The Munchen Conference

Written from the point of view of a British citizen:

The Munchen Conference is seriously disappointing. It seemed like everyone who opposed Germany's subtle expansion into Czechoslovakia slept in and missed the meeting. The conference has changed nothing. Germany will still continue to expand, but now it will do it quietly as opposed to expansion through brute force. The conference was a half-assed attempt at diplomacy. The soul purpose of the conference was to appease Germany for the time being. It is saddening to know that our leadership is so poor that the government cannot put its foot down on an obvious problem. Germany's expansion is obvious sign for concern, and that the fact that Europe either does not realize it, or is not concerned by it, is very disconcerting. It is blatantly obvious that Germany is planning for war; It has already created its own air force,announced its military conscription, and is building its allies at an alarming pace. The Munchen Conference was an opportunity for Europe to kill the momentum of Germany's expansion and conquest; I fear the repercussions for passing up the chance.

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.

Not Peace

I agree with Dorothy Thompson’s broadcast, including her definition of peace. When she says that “Peace is not the absence of war. Peace is a positive condition – the rule of law,” I think she is completely right. There are many examples of when there is not peace, but also no war. In any genocide, this is true. During the Holocaust, a war was not immediately declared, however Jews were still being slaughtered. This is not peace, and therefore peace is not simply the absence of war. I also agree with Thompson when she says that peace is the rule of law. To have something that is not peace, someone has to break the rules. Violence is not peace, and violence, in 99% of all cases, is against the law. Therefore, when Hitler took away the usual democratic laws and justice in creating the treaty, when “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,” he made it okay for someone to do something that wasn’t peace. Creating this treaty is the same as just barging into the territory and threatening all the citizens that weren’t German with guns and bombs. There was not justice in making the treaty, as “This document provides no protection whatsoever for their lives, their properties or their existences,” so it amounts to the same thing as a violent evacuation. Hitler contradicts himself when he wrote the treaty. If he claimed to have made peace, but did not use justice or laws to do so, he is simply making not peace. Looking past what we already know about what Hitler did, we can see clearly that the treaty’s intent was not to create peace, but actually the start of a coup, as Thompson states at the beginning of her broadcast. The definition of peace doesn’t change from person to person, or from time period to time period. Hitler needs to get his definition straightened out.

The Munich Conference

Sometimes sacrifices need to be made for a greater cause. When a hostile tension exists between nations, the primary goal should be to restore peace and right everything that has been wronged. For this reason, the Munich Agreement is a great success not only for our nation but for the well-being and peace of Europe as a whole.

Admittedly, we feel a slight, uneasiness regarding the terms of the agreement. The non-German people of Czechoslovakia are not explicitly guaranteed protection in the evacuation. In addition, Czechoslovakia's leader is not given any say in the matter, and the plebiscites can be held wherever seems advantageous for the German. It could also be said that this agreement is made by leaders of only four countries. However, these leaders from across Europe understand the needs of their country, they all have reached an agreement, and the conclusion seems satisfactory to everyone.

Furthermore, the ultimate goal of the agreement is what drove the conference in the first place. Whereas the Treaty of Versailles only increased tensions between Germany and the rest of Europe, this can be seen as a final act that promises peace throughout the years to come. By reversing some of the restrictions that were placed on Germany, we can appease them and begin to rebuild friendly relations. Never again will Germany have need to go to war, and European will have the chance to thrive. As Neville Chamberlain confidently stated, "I believe it is peace for our time."

Munich Conference

READ Dorothy Thompson's broadcast "Peace: And the Crisis Begins" from Oct. 1938.
WRITE an op-ed style blog post in which you take a position on the Munich Conference. Try and look not from hindsight – where we can see the atrocities of Hitler and the Nazis – but from the perspective of someone living in Britain or France in the 1930s. (Do some outside research if you need to.)

(This is not my opinion, it's what a British or French in 1930's may have believed.)

The world is a violent place and quite often there are wars that decimate the people and resources. After violent wars, all the countries want is peace so they can recuperate their resources and lost lives. The Munich Agreement is the almost the perfect solution for the damage done to our countries from the past war.

Even though the non-German people of Czechoslovakia are being pushed out, sacrifices must be made to maintain peace between countries. The non-German people are provided no protection for their lives or their properties. Also, only the Germans are allowed to live in Czechoslovakia. Even though only Germans will be occupying Czechoslovakia, I believe that it is just a minor request that the Germans are asking in the return for peace between all the other countries. I believe that the Treaty of Versailles made things worse for the Germans, so this could release the grudge that they have between the rest of Europe. Hopefully, this will appease the Germans so we will never have to go to war again with them and have draw the rest of the world into it too.