> And maybe there's the superpowers' main excuse. They were less prepared
> than Hitler by a decisive margin. I'd be interested to know if anyone on the
> British and French side was talking like that at the time ...
glb wrote:
England and France paved the path for Hitler to rebuild his military then led him along with a "free-hand" to the east. In 1934 Britain's treasury opposed acceleration of aircraft production (Chamberlain headed the Treasury then). In late1937 Lord Swinton, Cabinet minister in charge of the Air Ministry, submitted a rearmament plan which was rebuffed on financial grounds; one reason was probably that the Tory class might be asked to finance the costs. As Prime Minister, Chamberlain sacked Swinton as a response to the persistent criticism of Britain's air force.
So, rather than accept some responsibility for Hitler's power they then used his might as their excuse.
Check out "IN OUR TIME (The Chamberlain-Hitler Collusion" by Leibovitz/Finkel and "1939: the Alliance That Never Was..." by Michael Jabara Carley. "1939" is heavily referenced to recently accessed Soviet files; Carley did a fine job comparing their contents to Western documents. Both books are based on the many British/French/Soviet/German documents/dialogues. Also, Higham's book, "TRADING WITH THE ENEMY" follows US business activity with the Nazis and has some history of Roosevelt's frustrations dealing with his "captains of industry and finance".