Discussion in 'Sub-forum: The build-Up - 1933-1940' started by HA96, Sep 29, 2018.
Why was it signed and what was it good for and to whom?
What do you think?
Time, rearmament and us.
There's a recently published article here: The Munich crisis: The battle over appeasement
From the BBC history magazine (Edition due October 2018).
Also linked - via it - a podcast : The Munich Conference
The Munich Conference
Historical novelist Robert Harris explores the events of September 1938 when European powers met in Germany seeking to avert European war
Unfortunately, it did not avoid WW2.
Other than putting out a welcome mat for the Germans, what would have?
My mother is half Czech and one quarter Jewish, and in 1938 her grandparents' homeland was trussed up like a turkey and handed over to Hitler for Christmas dinner. The Jews in her grandmothers' village were exterminated a few years later. I know all the arguments in favor of the Munich agreement and I reject every single one of them. My great-grandmother Franceska was alive at the time of the agreement and the Holocaust; what do you suppose she thought about Munich?
I am, I do not understand this comment, stupid me!
Basically I'm saying the only thing that would have prevented a war would have been for everybody to give in to Hitler's every demand. If that's not acceptable, it becomes a question of when the war starts, not if. The threat of war wasn't enough to stop him from starting one in Poland.
German leisure flying 1930s
German airliner in the 30s
German farm machinery in the 30s
German civilians 1930s
German practice run in the 30s
Re... The Munich Conference
Ps. Or a similar link to the same podcast: The Munich Conference from History Extra podcast
The 45min podcast (mentioned above in my prior post #3) with Robert Harris. I found it really interesting.
Incidentally - Serbia during WW1 is also mentioned. Serbia initially tried to agree with many demands made on it etc. and nevertheless, I think, there the goalposts were moved too and war came about, because these demands were meant to be a prelude to war.
I hear in that podcast (link above) that Robert Harris mentions, I think, that Hitler was after a war and the "Munich Agreement" and no war, then, on his terms, when he wanted it, was a defeat for him. It ran counter to his plan.
If the question is "Why was it signed and what was it good for and to whom?"
I think this is addressed.
If it was done to "avoid WW2." perhaps it did, temporarily?
Whose job was it to "avoid WW2" ? Is it even possible to avoid a war if the other side is determined to seek any means to have one?
Was "world war 2" then inevitable? I guess then it might mean just looking at Hitler, and what were his plans. Hitler seemed to want war, and more war. Could he have had what he wanted without a series of them? The more he got "to eat" the more "his appetite" seemed to grow?
How many "agreements" with Hitler would there have to have been, then, in order to continuously prevent "ww2" ?
Another aspect I thought was interesting was there with Hitler in Germany, there was a leader that was demonstrably prepared to bully, lie and deal dishonestly with pretty much everyone, even his own adopted people. To double-cross and back-stab etc. and yet on the other hand a lot of his support seemed to stem from people believing whatever was said and going along with some honouring of "oaths to the fuhrer" to the effect that people owed him something, but he apparently appeared to owe them nothing.
I think I recall a while back that prior to Hitler there had been other oaths, the rule of law etc. but Hitler required these to be broken etc.
If Hitler didn't like someone they seemed to have been arrested/got rid of/shot etc. by people willing to arrest/get rid of/shoot etc. people Hitler didn't like.
Hitler broke numerous laws, he was in jail, had tried to use violence to overthrow the state, and by many standards, I guess that should have mitigated against his ever being allowed to seek public office.
Dealing with Hitler took many forms. Appeasement might delay, but it was apparently impossible that appeasement might “assuage or satisfy” him, let alone “pacify”.
gerund or present participle: appeasing
1. pacify or placate (someone) by acceding to their demands.
2. assuage or satisfy (a demand or a feeling).
German leasure flying - the name Kibitz has two meanings.
A bird and someone spying, or in card games, someone looking in his co players cards.
Is that understood? Sorry, I was a bit vague translating this one.
Separate names with a comma.