Echoes of peace proposals in May, 1940: "Territorial concessions" are still being discussed in NATO consultations
The path of appeasement
Doctor of Juridical Science (SJD) in International Law, Harvard University
In May, 1940 Winston Churchill came under enormous pressure to enter into peace negotiations with Adolf Hitler and Germany. Churchill’s position within the Conservative Party was still tenuous.
Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax represented a significant faction within the party which favored negotiations with Hitler, and backed proposals involving potential mediation by Italy. Neville Chamberlain remained the head of the Conservative Party, and Churchill needed his support to hold on to the position of prime minister.
Chamberlain was won over by Churchill’s strong resistance to exploring any terms of a peace with Germany. The fact that Churchill had always shown him great respect in cabinet meeting may also have played a role.
Consideration of negotiations with Germany on the part of some British politicians was understandable looking at the military realities on the European continent. The thought was that a peace with Germany might be necessary to forestall a German invasion of Britain, and to save the British Empire.
The situation was dire. Hitler’s armies occupied virtually all of Europe except for its ally Italy, and France which was on the verge of capitulation. Beginning on May 10, 1940, the German forces had launched a Blitzkrieg or “lightning war” sweeping through and defeating the Netherlands and Belgium in a matter of days. The French army had been defeated (after not putting up much of a fight), while the British Expeditionary Force (B.E.F.) was surrounded and under great pressure as it retreated toward Dunkirk.
But then a seeming miracle occurred. British ships and privately-owned boats succeeded in evacuating tbe B.E.F. and other allied forces from Dunkirk and delivering them to safety in England.
The successful evacuation from Dunkirk gave Churchill the boost of confidence and political support he needed to reject all further consideration within his cabinet of a negotiated peace with the Nazis.
This history from May, 1940 comes to mind because it is clear that some in NATO still entertain tbe possibility of a peace settlement that would leave the Russians in control of Ukrainian territory they have conquered by military force.
They recall those around Lord Halifax, theForeign Secretary and erstwhile supporter of former prime minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policy, who favored a negotiated settlement with Nazi Germany.
83 years later, we face a similar desire to negotiate with the aggressor state.
Dan Sabbagh of The Guardian reports1 on a statement made by Stian Jenssen, the Chief of Staff of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, as follows:
At a panel event in Norway on Tuesday, Jenssen … said that while any peace deal reached would have to be acceptable to Ukraine, alliance members were discussing how the 18-month war might be brought to an end.
“I think that a solution could be for Ukraine to give up territory and get Nato membership in return,” Jenssen told his audience, noting that discussions about Ukraine’s postwar status were continuing in diplomatic circles.
To be sure, Jenssen “apologized” for his statement on Wednesday, but without ruling out such a peace settlement. Indeed, his “apology” only confirmed that the idea was under discussion at NATO.
Sabbagh reports:
A day later, (Jenssen) gave an interview to the same (Norwegian) newspaper, VG, that had reported on his original comments. “My statement about this was part of a larger discussion about possible future scenarios in Ukraine, and I shouldn’t have said it that way. It was a mistake,” he said.
But Jenssen did not walk back the idea that a land-for-Nato-membership deal could ultimately be on the table. If there were serious peace negotiations then the military situation at the time, including who controls what territory, “will necessarily have a decisive influence,” the chief of staff said.
Kiev reacted as expected, Sabbagh reported, arguing that any land-for-Nato deal would reward Russian aggression, deliberately choose the defeat of democracy, and destroy international law, while leaving settlement of the war to future generations.
As in May, 1940 in England, politicians are searching desperately for a way out of the existential reality they and the world face.
There must be some way we can all just get along, they are thinking.
In 1940, they were willing to leave Germany in possession of Austria, Czechoslovakia, western Poland, Denmark, Noway, Belgium, the Netherlands, and northern France.
In 2023, they may be willing to leave Russia in possession of the Crimea, and the provinces of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson in Ukraine.
To suggest Kiev will have the last word is disingenuous.
Everyone knows that the nations supplying arms to Ukraine have enormous leverage over what Ukraine decides. Undoubtedly they could force Ukraine, with a new government, to accept “territorial concessions” as part of a peace settlement.
There must be some way we can all just get along, some countries in NATO may be thinking.
Jenssen’s statement that the military situation at the time of the negotiations will have a “decisive influence” on the outcome of the peace negotiations reveals that he and others in NATO have bought into the idea of “territorial concessions”.
In 1940 the world was blessed with two extraordinary leaders among the major powers: Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Significantly, Roosevelt did not condition his “lend-lease” assistance to Britain on the situation on the battlefield.
Unfortunately, there are no such leaders in the world today. Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, appears to be a leader of such calibre, but he needs partners of similar qualities. Of these, there are none among the leaders of the major powers.
President Joe Biden and other NATO leaders have yet to face the existential nature of the challenge posed by Russia’s continuing aggression and barbarism in Ukraine.
It may be two or three years or more before they grasp what is really at stake, and get serious about winning the war in Ukraine.
Dan Sabbagh (Kiev), “Nato official apologises over suggestion Ukraine could give up land for membership; Secretary general’s chief of staff says statement was ‘mistake’ and part of wider discussion – but does not completely rule out idea,” The Guardian, August 16, 2023 (17.45 BST).