Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Munich Agreement 80 Years On

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Munich Agreement 80 Years On

    The Munich Agreement 80 Years On

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An important lesson of the notorious Munich Agreement, which marked its 80th anniversary last month, is that small nations must defend their independence at all costs, even at the risk of defying most of the international community. Had Czechoslovakia defied the Munich sellout and defended its territory, Hitler’s bluff would have likely been called. And even if he had made good on his threat and invaded, the Czechoslovak army could have put up a spirited resistance that might have contained the German army, which was not yet at the peak of its operational competence. This clash might have sparked an international backlash that could have stopped the invasion and possibly prevented the outbreak of WWII.

    https://besacenter.org/perspectives-...ment-80-years/

  • #2

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by GB_FXST View Post
      The Munich Agreement 80 Years On

      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An important lesson of the notorious Munich Agreement, which marked its 80th anniversary last month, is that small nations must defend their independence at all costs, even at the risk of defying most of the international community. Had Czechoslovakia defied the Munich sellout and defended its territory, Hitler’s bluff would have likely been called. And even if he had made good on his threat and invaded, the Czechoslovak army could have put up a spirited resistance that might have contained the German army, which was not yet at the peak of its operational competence. This clash might have sparked an international backlash that could have stopped the invasion and possibly prevented the outbreak of WWII.

      https://besacenter.org/perspectives-...ment-80-years/
      It´s an interesting topic that I will read further when I get the time.

      Two things I put up ahead:

      1) Czechoslovakia had very good anti tank defenses on the border with Germany, but not with the border from Austria, nor from the border with Poland (which at that time was claiming parts of Czechoslovakia and represented by Germany in Munich).
      2) The lands ceded by the Munich agreement were heavily populated by Sudeten. Difficult to forecast what would have been the position of the Czechoslovak army in those territories facing German troops coming from all directions.


      But it´s true they did´nt try and things gort from bad to worse. But it would not have changed much. Without France and the UK, Czechoslovakia stood little chance and as long as hitler knew they were´nt coming in, he would have invaded Czechoslovakia anyways.

      EDIT: forgot Hungary with claims on CS as well. That got its share.

      Comment


      • #4
        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An important lesson of the notorious Munich Agreement, which marked its 80th anniversary last month, is that small nations must defend their independence at all costs, even at the risk of defying most of the international community. Had Czechoslovakia defied the Munich sellout and defended its territory, Hitler’s bluff would have likely been called. And even if he had made good on his threat and invaded, the Czechoslovak army could have put up a spirited resistance that might have contained the German army, which was not yet at the peak of its operational competence. This clash might have sparked an international backlash that could have stopped the invasion and possibly prevented the outbreak of WWII.
        Hindsight is wonderful, but there is nothing concrete in the above only conjecture and speculation.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Connaught Ranger View Post

          Hindsight is wonderful, but there is nothing concrete in the above only conjecture and speculation.
          This is a cautionary "burning platform" tale; appeasement only whets the appetite and certain death is always the worst option.

          Of course the intended audience here is sympathetic to a certain unique democracy in the Levant, often internationally isolated.

          Comment


          • #6
            The problem with all this is that the Nazis had some justification and international sympathy at that point.

            Think of the middle east and Africa today, borders got drawn up under the Sykes-Picot agreement, ethnic groups go split up. Modern liberal thinkers have decided old white men in western governments drawing up borders on political lines was really bad so modern enlightened thinkers in western governments should be sympathetic to redrawing them on ethnic lines.

            When the Austro-Hungarian empire fell apart new countries were cobbled together according to western views of practical borders but they didnt know the details of internal ethnic and political divides so it was widely felt that some mistakes had been made and borders might have to be corrected. That included the Germans who ended up stuck in Poland, Czechoslovakia and so on and who, given a vote, would have chosen to be joined to Germany.

            Naturally the Czechs werent going to volunteer to have their country carved up, theyd only just got it established but there was a disconnect between the moral and political position and the military position. Hitler was just forcing an agreement that all sides agreed had some valid points. The same goes for taking back control of the Saar.

            While most people can see Hitler is possibly aggressively expansionist, at this point he's got the moral cause on his side, its only when he starts going beyond correcting mistakes into taking unjustified territory such as the takeover of the remains of Czechoslovakia that public opinion changes. Forward thinkers like Chamberlain have seen where Hitler is taking them but the public at home is scared of another war, in the grips of economic problems and looking internally, they don't want to pay for rearmament or fight another war.

            Theres no way to fight, no money for weapons, no political support and the moral argument is against interfering. Its only hindsight that turns Munich from an unpleasant necessity into the first warning of a world war.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Nemowork View Post
              The problem with all this is that the Nazis had some justification and international sympathy at that point.


              ... snip ...

              The author recognizes these facts.

              He is saying that the Czechs should have acted in their self interest, fickle international opinion notwithstanding.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Nemowork View Post
                T
                When the Austro-Hungarian empire fell apart new countries were cobbled together according to western views of practical borders but they didnt know the details of internal ethnic and political divides so it was widely felt that some mistakes had been made and borders might have to be corrected. That included the Germans who ended up stuck in Poland, Czechoslovakia and so on and who, given a vote, would have chosen to be joined to Germany.
                What a bullshit. Germans who lived in Poland after WW1 obviously could choose to join German, but only by leaving Poland. The thing is, Germans didn't constitute a majority in any county in interwar Poland. They were everywhere a minority, in most places quite a tiny minority.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Nemowork View Post
                  ...

                  When the Austro-Hungarian empire fell apart new countries were cobbled together according to western views of practical borders but they didnt know the details of internal ethnic and political divides so it was widely felt that some mistakes had been made and borders might have to be corrected. That included the Germans who ended up stuck in Poland, Czechoslovakia and so on and who, given a vote, would have chosen to be joined to Germany.
                  ….
                  I seem to recollect that it was done along the lines of the old administrative districts of the Austro-Hungarian empire. So it wasn't cobbled together, nor at random.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by PeacefulNeighbour View Post

                    What a bullshit. Germans who lived in Poland after WW1 obviously could choose to join German, but only by leaving Poland. The thing is, Germans didn't constitute a majority in any county in interwar Poland. They were everywhere a minority, in most places quite a tiny minority.
                    What about Gdansk? It was around 90% German speakers if not more. But what is the Point besides division?

                    The Problem in delving into such discussions shows the problems back then. Coincidentally there is a tv doc running right

                    now about slavik expansions westwards.

                    Heck large parts of "real" Germany were populated by slavs also. It was a mix of many populations Germans Jews Poles Kaschubes and many more "Groups" even today there are slavic remnants

                    in Germany called Sorbs.

                    Slov meaning the wordfuls and Niemc the mute

                    Dresden is derived from
                    Drežďany

                    Why do you think that when you make DNA analysis among Europeans the results are so varied nearly everybody has remnants of many ethnics in them.



                    Also the Ashkenazi Jews are Europeans

                    Genetic Roots of the Ashkenazi Jews

                    Most Ashkenazi Jews, traditionally believed to have descended from the ancient tribes of Israel, may in fact be maternally descended from prehistoric Europeans.

                    https://www.the-scientist.com/daily-...azi-jews-38580



                    As said it is political
                    Divide et Impera

                    And to say it blunt people always fucked around like they pleased.


                    We are all Belgians deal with it


                    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3569545/The-founding-fathers-Europe-DNA-reveals-Europeans-related-group-lived-Belgium-35-000-years-ago.html

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      @picanha
                      You simply don't know that Gdansk/Danzig did not belong to Poland at that time, so it's inhabitants couldn't be counted as a German minority living in Poland.
                      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I know but i just wanted to show that no exact bounderies could be drawn without having ethnical conflicts. Poland also wanted to have Ermland, Masuren, Oberschlesien and Südschlesien.

                        Many inhabitants were Slavs but belonged so long to the German empire that they felt as Germans. They spoke an old Polish with lots of Germanisms. They were stuch inbetween the power

                        struggles. I still heard this strange dialect in my childhood from friends grandparents speaking it. It was all so intermingled. From my paternal grandparents side many even in the 80s used words

                        like Motek


                        An allied poll in those regions had overwhelming majority wanting to remain Germans.




                        But it is also true that in all other areas Germans were a rapidly declining minority.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Musashi2 View Post
                          @picanha
                          You simply don't know that Gdansk/Danzig did not belong to Poland at that time, so it's inhabitants couldn't be counted as a German minority living in Poland.
                          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig
                          You simply don't seem to know that Poland was tasked to respresent Danzig externally (on the international stage) at that time, that its territory belonged to the Polish customs area and the rail- and waterways and some other things were also under Polish control. Not to talk about that Poland surely wasn't happy with the "free city" status, ignored various regulations imposed by the LoN and was for a good part fueling the fire in this situation it self.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Indeed, the "Free City" status appears to have been mostly a fig-leaf.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Marsch View Post

                              You simply don't seem to know that Poland was tasked to respresent Danzig externally (on the international stage) at that time, that its territory belonged to the Polish customs area and the rail- and waterways and some other things were also under Polish control. Not to talk about that Poland surely wasn't happy with the "free city" status, ignored various regulations imposed by the LoN and was for a good part fueling the fire in this situation it self.
                              Let's make it clear...
                              Gdansk was founded about 980 by a Polish prince.
                              Throughout history, the city had belonged to any form of a German state for 263 years, more or less 25% of the city's existence.
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gda%C5%84sk

                              How was the population changed for the first time?
                              Teutonic Knights took the city over and slaughtered its inhabitants:
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teuton..._(Gda%C5%84sk)

                              If 93% of Savile Town's population is Asian, it does not mean the town should belong to Pakistan, even if its inhabitants wished so. Don't you think so?
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savile_Town#Demographics

                              Ethnic white Britons make up 1.19% of the town's population:
                              https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...residents.html

                              Following your logic, the town should belong to Pakistan.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X