LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
[Correspondents are requested to keep their letters as brief as is reasonably possible. Signed letters are given a preference over those bearing a pseudonym, and the latter must be accompanied by the name and address of the author, which will be treated as confulential.—Ed. THE SPECTATOR]
BLUE BOOKS AND WHITE PAPERS
SIR,—Future historians, when studying the origins of the present war, will find the recently published British Govern- ment documents—and in particular Sir Nevile Henderson's account—a fascinating, though perplexing subject. It is, there- fore, interesting to read the article on this subject published In your last issue, because it indicates certain factors which are obscure.
In studying the documents which have been made public, one is struck by the fact that they corroborate fully the fears and warnings expressed during the last two years or so by many of those whose business or political interests brought them repeatedly in contact with various circles in Germany, and who expressed views frequently at variance with those of casual observers or prominent persons in British public life. In particular Sir N. Henderson's account seems to repeat many of the arguments used at the time by the more reasoned and sober critics of the Munich agreement ; and his statement that the war would have come eleven months earlier if Hitler had not obtained his way then, is a complete vindication of those critics—at least, on the score of accuracy of judgement. But here arises a perplexing dilemma : did our experts, in fact, appreciate the true nature of Nazi policy last year, and advise the Government accordingly? If so, did the Government persist in their policy because it did not agree with the advice, or because it wished at all costs to postpone—for strategical reasons—the war which it realised was inevitable in view of the fundamental nature of Hitlerism? It may be argued, in favour of the second alternative, that the unpreparedness of France and ourselves was such that a war could not be rushed—even though the Czech army and fortifications were good, the Siegfried Line was half-finished and Germany was a year less prepared. In that case, it seems puzzling why after Munich no steps appear to have been taken to prevent the Czech armaments and stocks falling into Hitler's hands. If, however, the first alternative is correct—then this raises the extremely important issue whether it is safe to entrust an executive completely with such momentous matters as foreign policy—because it is not a question of " leaving it to the men who have all the facts," but of ensuring that they draw the right deductions from those facts. And this seems to be a strong argument in favour of a Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee—inter-Party—bound by a special secrecy oath if necessary.
Whatever the interpretation of our foreign policy towards Germany from the documents now published—it is perfectly clear that Munich may have been a good or bad bargain, but in no circumstances " peace with honour."—Yours faithfully, M. ZVEGINTZOV. 16 Hammersmith Terrace, London, W.6.
SIR,—Objective truth is so rare and precious a thing that it must be welcome at all times. Nevertheless, it is difficult to exaggerate the cynicism of the British Government's yoke face during the last eight months, the latest, but not the only, proof of which is the publication of the White Paper on Nazi concentration camps.
For several years thousands of men and women in this country have carried with them every hour of the day a bitter consciousness of what was going on inside the concentration camps of Germany. Anyone who raised the matter in Parlia- ment was snubbed—" I cannot get excited about other forms of government " were the words used by Mr. Chamberlain ; now he is so excited about the form known as democracy that he is prepared to go to war for it and to publish a White Paper dealing with the very facts about which a year ago he could not get excited. The Times has the impudence to bring out a poster on which the word " revelation " is used. The facts concerning the concentration camps are not revelations, they are merely facts which The Times has chosen to ignore or minimise for reasons of high policy. Twelve months ago it was not quite nice to mention con- centration camps at the best dinner tables—people got a little hot round the collar. It is these same people who will be roused to fury by the headlines in the British Press of October 31st. May I remind them that the Baldwin Fund is not closed?—I am; Sir, yours faithfully,
Previous page
