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

I suppose a more pertinent question would be: why didnt FRANCE do anything?? it was, after all, their land that was in question. they were just coming out of a depression but surely that counldn't have been the only reason?

 

you never will be invited on the ranch of Belasar

 

Historically, what Britain did was contact the French for talks, former PM, current Foreign Minister Pierre-Étienne Flandin went to London and was asked what France intended to do? Flandin didn't know, he returned to France for instructions. After some debate, the French a) put their forces at the disposal of the League of Nations to support treaty enforcement and b) asked General Gamelin, Army C-of-S what could be done. The canny Gamelin replied the Army was ready for anything the government might want it to do, then went on to provide a list of everything the Army needed - which was prohibitive.

The various European gov'ts bandied the situation and various military agreements back and forth, consensus was that the Rhineland was German anyway, and kicking their military out wasn't worthy of war, it was a time for diplomacy rather than action.

Flandin returned to London for support, France was willing to follow Britain's lead. But PM Stanley Baldwin stated he had no forces to support the French with, and even if he had, the British electorate would not support military action, the British people supported the German move. In actual fact, Baldwin and the British gov't supported the German move as well, because for some time already they had been pressing the French to adapt a more defensive position vis-a-vis Germany, instead of their involvement in various Eastern European causes, alliances etc. aimed specifically Germany.

The British feared that like 1914, some relatively small event in the east i.e. Czechoslovakia, Poland etc., would cause alliance dominos to fall, resulting in a general war. Eliminating the French threat over the Rhineland reduced the likelihood of that occurring, so the German military, such as it was, in the Rhineland, was a good thing.

 

belasar. i was mulling over what you had said here earlier and it occurred to me you never said that france was an option. did you forget that they bordered germany or am i missing something important here? britain surely could have sent their troops via france, no?

@marmat. wow, what a detailed response, fantastic. thank you

 

Yes, I did, in relation to the UK's inability as yet to project air power.

 

If France was willing to oppose Hitler's move into the Rhineland, they could do it on their own, although they might welcome a British contingent as a gesture of solidarity.

I think belasar was exploring the question as originally posed, what could Britain do, or to put it another way, if France declines to act, does that excuse Britain not acting either?

 

Iactually do not think it was a matter of will..more a matter of did we want or feel the need to.

 

There's actually a fair amount about this in Wages of Destruction along with a lot of other intersting information. It is a bit dense though. As I recall both the US and British had as has been alluded to come to the conclusion for the main part that the Treaty of Versailles was "a bit extreme". Note that the British German naval treaty in the 30's specifically allowed ships that were forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles for the KM.

 

In fact France WANTED to oppose the remilitarization , but they felt they couldn´t do it ALONE... They have a defensive doctrine, they would have to deal with an hostile population, they felt they would have not be able to pass the Rhin ... so the result could have been a LONG WAR ... budgetary reasons... the frank would have been out of the gold Standard ... the occupation of the Rhineland in the twenties was still reproached.

The foreign office studied the matter:

A) Any military intervention would have increased the leftish votes. The population opposed so hard this kind of action...which would result in a reduction of defense budget.

B) The intervention would casue a WAR that would result in a comunist Germany... (France had a teatry with the USSR ) A wise vision, wasn´t it?

C) It was almost inevitable that Germany became the dominant power in Central Europe. It was better to get any kind of arrangement.


These statements are not mine: see the attached link. French Studies DUKE University.

France and the remilitarization of the Rhineland.

And many documents from the The National Archives

The Foreign Secretary describes a meeting he has had with the French, Belgian and Italian governments (FO 371/19892)

View attachment 15503

View attachment 15505

 

The British government probably felt that the original terms were unduly harsh in singling out Germany for starting the war, which truthfully was more to do with Austria-Hungary vs Russia (and the tangled web of allainces)

If they relaxed the restrictive Versailles treaty terms, they probably hoped that Germany would abide by terms similar to the Washington treaty.


A couple more things to remember, the 1920's & 1930's in Europe were a long series of conflicts between the communists and the right wing and/or fascist forces, and Poland & Germany were seen as a bulwark against the Soviets, who had finished reclaiming the Ukrainian People's Republic in 1921-1922, and were likely looking westward to reclaim former lands.

Secondly, Germany had signed a non-aggression pact with Poland in 1934, so there was some hope that the democraticly elected government in Germany would normalize relations with Europe, if the Allies relaxed some of Versaille's more restrictive & humiliating terms.

 

There also is the point that no one was willing to consider the alternative :a general war .Britain and France were democracies:they would not go to war to continue the Treaty of Versailles,but only if Germany was attacking an other country,or was attacking in the west .For the British and French politicians,the remilitarisation of the RL was only some pettiness,that was not worth to die for it .Countries are not fighting because of the violaton of a treaty,but for something more fundamental .

 

... it wasn't so much that Versailles was too harsh in limiting Germany's military, nor was it that an "Ally unilaterally scrapping one part of the treaty basically destroyed the credibility of the rest of it.", the reality was that all the nations that had forced Versailles on Germany, had already reneged, destroying the credibility of the treaty, by not living up to it!

What's remembered about Versailles is that Germany couldn't be trusted with a large military, what's conveniently forgotten is that it had been agreed that NO nation should have, nor have need of, a large military. As stated in the Preamble to Part V of the treaty, and reinforced by Article 8 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which followed, the limits placed on Germany were to be followed by similar but voluntary limitations agreed to and placed on everyone else.

“Treaty of Versailles — Part V. Military, Naval and Air Clauses by the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany

In order to render possible the initiation of a general limitation of the armaments of all nations, Germany undertakes strictly to observe the military, naval and air clauses which follow.”



It wasn’t until the 30’s, and Depression, that action was finally taken to live up to those words, the “Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments” convened in Geneva on 01 February 1932. Although there would be many instances of ultimate irony, like the British requesting that strategic bombing be prohibited, and Japan pleading that aircraft carriers be abolished, the long and the short of it is that nothing was accomplished, and the League of Nations was powerless as well.

Who could really blame Hitler in withdrawing from the Conference and the League, asking why should Germany remain disarmed, when the other powers failed to live up to their agreement? The British didn’t, while they had slashed miliary budgets in the hope that all the other nations would as well, Britain still felt a measure of guilt about it all and was willing to deal direct with Germany to limit arms, at least in the short term.

 

So we could assume the Foreing Office didn’t read the Mein Kampf (ironic mode off) or they believed it was just propaganda. No one thought that Herr Hitler could be a lunatic.
Nothing was done, even a carrot and stick strategy … like offer a debt cancellation or menace to impose economic sanctions.
I hope someone has learn the lesson.

 

On another forum I've been lead to understand that the 5 Power Declaration of 1932 basically repudiated Versaillies how true is that? Are there any online or other sources where to find this declaration?

 

I guess it was not the case. Germany didn´t agree the conditions. indirect references:


[FONT=&amp]I .- Constantin von Neurath[/FONT]


December 11, 1932: Agreement between Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and the United States of America on the question of Equality of Rights and Security. From Neurath's testimony before the IMT: "...at first the Disarmament Conference accomplished nothing; but later there resulted the so-called Five-Power Declaration in December 1932, which had been suggested by England. This declaration recognized Germany's claim to equal rights and to the elimination of those provisions of the Versailles Treaty which discriminated against Germany. After this declaration, which was made by the war powers and later by the Disarmament Conference or the Council of the League of Nations itself, Germany's equal rights were recognized for all time. Therefore, Germany could assert her right to renounce Part V of the Versailles Treaty by referring to the obligation of general disarmament undertaken by the signatory powers. This Five-Power Declaration provided the necessary condition for Germany's taking part in the deliberations of the Disarmament Conference once more."
Detailed Biography, Trial History: Constantin von Neurath

II .- google books: Britain loss of global preeminence to the US 1930-1945 page 150


III .-

[FONT=&amp]The Trial of German Major War Criminals[/FONT]
​

[FONT=&amp]Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany
20th June to 1st July 1946[/FONT]​

[FONT=&amp]Q. Herr von Neurath, in the documents just submitted you emphasized that the disarmament question must be solved exclusively by peaceful means, and that no violence of any kind should be used. Did this tendency expressed here actually correspond to your conviction and did it represent the guiding line, and indeed the exclusive guiding line, of your policy? [/FONT]
[FONT=&amp][Constantin von Neurath] A. Yes. During the whole period when I was Reich Foreign Minister no means were used which were not customary and internationally permissible. [/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Q. On the 16th, the negotiations in the Disarmament Conference were to begin again. What was the result of this meeting of the Disarmament Conference? [/FONT]

[FONT=&amp][Page 105][/FONT]​

[FONT=&amp]A. England finally suggested a ... At first the Disarmament Conference accomplished nothing; but later there was the so- called Five-Power Declaration in December, 1932, which had been suggested by England. This declaration recognized Germany's claim to equal rights and to the elimination of those provisions of the Versailles Treaty which discriminated against Germany. [/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]After this declaration, which was recognized by the five powers and later by the Disarmament Conference or the Council of the League of Nations itself, Germany's equal rights were recognized for all time. Therefore, Germany could make use of its right not to adhere to Part 5 of the Versailles Treaty with reference to the obligation of general disarmament undertaken by the signatory powers. This Five-Power Declaration provided the necessary condition for Germany taking part in the deliberations of the Disarmament Conference once more. [/FONT]

 

So are you saying Germany wasn't bound by it after 1932? Or that she didn't agree on the methods to withdraw from it?

 

Why should a sovereign state be bound by its signature under a treaty ?

 

Not for sure what your asking it seems you have to be bound by a treaty otherwise why have them.

 

The point is that a sovereign state can not be bound by a treaty,otherwise it is no more sovereign.If it is convenient,or necessary,sovereign states will renounce treaties.There is not such thing as pacta sunt servanda in international law or even in domestic affairs .
There was an international convention against the militarisation of space,but this was not preventing US to make plans for Star War.

 

It's is as simple as this. Britian's army was small and weak at that point in time.