Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Munich Agreement 80 Years On

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

  • #16
    Who stole who's goat back in 1272 and whether said goat was virgin or not isn't particularly relevant to the ethnic make-up of a city in 1939...

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
      Who stole who's goat back in 1272 and whether said goat was virgin or not isn't particularly relevant to the ethnic make-up of a city in 1939...
      The city had continuously belonged to Poland for a few centuries up till 1793. Are you trying to tell me the partitions of Poland were something nice and legal? If NZ was partitioned by three random countries and they started importing their own populations, surpassing the number of ethnic New Zealanders, would you be happy about it?

      Comment


      • #18
        I'm telling you that the ownership of said town in 1793 had 3/10th of SFA to do with what it was in 1939 - regardless of the merits or otherwise of how it ended up there.

        Are you trying to say that some 1930's ethnic cleansing would have made Poland the "good guys"?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
          I'm telling you that the ownership of said town in 1793 had 3/10th of SFA to do with what it was in 1939 - regardless of the merits or otherwise of how it ended up there.
          Your great granchildren may beg to differ after 100 years if it happens to your country.
          Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
          Are you trying to say that some 1930's ethnic cleansing would have made Poland the "good guys"?
          No ethnic cleansing was necessary for a few centuries, as the German population of the city was loyal to Poland.
          For example, German sailors recruited in Gdansk, who served Poland, defeated the Swedish fleet during the battle of Oliwa in 1660:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Oliwa
          The Polish Navy's commander-in-chief was also a German in 1939:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_Unrug
          He did not even speak Polish and was still very loyal.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Musashi2 View Post
            Your great granchildren may beg to differ after 100 years if it happens to your country.
            ....
            My country is very different ethnically from what it was 100 years ago. And will continue to change. I don't see that as anything other than natural.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
              ....

              Are you trying to say that some 1930's ethnic cleansing would have made Poland the "good guys"?
              It´s clearly not politically correct but ethnic cleansing is not something unknown in Europe. It was performed at the end of WWII without anyone blinking. By Poland and the restored Czechoslovakia (Beneš decrees).

              And as we celebrated last saturday the 100th year of the establishment of Czechoslovakia, many Hungarians were expelled from cities like Bratislava because it was important for Slavs to be the dominant population in the local capital. Prior to WWI, Bratislava was called Pressburg in German (I was told Austrians were the dominant population) and Poszony in Hungarian (with a significant Hungarian community). The Slovaks then named the city Bratislava (Brat in slav means brother and slava means "glory"). After that little event, Czechoslovakia became a democracy. But it´s the Sudeten that haunted the new republic in the Czech and Moravian lands.

              I think that in countries such as the USA, or New Zealand (apart from you ) , people don´t fully grasp how Europeans have not yet been able to jump into a Union of people sharing and debating ideals and values. it´s not as bad as Africa, but even when things seem peaceful, they are not always what it looks. In Slovakia when I arrived in 2001, the Hungarian party (Hungarians make 8% of the population) was represented in parliament and scored more or less always....8%. And I always thought how it can be possible to vote first for a party that represents your ethnicity rather than a political platform. But then the other parties in Slovakia (Christian democrats, Social democrats..) had no Hungarians in them at all.

              That is why as much as I welcome political movements calling for better governance and better enforcement of borders, I am always very cautious not to applaud people who take it to the next step, which is to put ethnicity as something that should define their country.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Telmar View Post

                It´s clearly not politically correct but ethnic cleansing is not something unknown in Europe. It was performed at the end of WWII without anyone blinking. By Poland and the restored Czechoslovakia (Beneš decrees).

                And as we celebrated last saturday the 100th year of the establishment of Czechoslovakia, many Hungarians were expelled from cities like Bratislava because it was important for Slavs to be the dominant population in the local capital. Prior to WWI, Bratislava was called Pressburg in German (I was told Austrians were the dominant population) and Poszony in Hungarian (with a significant Hungarian community). The Slovaks then named the city Bratislava (Brat in slav means brother and slava means "glory"). After that little event, Czechoslovakia became a democracy. But it´s the Sudeten that haunted the new republic in the Czech and Moravian lands.

                I think that in countries such as the USA, or New Zealand (apart from you ) , people don´t fully grasp how Europeans have not yet been able to jump into a Union of people sharing and debating ideals and values. it´s not as bad as Africa, but even when things seem peaceful, they are not always what it looks. In Slovakia when I arrived in 2001, the Hungarian party (Hungarians make 8% of the population) was represented in parliament and scored more or less always....8%. And I always thought how it can be possible to vote first for a party that represents your ethnicity rather than a political platform. But then the other parties in Slovakia (Christian democrats, Social democrats..) had no Hungarians in them at all.

                That is why as much as I welcome political movements calling for better governance and better enforcement of borders, I am always very cautious not to applaud people who take it to the next step, which is to put ethnicity as something that should define their country.
                I go the other route and am amazed that something like the EU can exit considering how much hatred and fragmentation there is in Europe.

                It's easy to have a unified Australia, or USA when you had nothing there before. The fact that Europe is not like the Middle East or parts of Africa situation considering its ethnic makeup and historical baggage is quite an achievement.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Yes for sure the EU is an achievement. I think two world wars, an extermination, and some great years of growth and enrichment helped us to come to the conclusion that we should work more closely, starting with commerce, and extending to the rest. The EU is a western Europe dream started out by let´s not forget only 6 countries.

                  That trend is slightly in reverse, partly because of EU bureaucracy, partly because of petty local politicians needing something to blame for their failures or their rise...and also because we see a strong divide in ways of life and economical choices: homosexuality in central European countries being one of the visible societal divides.

                  Sorry for being OT.


                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Telmar View Post

                    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.
                    Not so difficult. It would have ended very much like did the Youglosvian Royal Army in 1941. Ethnic troops would have mostly acted in what they perceived to be their interest, making any organized and coordinated defence impossible
                    The very fact that Slovakia ended up as a strong Axis related puppet state shows you that those troops would have been unreliable
                    Same with germanophone or magyarophones soldiers

                    As for Munich, it's fun to read 80 years later post situational analyses
                    Let me be blunt : UK carred shit about Czechoslovakia and was carrying on what it carried as always : Continental balance. Germany moves didn't threatened that in UK establishment eyes and moreover, balanced the bloated importance of France on the continent
                    France didn't wanted another war after the slaughter of 14-18
                    The appeasement was not at Munich, it was way before, with dropping all controls and enforcement of Versailles treaty on German army
                    Morality : keep controls on military stuff as much as possible

                    That's why i see a very bad trend to emerge with countries tearing down control treaties and agreements left and right nowadays

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Mordoror, i don´t think there were many Sudeten in the Czechoslovak army, but Czechs and slovaks for sure.

                      Czechoslovakia, albeit being an exemplary democracy in the thirties was weakened by the feeling of the Slovaks that they were belittled by the Czechs...and they were in fact: Hungary had blocked any education, any development in the Slovak lands that remained extremely agrarian, poorly electrified, and with perhaps 1000 people that had a high education.

                      However they would have fought I believe along the Czechs against the Germans...but the inhabitants of the Sudetenland would have made their job highly difficult.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Telmar View Post
                        Mordoror, i don´t think there were many Sudeten in the Czechoslovak army, but Czechs and slovaks for sure.

                        Czechoslovakia, albeit being an exemplary democracy in the thirties was weakened by the feeling of the Slovaks that they were belittled by the Czechs...and they were in fact: Hungary had blocked any education, any development in the Slovak lands that remained extremely agrarian, poorly electrified, and with perhaps 1000 people that had a high education.

                        However they would have fought I believe along the Czechs against the Germans...but the inhabitants of the Sudetenland would have made their job highly difficult.
                        There was around 3 millions of germanophones in Czechoslovakia back in the 30s (for a total population of 15-16 millions)
                        That's 20% of the population so probably close to that proportion in the army except if they were ethnicaly "exempted"

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          It was all a mess, really no chance to get orderly defensives working. Because of all the intermingled ethnicies and loyalities.

                          A German saying "Jeder kocht sein Süppchen" (Everbody cooks his own little soup) is the best description here.

                          The only master and manager of this region in the preceding centuries was the KuK monarchy.

                          The break-offs were to small, young and facing too much fragmentation to survive coherently and on their own.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I think a german saying about Czechoslovakia at its creation in 1918 was that it was a "Ferienstaat": a holiday state not predestined to continue.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Telmar View Post
                              I think a german saying about Czechoslovakia at its creation in 1918 was that it was a "Ferienstaat": a holiday state not predestined to continue.
                              They said the same about Poland, influencing some plebiscites in disputed territories like Masuria. The plebiscite was held on the 11th July 1920, when the Russians were rapidly approaching Warsaw. The Germans started spreading propaganda that it would have been better to belong to Germany than to Russia, as Poland was a temporary state that would be defeated after a few weeks. The Russian offensive was defeated in August, 1 month after the plebiscite.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X