<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> Brad De Long wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>> >glb answers: > >Chamberlain's words AND actions establish "intent" quite clearly, >especially when we add in the approval of Hitler/fascism from his >class. He was intent on giving Hitler a "free-hand" towards the >east, even at the expense of functioning democracies. This is also incoherent... If the Chamberlain-headed British government "was intent on giving Hitler a free-hand towards the east," then why did it declare war when Hitler invaded Poland? All it had to do was shrug its shoulders when the panzers moved east, and declare that Britain's security interests on the north European plain stopped at the Rhine. But the British government did not do that. Instead they declared war and mobilized for a prolonged struggle of attrition... Brad DeLong</blockquote> glb responds: The issue of "free hand" towards the east was raised repeatedly in diplomatic conversations, cables, private correspondence, etc. between the power players PRIOR to the phony war for almost 6 years. England declared war when Hitler double-crossed them with a deal with the Soviets; this was AFTER Chamberlain cut  hisdeal with Adolph. England was notorious for its lack of commitment regarding their mutual aid pacts; they didn't lift a finger to help Poland or any of the others prior. Where do you get your information? I repeat myself from another post: 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 late 1937 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".       Prior to Hitler's chancellorship, France allowed Germany to start rearmament in violation of Versailles. In 1933 Hitler informed the British ambassador to Germany, Sir Eric Phipps, that he sought a "certain expansion in eastern Europe". The lack of denunciation could be interpreted as tacit acceptance, especially so when England concluded a naval accord with Germany (1935) that allowed Hitler to expand his navy and unrestricted expansion of his land forces. Versailles was shredded. Shortly after Hitler's rise to power the Soviets attempted to form alliances with the Western powers to contain Hitler. Every attempt was rejected until after Chamberlain (and his collusional cabinet) were thrown out of office. In Chamberlain's private letters (amongst those to his sister[s]) and private conversations, he was more concerned about expansion of "bolshevism" than the fascist take-overs of Austria, Czechoslovakia (where he was THE cheerleader), Spain, Portugal, Albania, etc. Remember "Munich" and "Peace in our times"?  Churchill said Britain had resorted to disgrace to avoid war but would have the disgrace and the war also. He was close; Britain only wanted to avoid war to the WEST. Is all this incoherent also? Are we speaking different languages?  </html>