Looking Back at ‘The Good War’
In the early morning hours of Sept. 1, 1939, 72 years ago, the German army crossed the Polish frontier.
On Sept. 3, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, having received no reply to his ultimatum demanding a German withdrawal, declared that a state of war now existed between Great Britain and Germany.
The empire followed the mother country in. The second world war was on. It would last six years, carry off scores of millions and end with Germany in ruins, half of Europe under Josef Stalin’s rule and the British Empire on the way to collapse.
Though it may prove to be the mortal wound that brings about the death of the West, most today accept World War II as inevitable, indeed as "the good war."
For it is said and believed that Adolf Hitler was not only the incarnation of evil but also out to conquer, first Poland and then Europe and then the world.
To stop such a monster, one must risk everything.
Which makes these two sentences in the final chapter of British historian Richard Overy’s new book, "1939: Countdown to War," riveting:
"Few historians now accept that Hitler had any plan or blueprint for world conquest. … (R)ecent research has suggested that there were almost no plans for what to do with a conquered Poland and that the vision of a new German empire … had to be improvised almost from scratch."
But if Hitler had no "plan or blueprint for world conquest," this raises perhaps the great question of the 20th century.
What was Britain’s stake in a Polish-German territorial quarrel to justify a war from which the British nation and empire might never recover?
How the war came about is the subject of Overy’s book.
By August 1939, Hitler had come to believe that Polish intransigence over the city of Danzig meant Germany would have to resolve the issue by force. But he desperately did not want a war with Britain like the one in which he had fought from 1914-18.
To prevent a German-Polish clash from bringing on a European war, however, Hitler had to sever the British-Polish alliance formed the previous spring.
To split that alliance, Hitler negotiated his own pact with Stalin, a coup that meant any British declaration of war to save Poland would be an utterly futile gesture. But when the Hitler-Stalin pact was announced, spelling Poland’s doom, Britain publicly reaffirmed her commitment to Poland.
Hitler instantly called off an invasion set for Aug. 26.
In the last analysis, says Overy, British "honour," Chamberlain’s honoring of his war guarantee to the Poles, caused Britain to go to war.
When and why was this commitment given?
On March 31, 1939, Chamberlain, humiliated by the collapse of his Munich agreement and Hitler’s occupation of Prague, handed, unsolicited, a war guarantee to a Poland then led by a junta of colonels.
To understand the rashness, the sheer irrationality of this decision, one must understand the issue involved and Britain’s situation in 1939.
First, the issue: The Polish-German quarrel was over a city, Danzig, most British leaders believed had been unjustly taken from Germany at the end of World War I and ought to be returned.
The German claim to Danzig was regarded as among the most just claims Germany had from what most agreed by then had been an unjust and vindictive Treaty of Versailles.
What did the people of Danzig themselves want? Writes Overy:
"In May 1933, shortly after Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany, Danzig’s National Socialist Party won 38 out of the city’s 72 assembly seats and formed the city government. … By 1936 there was a virtual one-party system. … The strongly nationalist German population agitated in 1939 to come … back home to Germany."
In short, the Germans wanted their city back, and the Danzigers wanted to go home to Germany. And most British had no objection.
Yet Britain backed up Poland’s refusal even to negotiate, and when that led to war, Britain declared war on Poland’s behalf.
Why did Britain do it?
After all, the war guarantee was given in response to the destruction of Czechoslovakia, but the Polish colonels had themselves participated in that destruction and seized a slice of Czechoslovakia.
Second, despite the guarantee, Britain had no plans to come to Poland’s aid. Third, Britain lacked the means to stop Germany. When Hitler bombed Warsaw, British bombers dropped leaflets on Germany.
If Britain had no ability to save Poland and no plans to save Poland, why encourage the Poles to fight by offering what the British knew was a worthless war guarantee? Why declare a European and world war for a country Britain could not save and a cause, Danzig, in which Britain did not believe, in an Eastern Europe where Britain had no vital interest?
Said British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax, "(We must) throw all we can into the scales on the side of law as opposed to lawlessness in Europe."
And throw it all in they did. And what became of Poland?
At Tehran and Yalta, another prime minister, Winston Churchill, ceded Poland to Stalin’s empire, in whose captivity she remained for a half-century.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
Read more by Patrick J. Buchanan
- What Should Americans Die For? – May 16th, 2013
- Who Are the War Criminals in Syria? – May 6th, 2013
- Their War, Not Ours – April 29th, 2013
- Is War With North Korea Inevitable? – April 4th, 2013
- Goading Gullible America Into War – March 21st, 2013





andy
September 1st, 2011 at 9:16 pm
I think the main reason Britain so foolishly declared war was because of personal spite on the part of Chamberlain. In his mind, Hitler had made him look ridiculous after his violation of the Munich accord. He felt humiliated. He wanted to get even. It was a combination of pride and resentment. It was an emotional decision and like all emotional decisions it was irrational. Britain should have stayed out of Poland's affairs as it should have stayed out of Czechoslovakia too. Chamberlain cut off his country's nose to spite Hitler's face.
walshtrhee
September 2nd, 2011 at 4:35 am
Buchanan's pet subject.
plumbob
September 2nd, 2011 at 6:05 am
It has often occurred to me that 60 plus years of intense Zionist propaganda and censorship has resulted in almost no one having a realistic picture of who Adolf Hitler really was, or what he actually stood for. When you observe how this same source of propaganda and censorship has skewed and distorted other historical events, as well as reality itself, you have to assume that it also skewed and distorted the image of Adolf Hitler beyond recognition.
Ira7Epstein
September 2nd, 2011 at 7:03 am
Why Britian went to war to save the Polish Corridor is an interesting question. Why Chamberlain, an intelligent man of peace, was the one to lead Britian into this horrible war will continue to be the subject of many armchair phychiatrist. But it was WWI that ruined the 20th Century and might still spell the death of the west. Without WWI there would be no Danzig, no hyperinflation in Germany, no Bolshevick coup d'etat in Russia, no Hitler or Stalin. The majority of the scorn and villiany heaped on the shoulders of Chamberlian should be transfered to the shoulders of Asquith.
andy
September 2nd, 2011 at 7:37 am
Why shouldn't it be? WE should learn from it.
John_Muhammad
September 2nd, 2011 at 7:40 am
Why is it that it takes so long for people to have a BFO (Blinding Flash of the Obvious) and actually begin asking questions about huge world events like this and the causes and effects that lead up to them? When anyone presents alternate views of such events we're awfully uncomfortable because it forces us to ask questions about ourselves and our nation's motives in certain situations.
What I still fail to understand is how can we know so much- in great detail- about ancient civilizations (like the Roman Empire, for instance) yet know so little factual information about a political and social regime that existed well within living memory? We have living people who were there and participated in the actions of the National Socialist Party and the German government of that time who can- and will- tell their stories if asked, yet when presented with anything that doesn't fit the made-for-tv Evil Empire narrative we conveniently ignore the facts or, worse, invent 'facts' to fit the story we've been taught for the last few generations.
While I don't for one minute condone the murderous actions of the 'Nazis', I also know that Germany was saved from utter failure by their leadership, brutal as it may have been at times. Hard times often call for hard measures, and we see it happening all over the world even today. If one cares to peel back the layers of disinformation, one finds a relatively unseen world of social order and national direction the few nations can match.
Remember, Hitler wasn't 'evil' until after Germany was defeated- if he had concluded peace with Britain (which he wanted all along), defeated Communism (which was the original raison d-etre of the National Socialists, btw), and had none of the more murderous aspects of his regime come to pass we'd probably have a vastly different view of his rule.
Samuel Di Muzio
September 2nd, 2011 at 8:28 am
Patrick Buchanan's assessments are perceptive…and worthy of consideration. He is also one of the very very few who challenges government authority and brain washing.
He is developing himself into an historian to be recognized. His writings, many of them, are good
reads.
Reference comments by John Muhammad, your questions are the beginnings of serious questions
about how Germany may have been entrapped by enemy countries.
RickR30
September 2nd, 2011 at 8:34 am
Britain- the nation the single-handedly brought more ruin to the planet than anyone else- so far. I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that Britain made idiotic choices before WWII. The surprise would have been if they hadn't. Plus, for an empire war is always the first resort.
Now, lets get to Pat's point. Fast forward when in the future they will be asking, why did the US invade Iraq, Afghanistan, and cause havoc in the Middle East? All of which led to the ruin of the American empire and gave away the Middle East to radicals. What was at stake for the US in any of these places? What was worth ending the American way of life and a good part of the West? Why did the US turn from minding their own business to minding everyone's business but their own? Why did the US decide to give up everything for israel? Why guarantee oil for israel even when the US doesn't have any? Anyone at all in Washington interested in this?
Jaime
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:12 am
If people respected and learned more about history, they wouldn't go around making stupid mistakes such as invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Probably some resent being told that their pet war -WWII- was as bad as any other.
Jaime
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:19 am
Maybe it's the stupidity gene. Or maybe the recklessness one. Or the hubris one. Or…
plumbob
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:35 am
RickR30. I think the reason the US eventually gave up everything for Israel and was forced to resort to perpetual war can be traced to the Federal Reserve, debt based money system which, in order to survive, requires an economy that stays in a constant and increasing state of expansion. Which is not practical or even possible in the long run, but which can be temporarily brought into existence by wars of conquest which create markets for loans as well as the production of war materials, which in turn can be used to destroy existing nations, economies and infrastructures, which in turn opens up new markets for loans to large re-construction projects, which in turn creates the need for even more production of war making material to guard and protect the latest conquest etc. etc.
Bianca
September 2nd, 2011 at 11:03 am
Britain's leadership was not driven by "emotion" or "irrational thinking". It was very much rational. Britain is a small island, and has achieved a level of world influence far beyond its puching weight. To maintain this, it ALWAYS needed others to do their bidding. England was unhappy with the revolution in Russia. With any kind of capable leadership, and free from feudal backwardness of Tzarist rule, Russia could have become a leading power and challenge Britain's far flang protectorates. It was RATIONAL to use Poland as a pawn, to encourage Hitler to move into Poland, violate the deal with Stalin, and for all intensive purposes declare the war on Russia.
England knew that Russia was in desparate straights. Following the revolution, and the bloody civil war, Russia was devastated. Britain was sure that Germany was going to conquer Russia, and that it could appease Germay with a good deal.
The extermination of tens of millions of Slavs under Hitler, by far bigger extermination then Holocaust, is barely mentioned today. Why? Because Britain is still playing anti-Russia card, and is not happy with the improved German-Russian ties, from energy to trade.
andy
September 2nd, 2011 at 11:04 am
WW1 was a disastrous war, even for the 'victors'. Had even just America minded its own business and stayed out, peace might have been achieved in 1917. This was Churchill's opinion. But Woodrow Wilson knew what was "best" for the world. And Washington has "known" it ever since….
RickR30
September 2nd, 2011 at 11:46 am
No doubt the war lords in suits, the bank scheisters, and some associated businesses are making big bucks…for now. But the questions remains, how is this good for the US as a whole and in the long run. As we've seen time and time again, what's good for the military industrial mafia and for wall street crooks is never good for America.
plumbob
September 2nd, 2011 at 1:03 pm
As you indicated, everything is done solely for the enrichment of the bankers and war mongers and nothing for the betterment of the general population. That's why this group of gatherers have always been known and recognized as human parasites.
Mahan_was_right
September 2nd, 2011 at 1:38 pm
World War One started without any participant having very clear ideas of goals. For a good part of the war, DEVELOPING war aims was a major controversy on both sides. They fought first, and made up goals as they went along.
Hitler did this in WWII. That was not only without precedent for world wars, it is how Hitler did almost everything. He made it up as he went, pushing where he saw opportunity. He even said that was a system, developed from German ideas of infiltration warfare. In a sense he was right, although it led to a dead end when short term opportunities led to dead ends in medium or long term.
Now did the British and French do it again in WWII? Maybe.
FDR had a longer term plan, to end the British and French Empires, the Japanese Empire, and prevent Case Black of German war against the US. He alone of the lot of them was clearly not making it up as he went along.
The Japanese by contrast attacked Pearl Harbor with no idea how they would end the war, other than outlasting American will to fight. In that, they were closer to the norm in both world wars.
John_Muhammad
September 2nd, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Oh, I've always believed that Germany was played by Britain in to being the 'fall guy' for taking on the Soviets- Britain couldn't do it alone, and Germany was perfectly positioned and strong enough to take Moscow to task. Even if Germany HAD allied with Britain, the Tommies were in no shape to fight a protracted war far from home, so Germany would still wind up bearing the brunt of the fight. As it stands, Britain declared war on Germany over Poland leaving them no choice BUT to fight, and opened up the two fronts that ultimately would spell doom for Berlin. When it became clear the Soviets weren't going to roll over, Britain (and America) rolled the dice and reinforced Moscow and took away the German 'wild card' factor leaving us with the Cold War. Had Germany and Britain concluded a quick peace deal, leaving Germany free to focus on the Eastern Front, one has to wonder how the European- and the world- map might look today.
John_Muhammad
September 2nd, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Most seem to have the impression that the National Socialists came to power with some detailed, monolithic plan for world dominance when in reality- as you noted- much of of it was made up on the spot. The social aspects were well thought out, the reordering of German society well in hand, but when faced with very rapidly changing political and battlefield situations, much of the 'monolithic plan' was a pipe dream and leaders and commanders forced to make huge snap decisions often with disastrous results. We already know Hitler himself fostered this sort of thing within his own Party, delegating projects (often the same projects) to two or three different departments and letting them fight it out over who would appropriate the resources and come up with a winning solution- not only did it ingrain a certain self-reliance and 'sharpness' (for good or bad) in his leadership circles, it also kept everyone on their toes and directed away from any concerted efforts to remove him from office- if you don't know who you're real friends are, you're not going to be making up a whole lot of plots against the leader.
paul
September 2nd, 2011 at 9:06 pm
why did Britain take a stand over poland, and not over spain?
mickperry
September 3rd, 2011 at 1:51 am
Britain did take a stand paul, only it wasn't a fight sanctioned by the British state. Thousands of Brits made their way under their own steam to Spain because they recognised the demonic when they saw it.