Why did Britain not do anything when Hitler broke the Treaty of Versailles?

Why did Britain (more specifically Anthony Eden) not do anything when Hitler broke the Treaty of Versailles in 1936? I'm reading a book at the moment (the rhineland crisis by james thomas emmerson) and it doesn't go into detail into why exactly the British kind of twiddled their thumbs when Hitler remilitarized the rhineland. It has information scattered around the place but any personal insight would be fantastic! My friend and I got into a debate about different reasons and I was stumped at one point during the conversation so ANY help would be greatly appreciated. Don't be afraid to go into detail, I would prefer 1500 words as opposed to one sentence if you know what I mean, but even if you only have one sentence please contribute it

Thanks in advance

 

You'll find some info in this thread . It deals about 1939 but also about 1936-1937 and Rhineland.

http://www.ww2f.com/what-if-europea...-what-if-france-england-actualy-attacked.html

 

First, let me welcome you to the forum!

I do hope that by the time you finish this book it will have gone into why Britain did little about the Rhineland matter, otherwise I would say it is a deeply flawed book on the subject.

Consider Britains options shall we?

To send British troops into Germany to force out the 3 Battalions Hitler sent would have required the aid of one of Germany's western neigbors. Holland and Belgium were steadfastly nuetral and France had no desire to fight over the issue. Britain might have attempted a seaborn invasion of the north German coast, but might have landed no more than a Brigade group at best (about the same size as Hitler's Rhineland troops), so a no go option there. Britain could have sent its small bomber force to attack German cities, but terror bombing would be seen as overkill in the extreme. Economic sanctions were possible, but Europe was still in the grip of the depression, so anything that really hurt Germany, might just hurt Britain as well. In truth beyond the Royal Navy, the British military of 1936 was not a great deal larger than Germany's was at this time, so a military option really was not there.

On the political side the Treaty of Versailles was seen by most as a deeply flawed document. Few expected all of its terms to be enforced forever. It was not a matter of if Germany would remilitarize the Rhineland, but when. Hitler in 1936 presented the image of a duely elected popular leader, not the madman of 1945 we have come to know. Moving German troops into what was accepted as part of Germany in 1936 was seen as a perfectly reasonable act and not as a prelude to the worst war in human history.

Granted if we knew then what we know now....

 

In 1936,no one(execepted Churchill,but he was avoided as the pest) saw a reason for a British intervention,because the remilitarisation of the Rhine Land was not endangering Britain.
Btw :Britain also had not the means to intervene.

 

Another question...Why should Britain do anything? What threat was it to its empire of the time? Why didn't the USA do anything? Europe was as far to Britain as Europe was to America in ideology and thinking. Isolationism was not invented for the use of the USA alone. Versaille was not ever meant to be a treaty for Britain to keep the peace alone in Europe. The question should be why did Europe indeed the world twiddle their thumbs?

 

Strength of the British army on 1 january 1936
regular army(including oveseas garrisons) :191000
territorial army:175000
reserve:138000
on 1 january 1914:
regular army:257000
territorial 313000
reserve :227000
There also is the point that the Rhineland crisis did not happen in a vacuum:there was Japan in the Far East,and Italy with the war in Abessynia

 

A good source is :British-French appeasement :the Rhineland crisis ,it destroys the myth of A.Eden as an opponent of appeasement.

 

Didn't Britain have a problem legally with deploying troops to soil not of the territories or commonwealth? The BEF (as I recall) was the only force which could be deployed to foreign soil, by law. The Rhineland didn't qualify, and at that time the BEF was non-existent and wouldn't be rebuilt until later in the decade. Correct me if I'm wrong here guys, but without a force that could legally be deployed "on land" weren't they sort of hand-tied as to what could be done?

 

When we suddenly found ourselves at war...the BEF to France...1 CORPS...was a mighty move for the British army...A few years earlier...a brigade move to France would have been unthinkable...Never mind march to face Germans even a battalion of Germans...What nation actually invited the British army in to their ports at the time ofthe Rhineland move or any move by Germany? We didn't get the invite in the first place...I suppose we could have sailed up the Rhine uninvited or landed marines in Holland and not had trouble from the locals...Begium would wave flags as we broke through their gates at harbours...France would have rounded us up and said non non....why do you come to the land of the zulus...sorry...French...We could have landed where and by whose authority even if we wanted to...and we didnt want to by the way...

 

Um...Locarno Pact? Remember, up until 1935-6 we DID have plans if necessary to deploy on the Continent along with out erstwhile Locarno Pact allies, and apparently we exercised with the French and Belgians...

Although I'd love to know with what did we regularly exercise???

Basically - we didn't deploy because in BOTH capitals, France AND London, the governments of the late '20s and early '30s had come to view the punitive Versailles Treaty as a bit shameful Especially given the cock-up the French made of the German economy after the punitive occupation of the Rhineland in the '20s! Our air force wasn't fit to...yet - or so the Air Staff said in 1935 during the crisis over the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, telling Cabinet we could only consider sending four squadrons from the UK to East Africa; Cabinet was still discussing the Air Expansion Plans

Also - we'd just lost Belgium as an ally when she went Neutral in 1935-6 to get out of the really major domestic political crisis and budget crisis that its planned expanded military budget submitted in 1934-5 had created. Our plans with the French to fight a defensive battle in Belgium on the Central Belgian Plain in front of the French border had fallen apart totally - and weren't to be rebuilt (covertly) for another three-four years or so.

And - let's face it - we STILL thought that we'd bought off Hitler with the Anglo-German Naval Agreement...while HITLER interpreted it as an admission we wouldn't oppose him clawing back Versailles territories and priviledges bit by bit...and the Air Parity talks were still dragging on endlessly. We thought it was safe to let him do it...

 

Although I'd love to know with what did we regularly exercise???

The locarno pact...we waved paper at em...just like wintex exercises of cold war...scared the Russians to hell...I expect the Locarno pact did the same to the German war machine. Pacts are not worth the paper they are written on unless there is both the means and the will to carry them out. Bit like Mutually assured destruction...Great umberella but with holes. No though you are correct...We were supposed to do something...But the veto didn't work on that occasion.

 

Given the size and capability of the Wehrmacht at that time...it probably still did scare them, until events proved it to be worthless Remember, those German units that were sent in were sent with orders to GTFO if anyone objected!

 

Didn't America object then? Or am I carrying this faceacous stuff a bit too far?

 

As of that date - did anyone care if she did? Or didn't? All that the U.S. had contributed to the situation was negotiating the virtual end of Germany's WWI reparations...so that Britain and France could get back to paying their war debts

 

If I'm not mistaken Wilson left Europe in a huff after his 14 points were not carried out. At this point the Americans could not give two hoots about the goings on in Europe, isolationism was still their policy, was it not?

 

We were not amused!

 

Wilson left Europe a unhappy man to be sure, but the reasons were a bit complex. Yes he was disappointed by the harshness of the peace treaty, but in the end was forced to accept it because the other powers (England and France) were devastated by the cost of the war. Much of this cost owed to the US who was unwilling to forgive the debt. The only way for them to cover it was to take it from the defeated Central Powers who were worse off themselves. England and France politicly needed the cover of a harsh treaty to shift some of the blame for starting the war in the first place so Wilson had to swallow his ideals in the face of political realities. It did not help his demenor that he was facing heavy political opposition at home and declining health as well. Wilson was an honorable man playing in a arena above his station.

 

I noticed no-one mentioned the abyssinian crisis.. is it right in believing that this crisis could have also tied Britain up and they were too busy trying to fix that mess?

 

The Rhineland might not be the best case to consider with regard to Britain, since as others have pointed out, action depended on cooperation with other nations, especially France. The question Why did Britain not do anything when Hitler broke the Treaty of Versailles? might be better asked of 1935 when Hitler openly renounced the Versailles restrictions on the German military. Britain's response, in the area of greatest concern to her, was to negotiate a naval agreement which formally superseded the Versailles limits. One former Ally unilaterally scrapping one part of the treaty basically destroyed the credibility of the rest of it.

Abyssinia is a good point; there was already one ongoing aggression about which Britain and its allies could not agree on or implement a course of action, arguably a more serious one than Germany stationing troops on her own territory.

 

And then there was Spain....