Historian and scientist of civilization Carroll Quigley, prof. of Georgetown University and another prestigious American universities, is the author of respective books, among which she is best known Tragedy and Hope: A past of the planet in Our Times.
One of them decided to print only after his trash. It has the title The Anglo-American Establishment and its subject is the Milner Group. Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902), bA Rythian entrepreneur and politician who supported British colonization in confederate Africa, he allocated his luck to Rhodes Scholarships, for example, a scholarship fund at Oxford University, and to establish a secret association aimed at supporting the British empire. This association was differently called: circular Table Group, All Souls Group, Milner’s kindergarden. However, the best name Quigley proposed is Milner Group (Millner Group) from its leader from 1902 to 1925, Lord Milner (Albert Milner). It brought together people from the highest political circles of Britain, as well as influential people from the US, Canada and another English-speaking countries. At the initiative of the Milner Group and under its control in 1920, the Royal Institute of abroad Affairs (the Royal Institute of global Affairs, in short Chatham House) was established – the most crucial British think tank for abroad policy.
Quigley believes that the existence of the Milner Group, a secret association that had a large influence on British politics, and in peculiar on Britain's commitment to the First and Second planet War, “is 1 of the most crucial historical facts of the 20th century.” It presents evidence-backed arguments, with the origin of the Second War of war, which so painfully affected Poland, to a large degree was the concept of the British abroad policy, which was developed by the members of the association and which they subsequently consistently implemented, frequently forming part of the British government, until 1940. However, despite the full access to information and close government contacts they had, they made mistakes in decisions about war and peace, which led to the tragedy of the planet war, which someway slipped out of their control.
The association's influence on the British government grew gradually during the interwar period. This was demonstrated by the number of ministers who were members of the Group. They constituted about a 3rd of the government compositions from 1920 to 1939. The Milner Group represented a alternatively Philogerman position. The discrimination between “good Germans” and “prus aristocrats” was characteristic of their thinking. They believed that if only the second were forever removed from power, "good Germany" could be useful in stopping the "Asian despotism" from the east. In their blindness they did not see what they did not want to see – the revisionist tendencies of German conservative circles, the large manufacture and the large financier. informing voices against an expanding German threat, coming even from members of the Group and from people with advanced authority, specified as Lionel Curtis or prof. Alfred Zimmern, were ignored and even silenced – as did the news of the increasing radicalism and systematic suppression of civilian liberties coming from Germany.
Milner Group
In the reasoning of the members of the Milner Group, the old concept of balance of power, which has led English politics since the 16th century, was besides marked. Its rule was simple: England (and since 1707, Britain) should support the second largest power on the European continent against the top power to make the most powerful state not be able to get a decisive hegemony in Europe. While Russia can be regarded as the top power, this concept of balance of power has led to logical support for Germany, though temporarily weakened but with possible for reconstruction. Purified of sin, “good Germany”, supported by the Group, were so to be counterweight to the despotic (then Soviet) Russia. Germany's support for the Group was already seen in their criticism of the Treaty of Versailles, whose provisions in the form of territorial changes, war repairs and military restrictions, as they believed, burdened the German State and limited its sovereignty. This support did not change even in the face of Hitler's takeover of power, which dispelled hopes for more democratic Germany. The Group's goal remained the same: Britain's balance of forces against russian Russia and militaristic (as it was believed at the time) France was strengthened by Germany and the rejection of any obligations arising from membership of the League of Nations. This global organization was accused of being a collective safety system, of being guided by an imaginary thought of justice in global relations and limiting the sovereignty of states.
The situation changed somewhat the violation by Nazi Germany in 1936 of the demilitarization of Rhineland. At that time, a fresh thought emerged within the Miler Group and under its influence by the British government to "take 2 birds with 1 stone", namely to dump Germany against the USSR. It was thought that specified a conflict would either destruct both sides or satisfy Germany with grain from Ukraine and oil from Romania, making them a power of position quo. They were incapable to foretell and could not imagine that it was Bolshevik Russia that could beat Nazi Germany, seize east Europe and become a planet power, promoting the ideas of communism everywhere.
This fresh thought of confronting 2 possible enemies, though not born among the Group's strict leadership, attracted any of its members, especially Neville Chamberlaina, Prime Minister of large Britain and its close decision-makers. They were the most Philogermanic and settlement to German interests and were a circumstantial group in the Group. According to their plan, which was the aggression of Germany on the USSR, it was necessary, firstly, to destruct all states standing on the way, including Poland; secondly, to prevent France from complying with the alliance agreement against Poland; thirdly, to convince British society to do so. Furthermore, Germany should have been given the chance to re-arm itself by agreeing to cancel the restrictions and rebuild the possible of the German army, which was actually done between 1934 and 1939.
Austria, the Czech Republic and Poland were among the countries between Germany and Russia to be wound up, and this meant that Britain was not going to do anything to defend them. She may have declared war, but only to calm her own public opinion. Immediately before the start of planet War II, both Germany and the USSR offered Poland a political and military agreement on respective occasions. However, the Government of II of Poland has not chosen any option, considering that accepting the proposal could reduce Poland to the position of a satellite state. Agreement for joint assistance with large Britain, signed on 25 August 1939 on behalf of the Republic of Poland by Minister Joseph Beck, intended to defend the independency and sovereignty of Poland. However, this agreement was from the beginning a fiction which the Polish authorities did not recognise, as Poland was outside the British interest and the plan of the British government was different.
However, this plan failed. People associated with the Milner Group did not full realize the essence of Nazism, nor the aspirations of the 3rd Reich. They did not see in time the large danger to Europe was Nazism, with its crime and cruelty. erstwhile they woke up, declaring that “ Hitler's goal was to gain power over the world”, the war device moved and it was besides late to halt it. True, as planned, Austria and Czechoslovakia were taken, and thanks to German aggression in September 1939 and russian support, Poland was effectively liquidated as a state and France, despite the possibilities it had had, did not rush to aid it, and in 1941 a German attack on the USSR took place and a German-Russian confrontation took place, it was the United Kingdom that was besides active in the war, whose Milner Group was mostly architect itself. That wasn't part of the plan. Although Britain came out of the war victorious, its power diminished. The power of the United States and the victorious russian Russia grew. A fresh postwar planet order was built and a fresh chapter of past began
W Tragedy and Hope, Quigley writes: “Every war provides two, alternatively contradictory, services to the social environment in which it takes place. On the 1 hand, it changes the way people think, especially those defeated, about the actual relation of power between rival countries. On the another hand, it changes rapidly the reality itself." Have we actually learned, under the experience of planet War II, to admit the power and interests of the states? Do we truly want a change in the reality of the current order in Europe, including border revisions? Have we truly learned adequate from the last planet War about our global cooperation, our Western partners and our safety – or have we forgotten our experiences?
Prof. W. Julian Korab-Karpowicz
Prof. Włodzimierz Julian Korab-Karpowicz is simply a Polish philosopher and political thinker. He is the author of the frequently cited article Political Realism in global Relations (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) and “Social Harmony” and another books translated into respective languages. The text is part of the fresh book “Political Realism”.
Think Poland, No. 3-4 (19-26.01.2025)
