas. Obtuse enough to be a menace, and not stupid enough to be innocuous, he proved un homme néfaste." (p. 786 of the 1983 Ballantine Books paperback edition) Remind anyone else of a certain American president?
posted by Doc at 10:31 AM
3 Comments:
Your article about Henderson is quite old; however, the characterization is probably inaccurate, and neither Shirer nor his well-known book are completely trustworthy sources. Note, for example, Shirer's completely inaccurate mischaracterization of the German resistance to Hitler as being little more than a plot of ambitious generals.
Neither Henderson nor Chamberlain's appeasement can be viewed as having led the World War II. Hitler was intent on war and in fact viewed the concessions made to him at Munich as having prevented him from pursuing that course according to plan.
I suggest you read Henderson's book, "Failure of a Mission".
Appeasement most certainly did lead directly to WWII. It is true that Hitler viewed the Munich accord with anger, that it had cost him his conquest. Hitler wanted war from day 1, and the Nazi regime had been preparing for that war from the time they took power.
So, one cannot say that appeasement encouraged Hitler to pursue war. What it did do, however, was convince Hitler and everyone around him that Britain and France were weak and would do nothing to stop him as he moved forward. It undermined all internal opposition to Hitler's policies, which was typically predicated on a healthy fear of the alleged super-powers of the day. It solidified the air of infallibility around Hitler, that he was always right and those generals quivering in fear were fools.
Less than a year after Munich, when tensions are high over Poland, notice that no one takes Britain's and France's promises to Poland seriously, and their warnings are all met with indifference. Instead of forcing Hitler to back down, as they had in 1938 at Munich, Chamberlain, Henderson, et al. succeeded in having absolutely no impact on the situation, leading to the German invasion and the war.
So while appeasement did not encourage Hitler to have ambitions that he hadn't had before, it did encourage Hitler's increasingly reckless pursuit of those ambitions.
More importantly, appeasement threw away the advantages the allies had militarily. At the reoccupation of the Rhineland, all France would have had to do was send in a few divisions, which would have not only put an end to to the German action but possibly to the Nazi regime itself. But instead of a minor military action, appeasement.
Even with Czechoslovakia, the Czech defenses on the German border were strong and would have given the Wehrmacht a lot of problems in an invasion. So if the allies had held firm in 1938, the Germans would have invaded Czechoslovakia, gotten tied up with the Czech army and then would have had to fight a two front war. Certainly not a minor action any longer, but far smaller than a world war.
Did the Czechs have strong defenses on the Austrian borders. Remember the Maginot line.
Robin Jenkins
Post a Comment
<< Home