Op-ed on Munich Conference

The Munich Conference demonstrated timidity from the British people in response to illegal German actions. It is obvious that Germany is exhibiting more warlike behavior, just like at the onset of World War I. Then and now Germany is assembling an army, building up their navy and seizing other countries' land. Why are we, Great Britain, victors of the Great War, the people who wrote up the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, allowing Germany to get away with their actions? They are blatantly breaking the terms set upon them by the Treaty of Versailles and should be punished. So what does our government do? Chamberlain goes to Munich and instead of rebuking Germany and drawing up new punishment for the rule-breakers, he allows Germany to keep Sudetenland. Not only does Neville Chamberlain not do anything to chastise Germany, but he comes home and declares the Munich Conference to be a success! What a joke. How can you call allowing Germany to occupy the demilitarized Rhineland, annex Austria and keep the Sudetenland a milestone for Anglo-German relations?! Pull the wool off of your eyes Chamberlain! Hitler's playing you for a fool. And just because we have agreed on this peace settlement now doesn't mean there won't be war later. Yeah, I listened to our prime minister say there won't be any more wars between Germany and Great Britain, but how long will this "peace" last? Peace isn't a settlement, it's a continental wide mutual agreement.

Really, Britain and France? Really?

Though hindsight is hard to let go of when dealing with Hitler, it is still easy to see the injustice shining through the formal words of the Munich conference. Afterall, who ever came up with the idea that it was a good thing to give a volatile country what they want and make it easier for them to start a war?

The Munich Conference was supposed to be a way to maintain peace in Europe, but what it really did was make Europe a more dangerous place to live in. Instead of scolding and punishing Germany for breaking the rules of the Treaty of Versailles, the representatives from Britain and France just gave Hitler what he wanted. Did they learn nothing from World War I? Had they forgotten that those rules and regulations were put in place for a reason? This is what it seemed like. If the agreements made had only affected those that lived in Germany and not the surrounding area, it probably would not have been as bad. But since the agreements centered around the lives of the Czech people, it is impossible to ignore the injustice.

It seems that everyone in involved in World War I forgot that Germany had lost along the way. They also seemed to forget that Hitler and Mussolini had just supported the fascist side in a war they had no part in. Were Britain and France trying to send the message that fascist take overs were ok? I would implore them to show one instant history then that would show that fascism worked well for everyone involved. And speaking of everyone involved, why was there no representative from Czechoslovakia? Again, the representatives did not stop think that maybe, just maybe, this "non-hostile" take over that they had planned wouldn't work. No one stopped to even consider the fact that they were evicting thousands from their homeland just because they weren't German. And it even seemed like it was a bad thing that there were non-German people in a country that wasn't Germany. Huh, what a concept.

And lastly, though we it is already clear that the participants in the conference did not think, there is one thing that still needs to be pointed out. Were the British and French representatives really not aware that they were allowing Hitler to spread his territories when the borderlines of European countries had already been drawn? Really? And really Britain and France, were you completely oblivious to the fact that Hitler had already started building an army, and that you were just letting it happen? Just a few things to think about...

"Peace"

In her 1938 broadcast, Dorothy Thompson tells us she thinks that Germany's not-so-subtle take over of Czechoslovakia was quite appalling and should have been stopped by the governments who made the initial Treaty of Varsailles. The German's dangerous rise to power goes unchecked by England and France. Not only does Germany proceed without being stopped, but they are actually given what they want rather than being beaten back down. This was a gamble on the part of Germany's keepers. They thought Germany would stop after taking what it wanted, but instead it kept rising higher and higher until it regained its seat as a major power in the world. They believed that loosening their hold on Germany would keep it from reaching for more, but as we and Dorothy Thompson can see, they were wrong. Germany's sudden shift in power should have alerted those who could have stopped it and Germany should have been stopped dead before it could even start it's evacuation.

The so-called peace was barely a shadow. It was more an agreement not to fight over the land that the German's wanted, but instead just to give it to them and hope they don't want more. It was a risk that the other super powers in the world took without truly looking at the consequences of this seemingly minor release of power. Their "peace" was meant to loosen their hold on Germany's collar in hopes that it wouldn't bite back. This was unwise, but I don't think they could have forseen the final outcome of their actions.

"Peace" and it's BS

Dorothy Thompson could not have said it better in her 1938 broadcast, "Peace: And the Crisis Begins:" The Munich Conference does not open the door for peace, but instead for terror, injustice, and dictatorship. Not only does the Munich Conference grant power to Germany, but it also portrays France and Britain as wimpy appeasers. Here is why.

Czechoslovakia (CZ) is already inhabited with a significant percentage of non-Germans. After having been occupied by Germany, one cannot expect German Nazis to naturally cooperate with Czechs, and vice versa. International intrusion is one thing, but racial and cultural factors come in to play. The important separation in ethnicity and language between Nazis and Czechs triggers initial tension, hostility, and violence, as we have studied in the cases of African colonization. Can Nazis expect Czechs to cooperate? No. In addition, Nazis and Czechs do not necessarily share political ideas. This circumstance will force the Nazis to enfore their political policies, most likely causing retaliation on the Czechs' behalves. Therefore, the barrier of racial tension and political dysfunction will be a internationally costly factor in Germany's occupation of CZ, making the Munich Conference the enabler for a pointless (and harmful) annexation that will harm both German and CZ.

Aside from Germany's reputation, France, Britain, and Italy display themselves as weak, contradictory, and ineffective world powers. By enabling Germany to annex parts of CZ, they are essentially conceding the Germany's will to expand and become more powerful. In other words, they have let Germany tweak the Treaty of Versailles, the very document that they (France and Britain) established themselves. Instead of halting (or at least minimizing) Germany's expansionist campaign, they officially opened the door for Germany to rise back to a worldwide military, political, and economic caliber. Isn't this scenario the exact one that the Treaty of Versailles aimed to prevent? The answer is yes, and although Germany is technically the one breaking the treaty, France and Britain (the nations who helped create the Treaty of Versailles) are accountable to letting Germany back into the game.

The logic of the Munich Conference is obviously flawed. Some may argue its legitimacy, but luckily there exists one historical event to prove its flaws: World War II.

Peace, and the Beginning of the End

The speech given by Dorothy Thompson on October 1, 1938, is a little ironic. She, among millions of people, sees clearly what Germany's intentions are and how dangerous giving in to them is. She says that Germany is seeking to accomplish the "domination of Europe," which is surprisingly close to the truth. The Munich Conference was held in order to reassure Britan, France, and Italy. Although they all came away feeling better, Germany ended up completely on the top.
Once Germany broke the Treaty of Versailles, it all went downhill for the other countries. None of them even lifted a finger to stop Hitler as he broke agreement after agreement. When he finally went one step too far with Sudetenland, they decided that they had to do something. But instead of keeping him in check like they had hoped, they gave him exactly what he wanted: more territory, and the power to control the people within it. He even managed to make the people who gave him what he wanted feel good about giving it to him. Hitler, in a few aggressive moves, had all the superpowers of Europe completely under his thumb.

Munchen '38

I think that Dorothy Thompson was a little too harsh on our leaders. France and England are far too smart to be as easy manipulated as she says we were. While I think that the Czechoslovakian government should have been represented at the conference as well, I think most of her other points were irrelevant. For example, she stressed the language barrier. Why should we let our differences separate us? Isn't peace about everyone, no matter where they come from, working together to get along? Furthermore, she claims it is not actually a "diplomatic document," or a "normal treaty." What is a diplomatic document but an agreement between representatives of multiple countries? If a "diplomatic document" is actually something else, then I am afraid a great many people (and politicians) have been fooled for a very long time. She also claims it is not a "normal" treaty. The agreement is dealing with the ethnic aftermath of the Great War, which by all means was not an ordinary war, so it follows that any treaties regarding it are not normal either.
In general, the German race seems very proud an bellicose, so I consider it an achievement to get them to accept the terms in the document. The are giving the Czechoslovakian people a fair amount of choice in the matter, which rarely happens in situations such as these. They also have a fairly long time period in which to make their decision and move, so overall it is relatively fair, especially because there are more Germans who will benefit than Czechoslovakians who will suffer. If this agreement benefits so many, and in addition strengthens the bond between Germany, England, France and Italy, then I am in full support of it.

Munich Conference

For the most part, I agree with what Dorothy Thompson is saying about the Munich Conference. First of all, this treaty is a lot more partial to Germany than the Treaty of Versailles. Germany has occupied Czechoslovakia and the Czechs have been forced to evacuate the area in a very short time. A plebiscite is going to be held, and I think this is very unfair because the Czechs are not promised any protection, and only Germans will remain. In the plebiscite, it is almost like it will be rigged because all the Czechs would be gone, and only Germans would remain.

Also, this issue only pertains to Germany and Czechoslovakia, and they weren't even represented at this conference. I believe it would only be fair to allow the Czechs to have a representative no matter how small they are.

The only slight positive part of this treaty is the main goal is peace and it temporarily been achieved. The peace could be broken by Germany doing something like this again except on a larger scale. The tensions between the major European countries has been eased so hopefully Germany does not do anything to anger the other countries, so we don't get into a war.

However, there is no long term peace because the treaty was not equal. "This is not peace without victory, for the victory goes to Mr. Hitler. This peace without virtue. Therefore it is not peace - but the imitation of a terrific world crisis," said Thompson in her broadcast.

PEACE? What is this "Peace"?

It's October 1st, 1938. Dorothy Thompson makes a speech that makes me think. Is it really fair what Germany is doing in Czechoslovakia? I don't think so. It appears that because of the short time period it took to make decisions, the inequality of those decisions, and the execution of the decisions.

First of all, the conference lasted four hours. The Treaty of Versailles took three years to be decided on. The decisions of the conference will change lives. People's lives all over Chekoslovakia will change drastically depending on the verdict. The fact that it took merely four hours to decide to evacuate parts of Chekoslovakia shows that the deciders did not have enough time to think about all of the consequences of their decisions. In the Treaty of Versailles, there was plenty of time to think about what would happen if each alternate decision was made, and the leaders chose what appeared to be the best option. Four hours seems hardly enough time to come up with one plan for the nations.

In the Treaty of Versailles, no one nation got all the benefits and no one nation got all the detriments. In the Munich conference, it sounds like Germany gets everything, while Czechoslovakia loses it all. Not exactly my idea of fair. I believe that the Czechoslovakian people should have a say in what happens to them.

What happens to the Czechoslovakian people when they are forced to evacuate? Where do they go? They are forced to emigrate. They must pick up their things and leave or face the German Army. These people did not do anything wrong, so why do they deserve to face the German Army?

I disagree with the outcome of the Munich Conference. People should be able to decide what happens to them, and not be forced to leave their homes. (The alternative being confronted by the German Army.)

Prelude to War

Hindsight is not necessary to inferring injustice in the decisions made in the Munich Conference. What struck me the most about the Munich Pact was that the very country being argued over, Czechoslovakia, had no representation in the deliberations. The conference itself was held between only the leaders of Germany, Britain, France, and Italy. As Dorothy Thompson stated in her broadcast, "Czechoslovakia was disposed of by four men who in four hours made a judgment of the case in which the defendant was not even allowed to present a brief or be heard." This put me in mind of the Berlin conference of 1884-1885 where Europeans divided the Congo amongst them; except, the Munich Pact was not even equal to those dividing the country (since all the spoils go to Germany) AND this time, Europeans were doing it to one of their own. To lather the wound with salt, the demands of this treaty pushed the Czechoslovakians out of their country without consideration. Only ten days were given for the people to remove from their own country without protest or rebellion. Those of German descent, however, were allowed to remain, thus filtering the jewels from dirt (I speak only their thoughts, not my own).
Now, the fact of Czechoslovakian occupation is for us a clear indication of further conquests to come, and Thompson's words on the treaty ("armistice made in advance of a war ") prove that this possibility was foreseeable from that time. The very principles of fascism require almost constant military action and expansion. Knowing this, as politicians of the time must have (Germany and Italy were open about fascism), giving into their demands hardly seems the best thing to do. Hopefully, this was realized soon after the mistake was made, when Germany siezed the rest of Czechoslovakia in March of 1939.