1939: World Peace

Early in March 1939 several influential circles in Great Britain expressed definite hopes of an approaching general peace period. The London Sunday Dispatch in its issue of March 12 published an article stating that Prime Minister Chamberlain of Great Britain had spoken of plans for calling a world peace conference to London which would settle definitely all the outstanding world peace problems. He hoped that this conference would be followed later on by another to discuss the question of complete disarmament. Chamberlain hoped that it would be possible to settle the Italian claims upon France after the establishment of normal relations with Spain, to decide upon an air Locarno for the western and central European powers with complete prohibition of bombardment of civilian populations and the suspension of the armament race in the air, and finally to settle the German colonial claims. Prime Minister Chamberlain was fortified in his optimistic outlook by the German-British declaration of friendship at the end of September 1938 and by the similar Franco-German declaration of November 1938. At the same time, a representative delegation of the British Federation of Industries, under the sponsorship of the British Government, was in Germany negotiating with German industrialists for a mutual trade agreement and thus preparing the road to fuller economic cooperation.

German Annexation of Czechoslovakia.

Into this atmosphere of great hope, the sudden occupation by Germany in mid-March of the remaining portions of Czechoslovakia, in contradiction to the Pact of Munich and to Chancellor Hitler's repeated solemn promises, came like a bomb and opened the eyes of British and French public opinion to the true nature of National Socialism and its bid for world hegemony. Prime Minister Chamberlain, who had sincerely tried for appeasement of National Socialist Germany by helping her to right peacefully all the alleged wrongs of the Versailles Treaty, and who had hoped to arrive at a peaceful collaboration of the totalitarian dictatorships and the democracies, now saw himself obliged to recognize that his policy had not brought the expected results and that Europe seemed to have entered a period of unchecked aggression in which nobody could feel safe and which would necessarily plunge all Europe into complete chaos. This attitude of Prime Minister Chamberlain was fully supported by British public opinion and also by the French public and the French Cabinet.

Meanwhile Germany had proceeded to expand her conquests by forcing Rumania and Lithuania to conclude trade agreements most advantageous to German economic control, and by forcing the latter country to cede also the port of Memel to Germany. At the same time the Italians occupied Albania, and fear was expressed that Italy might use her new position for further conquests in the Balkans. The British and French Governments recalled their ambassadors from Berlin. The State Department in Washington issued a statement in which it was said that 'the Government of the United States on frequent occasions stated its conviction that only through international support of a program of order based upon law can world peace be assured. This Government, founded upon and dedicated to the principles of human liberty and of democracy, cannot refrain from making known this country's condemnation of the acts which have resulted in the temporary extinguishment of a free and independent people. . . . It is manifest that acts of wanton lawlessness and arbitrary force are threatening world peace and the very structure of modern civilization.' Lord Halifax, in a speech on March 18, foreshadowed the new turn in British policy when he declared that 'if and when it became plain to states that there is no apparent guarantee against successive attacks directed in turn on all who may seem to stand in the way of ambitious schemes of domination, then there is likely to be found very much greater readiness to consider whether the acceptance of wider mutual obligations in the cause of mutual support is not dictated by the necessities of self-defense.'

Guarantees to Poland and the Balkans.

As it became apparent that Chancellor Hitler's next plans of expansion were directed against Poland and Rumania, the British and French Governments declared their readiness to guarantee the territorial integrity of Poland and of any other country which in case of an attack against her vital interests should take up arms in self-defense. Great Britain gave similar one-sided guarantees to Rumania, to Turkey and to Greece, whereas her guarantee to Poland was embodied in a pact of mutual assistance concluded by the two countries. France followed the leadership of Great Britain. These guarantees to Germany's eastern and southeastern neighbors were given without any previous agreement with the Soviet Union. By their guarantees to Poland and Rumania, Great Britain and France had indirectly but fully guaranteed the western border of the Soviet Union. Negotiations were taken up between Great Britain and France on the one hand and the Soviet Union on the other to establish a strong peace front in Europe which would make further aggression impossible and thus prepare the way for some more permanent peace structure. These negotiations were long drawn-out and were complicated by the fact that the Soviet Union demanded protection not only against direct aggression from the Baltic countries and Finland, but also against indirect aggression through internal changes in those countries. The western democracies did not see their way to accede to a demand which might involve interference in the internal affairs of independent nations.

European Alliances.

Meanwhile Germany and Italy had concluded in May 1939 an offensive and defensive military alliance which pledged the complete diplomatic and military cooperation of the two countries in case of any conflict. Plans were drawn up to extend this military alliance to Japan, and possibly later to Spain and Hungary, and thus transform the anti-Comintern pact into an outright military alliance directed primarily against the Soviet Union and as a weapon also in a conflict with the democracies.

The new setup in Europe which was forecast by Prime Minister Chamberlain's vigorous speech in the House of Commons on April 3, in which he expressed the united intention of his country to end the state of permanent alarm, and offered to assist any nation menaced by the Reich, aroused violent opposition in Germany. It was maintained there that Great Britain tried to 'encircle' the Reich in the same manner as the latter claimed to have been encircled in the years before the World War. The British and the French Governments had already agreed in March to give military assistance to the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland in case those countries were attacked. On April 5, a preliminary agreement was signed in London for a defensive alliance between Britain and Poland, and on May 12, Prime Minister Chamberlain announced in the House of Commons the conclusion of the Anglo-Turkish agreement which was to precede the formal signing of a mutual assistance pact between the two countries. In this situation, which pointed definitely to the establishment of a firm peace front in Europe, the announcement at the end of August of the conclusion of an agreement between the Soviet Union and Germany came as a great surprise, and brought about changes in alignments among European countries.

Strengthened by her agreement with the Soviet Union, Germany now decided to attack Poland, feeling confident that Great Britain and France would not dare come to the help of Poland without the backing of the Soviet Union. After vain efforts by the British Government to induce Chancellor Hitler to open negotiations with Poland on a footing of equality, Germany attacked Poland on Sept. 1; and on Sept. 3. Great Britain and France declared war upon Germany in fulfillment of their obligations to Poland. Thus the second great war of the twentieth century started. At the same time the war between Japan and China entered its third year and continued throughout 1939, so that by the end of 1939 Europe as well as the Far East was in the midst of major conflicts which threatened to continue for a long time. Germany's alliance with the Soviet Union had changed conditions in such a way that Italy did not enter the war immediately on the side of Germany as had been expected from their military alliance, and that Japan, which until then had counted on a German attack upon the Soviet Union, was completely confused and proceeded to a cautious reorientation of her policy.

Invasion of Finland.

The agreement between the Soviet Union and Germany developed into an ever closer cooperation between the two nations. The Soviet Union supported Germany diplomatically, and accused Great Britain and France of waging a purely imperialist war. The Communist parties in all countries followed this new line and demanded the conclusion of a peace on the basis of the status quo, which would recognize Germany's conquests in Czechoslovakia and in Poland. The Soviet Union herself shared in these conquests by strengthening her western frontier through the annexation of Eastern Poland, and through the establishment of strong strategic bases in the Baltic States. To increase her security the Soviet Union demanded from Finland the establishment of Soviet military bases on Finnish territory. As Finland was unwilling to grant all the concessions demanded by the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union invaded Finland and tried to establish a pro-Communist government there. This extension of the war found Germany definitely on the side of the Soviet Union, whereas the democratic and neutral countries expressed their sympathy for Finland.

The League of Nations, which had been completely inactive since the beginning of 1938, was convoked in extraordinary session at Geneva in December 1939. It was then decided to expel the Soviet Union from the League of Nations and to ask the member states of the League of Nations to render assistance as far as possible to Finland. The war between the Soviet Union and Finland quickly grew into an integral part of the great struggle going on in Europe, the outcome of which was, however, in no way confined to the European continent. The Finnish Prime Minister, Risto Ryti, declared on Dec. 3 in an official broadcast to the United States that 'if Finland should perish, it would only be because there is between the civilized nations not the necessary solidarity which would protect the weak from violence.' He expressed the conviction that neutral nations should not be allowed to become indifferent to the fate of other nations because 'indifference of this kind would be digging the grave of those nations which desired to build up their existence on justice and the respect of laws.' These words, as well as the general sympathy shown in the whole world for the Finns, proved the growth of the conviction that the present war must end in some secure foundation for the peace of all those nations which wish to live in peace and to respect international law. (See also FINLAND.)

Federation of Democracies.

The statesmen of the two great western democracies repeatedly hinted at the necessity of concerted action for peace and of giving up the isolationist policy which Great Britain and France had followed before March 1939, and which had been partly responsible for the growth of international anarchy. In this respect public opinion in the western democracies was advancing even faster than the necessarily more cautious declarations of the statesmen. Leaders in all fields of political, social, and cultural activities agreed upon the necessity of recreating the League of Nations on more secure foundations after the 'second World War,' or of creating a peaceful federation of all the European nations.

In this connection the plan of an American journalist, Mr. Clarence Streit, gained great popularity. Mr. Streit in his book, 'Union Now,' proposed the federation of all democracies on the model of the federation of the original thirteen states in North America. The British ambassador to the United States, Lord Lothian, supported these proposals for federation and cooperation. Still others proposed the formation of a United States of Europe as the desirable outcome of the present war. Although none of these plans got beyond the stage of informal discussion, it became definitely clear that in the case of victory for the western democracies some form of international organization for peace and cooperation would be established. A private organization called the International Peace Campaign, with national committees in all English-speaking countries, tried to mobilize public opinion for the recognition of the necessity of establishing an international organization which should secure collective security, general disarmament, and justice for all peoples, including the defeated nations.

United States Attitude.

The attitude of the United States towards the war may be summed up by saying that the overwhelming majority of the population was opposed to the Nazi and the Communist regimes and to their policy of aggression, and that their sympathies were on the side of the western democracies and Finland. It was generally assumed that the victory of Great Britain and France would be in the interests of American national security, and the safety and development of both American and world democracy. On the other hand the large majority of Americans were unwilling to be involved in the war or to have to participate in military operations. Many Americans however, believe that the United States cannot live in peace in a world of lawlessness and anarchy, and that the nation is therefore obliged through self-interest to cooperate in finding ways and means to organize internationally for concerted action in opposition to aggression. Undoubtedly some causes of war could be removed by lowering the economic barriers between nations and opening up the channels of commerce. In that direction the administration regards the reciprocal trade agreements of Secretary Hull as a contribution to the cause of world peace.

Special Session of United States Congress.

On Sept. 21, the Congress of the United States was called for a special session for the purpose of revising neutrality legislation. After a lengthy discussion in the Senate and a briefer one in the House of Representatives, it was finally decided to amend the then existing neutrality legislation in such a way, by renouncing certain rights of international law, as to make the involvement of the United States in the war less probable or even, as far as human foresight would allow it, impossible. A plan was included to supply Great Britain and France, or any warring nation, with certain needed war materials, provided they were paid for in cash and carried on their own vessels. Thus the Neutrality Act was devised to meet the two demands upon which the majority of American public opinion agreed: not to be involved in the war, and to express their sympathy for the cause of the western democracies. In order to strengthen the position of the United States in world affairs, a closer cooperation with Latin America was sought. The community of interests between the two great continents of the western hemisphere was stressed. The United States began to regard as its task the organization of a defense force sufficient not only to protect its own territory, but the whole western hemisphere.

As regards the war in the Far East, American public opinion in 1939 was generally opposed to Japanese aggression in China. The Government of the United States gave notice to the Japanese Government of its intention to discontinue the trade treaty, and public opinion in general was in favor of imposing some form of embargo upon the shipment of war materials to Japan so as not to assist Japan in her violation of China's independence and territorial integrity. The Soviet aggression against Finland awoke a lively sympathy for the Finns and their fate, and large amounts were collected for relief purposes in Finland.

Papal Peace Plea.

In an effort to aid world peace, President Roosevelt announced on Christmas Eve the appointment of Myron G. Taylor, the retired chairman of the United States Steel Corporation, as his personal peace representative at the Vatican. This appointment was regarded as an important step in a wider plan to make articulate and effective the world-wide desire for peace. Pope Pius XII had, in an address to the College of Cardinals on Christmas Eve, strongly condemned violations of international and divine law. He had put forward a five-point plan for peace. He regarded as a fundamental condition of a just and honorable peace the assurance of the right of independence to all nations, large or small, strong or weak. 'One nation's will to live,' he declared, 'must never be tantamount to the death sentence of another. When this equality of rights has been destroyed, injured or imperiled, juridical order requires reparation, whose measure and extent is not determined by the sword or selfish arbitrary judgment, but by the standards of justice and reciprocal equity.' In these pointed phrases the Pope condemned Germany's annexation of Czechoslovakia and Poland, the attack of the Soviet Union on Finland, and Italy's destruction of the independence of the ancient Christian kingdom of Ethiopia. The Pope further insisted upon the necessity of complete disarmament, of the reconstruction of a League of Nations as a guarantee of security, and of machinery for equitable treaty revision. The fourth point of the Pope's program dealt with the necessity of meeting the real needs and just demands of racial minorities. Finally he pleaded for a new spirit to guide the peoples and their rulers — the spirit of justice as expressed in the Bible — and the Christian ideal of universal love which throws a bridge also towards those who have not the benefit of participating in the Christian faith.