Robert M. Liu, click here
to update your web pages on AuthorsDen.
Blogs by Robert M. Liu
A Bit of History to Illustrate the Consequences of Treaty Breaches 11/5/2006 4:17:16 AM
History is a never-ending chain of crises, where each major event or incident is a link with its unforeseen, unintended consequences that pave the way for the next crisis. To the political leaders of the Free World, it is a case where "You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't. A Bit of History to Illustrate the Consequences of Treaty Breaches
-- by Robert M. Liu
In March 1935, slightly more than two years after he became German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler declared that he would establish a new German conscript army of half a million men. This was a blatant breach of the Versailles Treaty which Germany as a defeated nation had signed in 1918 with the victors of World War I such as France and Great Britain.
At the time, France had a relative military superiority over Germany, and under the terms of the Versailles Treaty, France had the right to invade Germany and topple Hitler's regime in response to his treaty violations. But France did not take that path.
Instead, the French government chose to adopt "international multi-lateralism" -- something Democratic politicians like John Kerry have been preaching in recent years as if it were a sacred cow. It protested to the League of Nations, hoping this international organization and symbol of "international legitimacy" would do something to stop Hitler.
No such luck! The League of Nation took no action except for verbal condemnation. What about the reaction of Great Britain? Well, the British government decided to hold "direct talks" with Nazi Germany, as if it had hired 21st-century Democratic geopolitical strategists from the United States of America and listened to their advice. It sent its foreign minister, Sir John Simon, to Berlin to talk things over with Hitler.
Geopolitics is a power game where three factors could determine the outcome: a. strength; b. the political will to use strength; and c. time and timing. In March 1935, France was militarily stronger than Hitler's Germany but was unwilling to use its strength to crush Hitler, whereas Hitler though for the moment militarily weaker than France was determined to expand his military strength. All he needed was time.
So, when France failed to take preemptive military action against Hitler in 1935, she lost her best opportunity to prevent what would become the greatest tragedy in human history, giving Hitler the time he needed to become militarily much stronger. Soon, signs began to emerge that Hitler was making preparations to move troops into the demilitarized Rhineland, a piece of German territory that served as a buffer zone between France and Germany.
Under the terms of the Versailles Treaty, Germany was forbidden to station troops or build fortifications in this demilitarized zone. But in early March of 1936, German forces moved into the Rhineland. France took no action in the face of Hitler's gross violations of the Versailles Treaty, giving him more time to beef up his military.
In March 1938, Adolf Hitler ordered German troops to march into Austria, his native land. Thus, Nazi Germany annexed Austria. Now, Hitler was much stronger than before. So France was understandably more wary of taking him on. But the problem of Hitler's expansionism would not end there. Now, he intended to annex Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland, where many of Czechoslovakia's national defense installations were located.
Britain and France came to the conclusion that they could not effectively protect Czechoslovakia. In other words, their only option was to continue to hold "direct talks" with Adolf Hitler, which led them to sign an agreement in Munich, Germany, on September 29-30, 1938, with Hitler. Under the terms and conditions of the Munich Agreement, Czechoslovakia handed over the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany.
Now we know the serious consequences of the Munich Agreement. It led to World War II. In March 1939, Hitler occupied all of Czechoslovakia. Poland was therefore exposed to German threat. On August 23, 1939, Nazi Germany signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union, which would enable Hitler to attack Poland without having to worry about intervention by the Soviet Union. A few days later, on September 1, 1939, German troops invaded Poland and occupied it. World War II broke out as both Great Britain and France declared war on Germany. By now, Nazi Germany had grown into a huge, strong military monster that they could not tame. It was too late.
This is a lesson history has taught us. But some people don't seem to remember it. They seem to be more interested in opinion polls. Of course, public opinion is important in politics. Politicians like to see high poll numbers and hope they will help them get elected or re-elected. But public opinion and poll numbers can be misleading. Below is an example:
After signing the Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler, French premier Edouard Daladier flew back from Germany. He felt a great bitterness at having abandoned Czechoslovakia and feared that he would be booed by his fellow countrymen on his return to Paris. As his plane approached the landing field on the afternoon of September 30, 1939, he saw a large crowd. He asked the pilot to circle the field so that he could have more time to get back his composure and to prepare some proper comments to calm down the angry crowd he thought he was going to face.
Instead, he was loudly applauded. Half a million Parisians turned out to cheer him -- they were wildly happy that Premier Daladier had prevented war from happening. His approval rating could have hit 80%. British prime minister Chamberlain, who also signed the Munich Agreement, was as warmly acclaimed by the British people on his return to London. His approval rating could have hit 80% too.
But let us suppose that France (under Paul-Etienne Flandin who succeeded Doumergue as Premier in November 1934) had invaded Germany in 1935 shortly after Hitler declared he would establish a new German conscript army of half a million men. What would have happened? To be sure, the course of European history would have been different. But I guess there would have been serious consequences such as stubborn resistance by forces loyal to the Nazi Party and even ordinary German people with strong nationalistic sentiments, which inevitably would have led to bloodshed and casualties, which in turn would have caused the French people to have second thoughts about the invasion. Besides, the French political left would have organized an anti-war movement, accusing Premier Flandin of having lied the French people into war. His approval rating would have fallen below 40%.
History is a never-ending chain of crises, where each major event or incident is a link with its unforeseen and unintended consequences that pave the way for the next crisis. To the political leaders of the Free World, it is a case where "You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't," because if they take action, there are serious consequences, and if they don't take action, there are serious consequences too. Oftentimes, the consequences of inaction can be even worse that those of action.
Although from a strategic point of view, it is better to eliminate an enemy when he is weak and before his nuclear programs become full-fledged, the problem with the Iraq War is that while its consequences are obvious and are being shown on TV day in and day out, there is no way to prove to the public what consequences there would have been if America had not taken action in response to Saddam Hussein's defiance of U.N. resolutions such as U.N. Resolution 1441 which promised "serious consequences", meaning military action, in case of non-compliance.
One can only guess. My guess is that inaction in the face of non-compliance would have encouraged more of the same and would have given Saddam Hussein's nuclear programs more time to develop a bomb, and more non-compliance with international agreements would have upset the world order, which in turn would have led to the collapse of America's credibility and leadership position in this dangerous world. Should this collapse have happened, America would have been less safe.
Remember what happened in 1979 during the days of Jimmy Carter's incompetent Democratic administration? America was regarded as weak and feckless to the point that Iranian students thought they could take U.S. diplomats hostage and get away with it. In the 1990s, al Qaeda terrorists thought they could bomb U.S. embassies and get away with it. But in the past five years, no U.S. diplomatic mission abroad has been bombed. Is this just a matter of luck? Or is this at least an indication that because America is stronger today, it is somewhat safer than before?
