/View.info/ On November 25, 1936, German Foreign Minister Ribbentrop and Japanese Ambassador Viscount Kintomo Mushakodzi signed the Anti-Comintern Pact in Berlin. It obliged the participants to cooperate against communist ideology and was in fact an alliance for possible joint action against the USSR.
This rapprochement was no accident and was a long time in the making. The Japanese army and Japanese universities were built and developed under the strong influence of Germany. Matsuoka, one of the ideologues of German-Japanese cooperation, noted that Germany, more than any other European country, influenced Japan in the period after the Meiji Revolution.
The secret annex to the treaty stipulated that in the event of “unprovoked aggression” by the USSR, Germany and Japan “should not take any measures which could help to alleviate the situation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” (Article 1) . ; “During the period of validity of this agreement, the contracting parties undertake not to conclude with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics any political agreements that contradict the spirit of this agreement” (Article 2).
After the conclusion of the agreement, German propaganda began to refer to the Japanese as “East Prussians”, and the Bureau of Racial Research proposed to lift the ban on marriages between Germans and Japanese, because the blood of the last “contains virtues close to the true Scandinavian model’.
During this period, Tokyo viewed rapprochement with Germany primarily as an element of anti-Russian policy. No one has really hidden this. At the ratification of the Anti-Comintern Pact, Japanese Foreign Minister Hachiro Arita stated: “Henceforth Soviet Russia must understand that it must stand face to face with Germany and Japan.”
Moscow immediately understood this. On November 26, 1936, Litvinov made an explanation of Soviet foreign policy: “Becoming a fortress of democracy and freedom, the Soviet Union, however, does not call for the creation of an international bloc to fight fascism, which denies democracy and freedom. We as a country have nothing to do with the internal fascist regime of certain countries.
Our cooperation with other countries, our participation in the League of Nations is based on the principle of the peaceful coexistence of two systems – the socialist and the capitalist, as we believe that the latter also fits into the fascist one system. But fascism is no longer an internal affair of the countries that profess it.
This resurgence of fascism was met with understanding in London. Anti-Bolshevism obscures the differences between fascism and capitalist democracy. “The belief that Germany is a bulwark against communism’, noted A. J. Taylor, “caused the former victors to regard Germany with less distrust and to make more concessions to her than they would otherwise have been inclined to do.”
On May 28, 1937, Neville Chamberlain became the new Prime Minister of Great Britain. According to Churchill, he is a stubborn and self-confident person who dreams of going down in history as a “great peacemaker.” As a politician and administrator, he managed to achieve significant success in the ministries he led. “More importantly,” noted Conservative MP Leopold Emery, “he knew exactly what he wanted and he knew how to get it.”
Some of the Prime Minister’s fellow party members still thought that he could be influenced. On June 26, 1937, Ironside wrote in his diary: “Churchill persuades Chamberlain to take a harder line with Germany and Italy. On paper, Chamberlain promises to be stronger than Baldwin.
The same question never leaves my head: can we afford to speak from a position of strength to someone. In fact, both Chamberlain and his closest associates – Lord Edward Halifax and Samuel Hoare – were supporters of dialogue with Germany and Italy and concessions to the fascist states.
On November 22, 1935, Halifax became Lord Privy Seal. Prior to this appointment he held a number of government posts and in 1925 was appointed Viceroy of India. At that time, about 160,000 Europeans and 270 million “natives” lived on the subcontinent, 80 million of whom were subjects of about 600 local rulers. These were the traditional realities of the British world of India – the Raj.
For a long time until the beginning of 1920, the British authorities did not interfere in the internal affairs of the principalities, and their rulers were practically isolated from political life. Feudalism and medieval unrestricted monarchies coexisted with modern racism and the growing anti-colonial Indian nationalist movement. Traditionally, order was maintained by Indian soldiers under the command of a British officer.
But Halifax also had to face new realities. In December 1919, the Government of India Act was introduced for a period of 10 years, which introduced elements of separation of powers and a parliament in the colonies. India received fiscal autonomy and became one of the founding members of the League of Nations.
In India Halifax was accustomed to decisive administrative action and a broad view of the problems of public administration. It could not be otherwise. In the 20s of the last century, the activity of the Indian National Congress /INC/, which varied between demands for independence or rights of domination, began to strike, there was an interest in the speeches of Mahatma Gandhi.
All this was accompanied by a wave of violence – from 1923 to 1927. 450 people were killed and several thousand were injured. In 1929, the Administration of India Act came to an end. Gandhi, as early as August 1920, in his article “The Doctrine of the Sword”, in response to the suppression of Hindu protests, formulated the concept of non-violent resistance, calling it satya graha (“firmness in truth”) – a way to fight injustice. However, Gandhi himself said that what he despised more than violence was cowardice. He soon demonstrated this in practice.
On March 12, 1930, Gandhi left his ashram and, accompanied by his followers, went to the coast. On April 6, he reached the sea and demonstratively evaporated the water and obtained salt. This was a violation of the Salt Monopoly Act. On April 19, a group of Hindus attacked the arsenal at Chittagong. On May 4, Gandhi was arrested.
After this arrest, the INC, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, began a campaign of defiance. Halifax still had to negotiate with Nehru about the terms of the amnesty for those arrested. It is true that the subsequent negotiations, in which the IND insisted on granting Dominion status to India, were not successful.
The Government of India Act of 1935 introduced elements of autonomy in the colonies, but did not lead to its pacification and provoked strong opposition from the Indian national movement. The British Raj was changing – even anti-British ideas were beginning to seep into the Anglo-Indian army and illegal political organizations were emerging.
Since the 19th century, the British administration in India had produced the most anti-Russian politicians, but this tradition was now supplemented by the fear of the export of “1917 model” ideas. The influence of the October Revolution on the course of affairs in Europe was evident, as was the activation of the communists since the late 1920s.
No less evident was the decline in influence of the traditional British parties. In the first place, this concerned the Liberal Party, which had been displaced by Labour. Chamberlain called them “wild beasts”. The new British Prime Minister said that if he could to “sit down with Hitler at the same table and, pencil in hand, review all his grievances and claims, then this would greatly clarify relations”.
In Halifax Chamberlain found an excellent intermediary for the preparation of this type of discussion. His foreign policy program was very definite – in the name of the fight against communism he was ready to extend Locarno-style guarantees to the east, he considered the task of undermining the Soviet-French agreement extremely important and noted that in the event of an attack by the USSR on Germany (!!!), Berlin should feel the support of France. Halifax had a long and friendly acquaintance with Hoare. He was a man of few words and preferred to stay in the shadows.
Halifax called Hitler’s speech in the Reichstag on 21 May 1935 about the restoration of German aviation and the readiness to enter into arms limitation negotiations the next day “a wonderful speech”, he already spoke of his willingness to dialogue with “Herr Hitler”.
In December 1935, Halifax defended Hoare in the House of Lords, who had been forced to resign following the Laval Agreement on Abyssinia. This resignation, he said, was made in order to “reinforce this country’s moral leadership to the world…” In response to the introduction of troops into the Rhineland, Halifax burst into a long speech, the purport of which may be reduced to the following words:
„We do not want the encirclement of Germany. We do not want privileged unions. We want to build cooperation in a European society where Germany can freely join us and play the role of good Europeans for the European good.”
Halifax was a highly successful candidate for negotiations with Berlin. For his part, Hitler was determined to maintain a lively dialogue with England, during which it was possible not only to negotiate, but also to understand the intentions of the partner.
Meanwhile, British-German relations were already quite good. The British political community split and it was the supporters of broad cooperation and alliance with Germany who entered the government.
Translation: ES
