Military Review

Anniversary of the Munich Agreement. A shameful page in the history of "democratic" Europe

62
Anniversary of the Munich Agreement. A shameful page in the history of "democratic" Europe

If you try to find in the European stories of modern times, those pages that absolutely do not allow double interpretation and can only be regarded as an occasion for the most burning shame and repentance, then one of the first lines in their list, no doubt, should be occupied by the agreement concluded on September 29, 1938 in Munich, Germany ...


The irony of fate lies in the fact that with this truly treacherous act, the then "collective West" hoped to deploy the military machine of the Third Reich, which it created and gaining more power, to the East, towards the Soviet Union, and, in fact, laid the foundation for World War II. The same one, in the course of which the pavements of his own capitals were trampled under the boots of Hitler's soldiers ...

Czechoslovakia was one of the brainchildren of the "Versailles system", which recorded the collapse of old European monarchies and empires, including Austria-Hungary. And at the same time, she plunged Germany into the abyss of ruin, disaster and humiliation she had never seen before. In Prague, the Sudetenland, inhabited mainly by Germans, was considered one of its own very successful territorial acquisitions, but in vain. It was precisely “the deep aspirations of its inhabitants, eager for reunification with their historical homeland” (mostly inspired by Berlin) that Hitler used as a pretext for putting forward territorial claims to Czechoslovakia.

I must say that this was not the first demarche of the Fuhrer of this kind. The "tests of the pen" undertaken by him so far have been the introduction of German troops into the demilitarized Rhineland and the German Anschluss of Austria. In principle, both cases were gross violations of the Versailles Treaty (as well as the creation of the Wehrmacht in principle) and were the finest "casus belli" in order to crush the Nazi monster in the bud. Then, for this, and war, in fact, would not be needed: a police operation by the forces of a "limited contingent" would have finished with Hitler without any special problems.

The problem was that neither London nor Paris was going to do anything of the kind. They dreamed of destroying the USSR with someone else's hands, and the ominous Third Reich was perfect for this. That is why, after the two crises inspired by the Nazis in the Sudetenland that followed one after the other (in the spring and autumn of 1938), which heated up the situation to the brink of war between Germany and Czechoslovakia, Britain and France took the position of "appeasing" Hitler, and in fact presented him with a gift box only the region in dispute, but the rest of the country.

The only state that was ready to fight the aggressor without hesitation was the Soviet Union. And if in March 1938 in Prague they were still picky about refusing our military assistance, by September the local politicians “matured” to accept it. Alas, it was too late: the Anglo-French representatives bluntly declared to the Czechs that in this case they would not only not join the anti-Hitler coalition, but, on the contrary, would do everything to turn this war into an “anti-Bolshevik crusade”. That is, London and Paris were ready to fight shoulder to shoulder with Berlin against the USSR and all its allies, if they were found.

The most aggressive and insidious position on this issue was taken by Poland. Warsaw not only categorically refused to let the Red Army units that would have gone to the aid of Czechoslovakia pass through its territory, but also promised to attack any Soviet aircraft that tried to cross the airspace for this purpose. In response, the USSR threatened the Poles with war for an attempt to occupy Czechoslovak territory and concentrated a significant military force on the western border. Warsaw did not turn her ear. However, there is nothing surprising: we should not forget that at that time it was Poland that was a military-political ally of the Third Reich and subsequently, with the partition of Czechoslovakia, received its piece of territory.

I must say that the army of Czechoslovakia could well repel the attack of the Wehrmacht on its own. At that time, it even surpassed him in terms of armament and technical equipment, and the beautiful fortified areas in the same Sudetenland gave every chance to turn this campaign for the Germans from an easy walk into a blood bath. It is reliably known that in such a case (and even more so if France and Britain entered the war on the side of Prague), the German generals had very specific plans to remove Hitler from power and even arrest him for a hopeless military adventure he had started. But nothing of the kind happened.

British Prime Minister Chamberlain promised Czechoslovakia to Hitler "without war and delay." And so it all happened. The representatives of Britain, France and Italy who arrived in Munich did not even consider it necessary to admit the Czechoslovak delegation into the hall where the fate of her country was being decided. From the USSR, no one was simply present - they were not invited, knowing perfectly well the position of our country. The unfortunate Hubert Masaryk and Vojtech Mastny were admitted to the table, on which there was already a ready-made text of the agreement, under which were the autographs of Hitler, Mussolini, Chamberlain and Daladier. No one listened to their timid "expression of protest". A real shameful page in the history of "democratic" Europe.

The Sudetenland went to the Third Reich immediately - President Beneš did not even try to argue with the decisions made in Munich. Czechoslovakia had less than a year to exist. Hitler's allies Poland and Hungary began to tear it to pieces ... In March 1939, Slovakia announced its secession, turning into another Nazi satellite, and the pitiful remnants of the Czech Republic were occupied by the Germans, turning into a "protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia." The Wehrmacht got huge Czech arsenals, and, more importantly, military factories, some of the best in the world, which subsequently, until 1945, will regularly supply the "Aryans" with weapons and military equipment. First of all, for the war with the USSR.

The main result of Munich was Hitler's confidence that while he was advancing his armies to the East, there was no need to fear a blow from Britain and France. However, the Fuhrer was not a fool, and he perfectly understood that sooner or later he would get a knife in the back. So, before going to Moscow, I decided to deal with those who intended to use it, but in the end they themselves turned out to be a fool. The prophet who quite correctly predicted the consequences of the Munich Agreement was Chamberlain, who did not sign it, who got off the plane in Britain with the words that he had “brought peace for a whole generation,” and his political opponent Winston Churchill.

The one who was to lead Britain during the Second World War, on the same day uttered a catch phrase that, choosing between war and shame, England chose shame. But soon he will also get a war. And so it happened. Today, trying to reproach our country for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the West categorically refuses to admit that the Second World War, like the Great Patriotic War, which cost our people many millions of victims, was predetermined precisely then, on September 29, 1938.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia / Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H12751, Godesberg, Vorbereitung Münchener Abkommen.jpg
62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Egoza
    Egoza 29 September 2020 08: 27
    +2
    "Oh! You say that! We have nothing to do with it!" - that's how they will talk, especially remembering the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
    1. Temples
      Temples 29 September 2020 08: 32
      +9
      A real shameful page in the history of "democratic" Europe.


      The real face of democracy.
      First they donated it by the Czechs.
      Then the Poles.
      Then the French raised their paws.

      And everything is democratic.
      The main thing is to do as the English-speaking gentlemen say.
      Europe has stood on this for over a hundred years.

      If Hitler had invaded Moscow, then he (Hitler) would have died even earlier than burned down. The British would simply have removed this corporal.
      And the war would be ended by victorious English-speaking allies.
      The main goal was the destruction of Russia. And it doesn't matter for them what kind of system is in Russia, Soviet or otherwise. The main thing is to destroy. You can't even subdue, because you can't subdue the Russians.

      And the Germans are just meat.
      They would be donated as well as Czechs, drinkers, Frenchmen and others.
      1. Temples
        Temples 29 September 2020 08: 44
        0
        Quote: Egoza
        We have nothing to do with it! "

        Elena, you did it ambiguously. They say the USSR is also guilty of the war.

        For this you cut off the minus.
        1. Insurgent
          Insurgent 29 September 2020 09: 53
          +6
          Quote: Temples
          Helen, you did it ambiguously... They say the USSR is also guilty of the war.

          For this you cut off the minus.


          Yes yes how you write - "Execution cannot be pardoned"
          1. krot
            krot 29 September 2020 10: 05
            +2
            Europe gave birth to the Inquisition, where people were burned alive. Spawned colonialism, where people of the "lower" race were turned into slaves. Spawned fascism and Hitler, which was supported by the majority of Europe. Now homosexuals are in charge and transvestites.
            And these barbarians show us the faithful how to live according to what laws !?
            And our liberals look into their mouths. Ugh, disgusting.
        2. The comment was deleted.
    2. nnm
      nnm 29 September 2020 08: 45
      +1
      And what was in this package that was not, in fact, in the same Munich agreement?
      1. military_cat
        military_cat 29 September 2020 09: 21
        -6
        Quote: nnm
        And what was in this package that was not, in fact, in the same Munich agreement?
        Secret protocol. Britain did not divide third countries between itself and Hitler into spheres of influence. You can evaluate it in different ways (moving the Reich away from its borders, etc.), but the difference between the agreements was in this.
        1. Insurgent
          Insurgent 29 September 2020 09: 51
          +5
          Quote: military_cat
          Secret protocol. Britain did not divide third countries between itself and Hitler into spheres of influence. You can evaluate it in different ways (pushing the Reich away from its borders, etc.), but this was the difference between the agreements.



          Yes, speak directly -cowardly paid off.
        2. Olgovich
          Olgovich 29 September 2020 09: 54
          +6
          Quote: military_cat
          Secret protocol. Britain did not divide third countries between itself and Hitler into spheres of influence.

          Don't talk nonsense: for example, the London negotiations between representatives of Great Britain and the Third Reich, which took place in June - August 1939, simultaneously with the Moscow negotiations between the USSR, Great Britain and France.

          The London talks were aimed at concluding a broad Anglo-German agreement on political and economic issues.

          English sentences included the division of spheres of influence with Germany with the recognition of German interests in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, as well as the rights of Great Britain in its colonies (the USSR and China were part of the joint sphere of Anglo-German "cooperation").

          Everything happened, everything was discussed quite calmly, they didn't reach an agreement.

          And in May 1944, an agreement was concluded between England and the USSR on division of spheres of influence in Greece and Romania, which chronologically preceded the "percentage agreement" of W. Churchill and I.V. Stalin on October 9, 1944

          Spheres of influence were, are and will be in countries and this is not a "capture" of the state.

          And yes, the Pact of RM is an enforced CONSEQUENCE of the Munich agreement: there would be no agreement, no PfP.

          The Munich Agreement is, in fact, the BEGINNING of WWII.
        3. nnm
          nnm 29 September 2020 11: 09
          +1
          He wrote in Russian - "in fact", or do you want to say that the partition of Czechoslovakia was not a donation by a weaker country, for the sake of loved ones? Absolutely the same meaning - the prevalence of their interests over the sovereignty of other countries. There is absolutely no difference.
    3. Ascold1901
      Ascold1901 29 September 2020 10: 10
      0
      And what has to do with the "Non-Aggression Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union"? ("Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact"). What's the connection?
  2. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 29 September 2020 08: 31
    +9
    This event, in fact, was the catalyst for World War II ... the West in every possible way encouraged the Nazis to expand and expand their conquests ... first of all pushing them to the East ... hoping to use Hitler (and here they would be his first allies) in a fight with the USSR ...
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. Daniil Konovalenko
    Daniil Konovalenko 29 September 2020 08: 35
    +4
    in the West they categorically refuse to admit that the Second World War, like the Great Patriotic War, which cost our people many millions of victims, was predetermined precisely then, on September 29, 1938.
    smile In the West, they regret that such a situevina turned out. They wanted the best, but it turned out as always. smile
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 29 September 2020 08: 52
      +5
      Quote: Daniil Konovalenko
      They wanted the best, but it turned out as always.

      As wanted so the beginning of WWII and it turned out. Only our great-grandfathers and grandfathers rewrote the final. Therefore, the Anglo-Saxons, shaking hands with the Russian soldier, were already thinking about attacking the USSR weakened by the war. If the Americans had more atomic bombs then, they would not hesitate for a long time.
      1. Daniil Konovalenko
        Daniil Konovalenko 29 September 2020 09: 00
        +2
        Marshal Foch, was not happy with the terms of the Versailles Peace, spoke of a truce for 20 years and was right. WWII was in principle laid down by the terms of the Versailles Treaty.
  5. Woodman
    Woodman 29 September 2020 08: 41
    +3
    I must say that the army of Czechoslovakia could well repel the attack of the Wehrmacht on its own. At that time, it even surpassed him in terms of armament and technical equipment, and the beautiful fortified areas in the same Sudetenland gave every chance to turn this campaign for the Germans from an easy walk into a blood bath.
    But Czechoslovakia preferred to "relax and have fun."
    Would anyone of the authors write how this historical moment is covered in modern Czech Republic and Slovakia? Do they consider this behavior justified there? It would be very interesting to read about it.
    1. Daniil Konovalenko
      Daniil Konovalenko 29 September 2020 08: 47
      +3
      I read somewhere, they consider it justified, the industry has survived, agriculture, the cities have not been destroyed. In general, the occupation is viewed negatively, but they find "positive aspects." smile
      1. Horon
        Horon 29 September 2020 09: 40
        +4
        Like a woman with low social responsibility: "The client was rude, but paid the money!" winked
        1. Daniil Konovalenko
          Daniil Konovalenko 29 September 2020 09: 41
          +2
          good Like that.. laughing
  6. anjey
    anjey 29 September 2020 08: 41
    +1
    Intrigue, intrigue and once again intrigue, this is the whole of Europe, both in those times and now, and the main thing, and the Anglo-Saxon tune remains, in this intriguing political orchestra.
  7. Fedor Sokolov
    Fedor Sokolov 29 September 2020 08: 42
    +5
    Partitioning Czechoslovakia is good, but Poland is bad.
  8. apro
    apro 29 September 2020 08: 44
    +5
    Not shameful ... but thoughtful. Everyone perfectly understood what they were going to. And everyone was satisfied with this agreement, except the Czechs. But they are not the main ones in this situation.
    As always, the position of the Angles sowed discord in Europe. By creating semi-states after WWII, they laid a mine for safety in Europe. What would then. ... but it didn't burn out. I found a more skillful player from overseas.
    What does this treaty say today? That both then and now international treaties are worth nothing without forceful support, and the sovereignty of small countries is still questionable ...
    1. Runoway
      Runoway 29 September 2020 09: 43
      0
      What does this treaty say today? That both then and now international treaties are worthless without forceful support

      Today it seems to be even worse, there are two problems
      -firstly imposed democracy (well, no benefit to our people, only fragmentation)
      -foreign policy, we are trying to resist the West, without losing hope to make friends (or escape there, the higher echelons of power) from that and all the troubles, there is no single course of the state
  9. Fedor Sokolov
    Fedor Sokolov 29 September 2020 08: 49
    +4
    The Poles do not want to honor the memory of the dead Czechs on this day, to pay them compensation for their aggression against them together with the Third Reich.
  10. Doccor18
    Doccor18 29 September 2020 08: 53
    +4
    A shameful page in the history of "democratic" Europe

    Why shameful? They don't think so. They had their own goal, which they embodied ... They still have the same goal, only they embody it in a different way.
  11. APASUS
    APASUS 29 September 2020 08: 53
    +8
    Now all the old, and especially the "new" Europe rests, the beginning of WWII is considered from the capture of Poland, and not from the capture of Czechoslovakia. They themselves organized assistance to Hitler, they themselves raised him from his knees. power of Germany
    1. Blacksmith 55
      Blacksmith 55 29 September 2020 10: 15
      +1
      I saw something like a documentary, where Chamberlain flew to London after Munich. And his words were: I brought you Peace!
      Less than a year later, the war began.
  12. gregor6549
    gregor6549 29 September 2020 08: 58
    -18 qualifying.
    Again, there is a gross falsification of history. In this case, from the side of Mr. Karaluzhny. It was the Soviet Union that promised Czechoslovakia all-round assistance, including military assistance, if it offered armed resistance to Germany. But it just so happened (purely by chance, of course) that at the most critical moment when the time came to fulfill this promise to the authorities of Czechoslovakia they simply could not contact any of the leaders of the USSR and were forced to surrender to Germany's mercy. And they could not contact for the reason that the USSR hoped that England and France would support Czechoslovakia in its war with Germany, which was what Comrade Stalin needed to implement the long-planned conquest campaign to the West. But England and France did not declare war on Germany because of Czechoslovakia, and Stalin had to develop another scenario for a campaign to the West and go to the conclusion of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Stalin succeeded in this trick, and it was from this trick that the Second World War began. True, the magician outplayed himself and received not only the Second World War, but also the Great Patriotic War on his own territory.
    1. apro
      apro 29 September 2020 09: 09
      +5
      Quote: gregor6549
      It was the Soviet Union that promised Czechoslovakia all-round assistance, including military assistance, if it offered armed resistance to Germany.

      As I understand it, the Czechs met the Wehrmacht with fire? Or did they simply evacuate where they were offered? And the IVSTalin made them sign the contract too? If they did not want to defend their country, then the IVSTalin should do it for them?
    2. Ka-52
      Ka-52 29 September 2020 09: 12
      +8
      But it just so happened (purely by chance, of course) that at the most critical moment when the time came to fulfill this promise to the authorities of Czechoslovakia they simply could not contact any of the leaders of the USSR and were forced to surrender to Germany's mercy.

      the newly-minted connoisseur of history Grigory gregor6549 probably ignored the refusal of Poland and Romania to let Soviet troops through their territory
      1. gregor6549
        gregor6549 29 September 2020 13: 34
        0
        I am never a historian, but I am interested in history and am familiar with various points of view, including diametrically opposed points of view on history, especially since I was born in St. Petersburg in the mid-30s, my mother died during the blockade and my father was in the army from the first day war and survived only because he was seriously wounded near Bryansk at 41 and he managed to take out from there before the boiler near Bryansk "slammed". This is why I am so interested in history, including the pre-war one.
        Now about Poland's refusal to let the KRArmy pass through its territory. The fact is that the issue of the pass was discussed between the delegations of the USSR, Great Britain and France without the participation of Poland. And everyone understood perfectly well that the requirements for a pass were absolutely unacceptable for Poland as a sovereign state, and such a pass would mean its complete occupation. In addition, everyone well remembered the attempt of the Red Army under the leadership of Tukhachevsky to break through to Germany through the "corpse of White Poland" back in the early 20s. So the Soviet Union's proposals for some kind of collective security in Europe were nothing more than Stalin's cunning and very successful attempt at that time to solve the tasks set by him to "liberate Western Europe"
        1. Ka-52
          Ka-52 29 September 2020 13: 45
          +1
          I was born in St. Petersburg in the mid-30s ...

          with all due respect, this does not apply to the logic of the content of your comment.
          And everyone understood perfectly well that the requirements for a pass were absolutely unacceptable for Poland as a sovereign state, and such a pass would mean its complete occupation. In addition, everyone remembered well the attempt of the Red Army under the leadership of Tukhachevsky to break through to Germany through the "corpse of White Poland" back in the early 20s.

          this is an excuse for fans of alternative history. The Poles did not want to allow Soviet troops into their territory for two reasons: 1) by that time, the Polish government was very actively considering the possibility of facilitating the invasion of German troops into the USSR. And 2) Poland by this time, together with the Germans, had defined the future borders of Czechoslovakia, along which the western part of Cieszyn Slesia passed to Poland. Tell me that Poland, anticipating the opportunity to seize part of the territory of Czechoslovakia, could agree to the passage of Soviet troops and thereby destroy its own plans?
          1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 29 September 2020 16: 03
            -2
            Quote: Ka-52
            1) by that time, the Polish government was very actively considering the possibility of assisting the invasion of German troops in the USSR.

            Explain how, where and how Germany, having no borders with the USSR, was going to invade it?
            Let me remind you that we are talking about the spring-summer of 1938 - so what are Germany's plans to invade the USSR? Sound, if not difficult.
            1. Ka-52
              Ka-52 30 September 2020 06: 04
              0
              Explain how, where and how Germany, having no borders with the USSR, was going to invade it?
              Let me remind you that we are talking about the spring-summer of 1938 - so what are Germany's plans to invade the USSR? Sound, if not difficult.

              Well, if you have on your shoulders not a saucepan, but a head, then you can easily remember what or who were the main antagonists for Hitler - the Jews and the Communists. Moreover, unlike the Jews, the German communists were also a real headache for the National Socialists when they came to power in the early 30s. At the same time, the Nazis knew about the leading role of the Comintern and the Kremlin over them. No wonder they called the Communist Party "the fifth column of Moscow".
              1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 30 September 2020 06: 50
                -3
                ... well, if you have not a saucepan on your shoulders, but your head,

                Well, well, take it easy, dear, don't be rude. You've gotten yourself into a mess with this intrusion, it's obvious. Once again, Hitler had no plans to "invade the USSR" during the Sudeten crises. If you can refute with documents - do it without being clever about 'Jews and the Cominitern'.
                1. Ka-52
                  Ka-52 30 September 2020 07: 13
                  0
                  Well, well, take it easy, dear, you don't need to be rude

                  no one encroached on your vulnerable maiden honor.
                  You got into a mess with this intrusion

                  first, learn to read and comprehend what you read. Somewhere at this stage, your thinking system fails. Because I did not write about Hitler's plans. It was about the plans of Poland. And in the 30s they were running around with the "Plan East" like a chicken and an egg.
                  no cleverness

                  "are you too smart?" is a favorite phrase of the public, who loves to sit on cortans and wring out cell phones from schoolchildren wassat
                  1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 30 September 2020 09: 10
                    -2
                    Quote: Ka-52
                    Because I did not write about Hitler's plans.


                    You wrote:
                    1) by that time, the Polish government was very actively considering the possibility of assisting the invasion of German troops in the USSR.


                    I asked you to clarify what kind of invasion we are talking about in the context and during the events around the Sudetenland and Munich. You burst out with some nonsense about pots and Jews, trying to cover up the stupidity of your thesis in an aggressive tone. This is, just the same, and similar to the tactics of the gopota.
                    Quote: Ka-52
                    And in the 30s they were running around with the "Plan East" like a chicken and an egg.

                    Plan "East", for your information, was defense plan.
                    Still have arguments?
                    1. Ka-52
                      Ka-52 30 September 2020 09: 58
                      -2
                      I asked you to clarify what kind of invasion we are talking about in the context and during the events around the Sudetenland and Munich.

                      Is it my problem that you have dyslexia and have difficulty absorbing what you read?
                      Plan East, for your information, was a defense plan.

                      this is for Wikipedia lovers like you. Who will defend the position that Poland had no plans for "Greater Poland", that neither Pilsudski nor Beck negotiated with the Germans about an attack on the USSR

                      1935 by the way
                      for your development, read at least the encryption of Soviet diplomats of those years. It speaks quite specifically about the nature of the Polish aspirations to push Germany to attack the USSR.
                      Although it seems easier for you to spit on me with seeds than to understand the pre-war history
                      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 30 September 2020 10: 16
                        -2
                        whoever shines here with non-modern education is, rather, you)
                        Well, let's raise our favorite topic about "secret protocols" to the Lipsky-Neurath pact.
                      2. Ka-52
                        Ka-52 30 September 2020 10: 37
                        0
                        yes, the station in Warsaw of those years is lying, Soviet diplomats are lying, but you are here D'Artagnan laughing
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 29 September 2020 09: 12
    +1
    Anniversary of the Munich Agreement. A shameful page in the history of "democratic" Europe
    Brad. fool The Naglo-Saxons had a plan that did not have to be brought to the attention of the stupid French and Poles. For them there were colorful candy wrappers "about eternal peace in Europe" And then
    to lead Britain during the Second World War, on the same day he uttered a catch phrase that, choosing between war and shame, England chose shame.
    England did not bring peace, but a sword, and purposefully. And no need to shaggy grandmother. Yes, it was assumed that together with France they would drive Hitler into the stall, but ...... it just happened. request, more precisely, it did not work out.
    laid the foundations for World War II. The same one, in the course of which the pavements of his own capitals were trampled under the boots of Hitler's soldiers ...
    As a result, nobody trampled London, although it was close. I repeat the plan was implemented, Hitler attacked the USSR. England sat out on the island. Another thing is that the result of the war was not planned. Instead of the weakened destroyed USSR, a giant appeared in the military sphere and no one dared to mess with him ..... Papers-plans to draw the "unthinkable", yes.
    And they had no mistakes, the USSR was not "over-pumped" with military power, in 1941 we were on the verge of destruction. We lost both tank and aircraft armada. But time worked for us, against Germany.
    1. Runoway
      Runoway 29 September 2020 09: 38
      0
      Instead of the weakened destroyed USSR, a giant appeared in the military sphere and no one dared to contact him anymore ...

      Correction! I had to abandon the plan to go to the USSR, but half of Germany was still squeezed
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 29 September 2020 09: 24
    +2
    It is with this fact that our Foreign Ministry needs to poke them in the gay European face 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
  • rocket757
    rocket757 29 September 2020 09: 25
    +2
    They don't tell the average person there, they don't remind me ...
  • rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 29 September 2020 09: 46
    +2
    A shameful page in the history of "democratic" Europe
    But they (Europe) do not think so, tk. not only distorted the entire history of that period (and not only), but managed to place the blame for the beginning of the war on the victorious country. History has never known such a cynical sophistication.
  • aszzz888
    aszzz888 29 September 2020 10: 06
    0
    The one who was to lead Britain during the Second World War, on the same day, uttered a catch phrase that, choosing between war and shame, England chose shame.
    And still disgraces! Seriously impudent !!! angry
  • Petrik66
    Petrik66 29 September 2020 10: 26
    -1
    At the Nuremberg Trials, the allies forbade the Hans even to blather about the Munich Treaty and Molotov - Ribentrop. Both of these agreements are worth each other, but here it is important to understand - WHO IS THE FIRST BEGINNING. but just democratic England and France started with not very democratic Italy. Are you sorry for the Czechs? And why should they feel sorry for them - a typical trophy territory that is not capable of independent politics and, by definition, is part of a bloc with someone who is stronger than it. The desire to live well and calmly, among Czechs, like many others in Europe, is the main component of their psychology. By the way, the Czechs wrested the Teshin region from Poland at the most critical moment, when the Poles tried to seize Ukraine from the Soviets. So, they are smeared with one world. Did the "allies" hope that Adik with his kameradas would go to the USSR? well it was a pleasant delusion, if there was one. If so, then James Bond either washed down, or just screwed up and squeezed the wrong docks from the possessed man's safe. Adik made no secret of the need to wash away the shame of Versailles, which was difficult to do in Moscow or Sverdlovsk. It is of course: Normal heroes always go around, but not to the same extent. The British tried to pass off wishful thinking, and the Hans played along with them, declaring that they had such an acute dislike for the commies that they could not eat. Well, the main Brit was happy and signed the paper, which he then waved at the plane and broadcast about the world, which he signed so successfully. I wonder if he wiped it off afterwards? Here Adik did it for sure. I think that he handed out to all his kents - well, Goering, Himler, Field Marshals a leaf of the treaty and everyone used this leaf for its intended purpose. They liked it and did the same trick in 41, but since the document was signed in Moscow, the paper was ours - Soviet and everything went wrong.
    1. apro
      apro 29 September 2020 10: 40
      +1
      Quote: Petrik66
      Both of these contracts are worth each other

      This is with a fright?
      1. Petrik66
        Petrik66 29 September 2020 10: 52
        0
        If possible, without demagoguery, tell us what is the difference?
        1. apro
          apro 29 September 2020 11: 29
          0
          The Munich Treaty is not a compulsory measure. Unlike the Moscow Treaty. The sides England and France, the victors in the WWII, had all the resources to force Germany to comply with the terms of the Versailles agreements. But they did not. And Germany was a weak side. Both in the military question and in the economic ...
          In the Moscow Treaty, the USSR, in fact, remaining in isolation, went on to normalize relations with Germany in order to improve its position before a possible clash with Germany and, possibly, with England and France, and for one thing to equalize the entire economic situation by mutual trade with the Germans.
          1. Petrik66
            Petrik66 29 September 2020 12: 16
            0
            Thanks. But, if we discard the lyrics and do not go into details about the state of the armies of England and France in 1938, as well as the complete unpreparedness of nations for war after the losses of the First World War, discord inside France, which she could not overcome in 1940, pacifism prevailing in England and idiotic disarmament - Chamberlain's main trick, then you are right - the treaty is not forced. both countries proceeded from their purely selfish interests, just like the USSR in 1939. Forced? God bless her: Czechoslovakia or Poland. Who are they?
            1. apro
              apro 29 September 2020 12: 56
              +1
              Quote: Petrik66
              or Poland.

              And Poland here at what ??? Participated together with Germany in the partition of the Czech Republic. Led an extremely aggressive policy against the USSR. The war was with the seizure of foreign territories. Not a poor sheep.
              From what you write what pacifists were England and the French. It is extremely inappropriate utterance. And the army of the French was at the level. And the fleet of the Angles is also nothing. and the economic power of both of them was superior to the Germans. the question of what games were played ...
              Quote: Petrik66
              just like the USSR in 1939.

              Once again ... what selfish interests did the USSR pursue? He did not sell anyone. He did not owe anyone in Europe.
  • iouris
    iouris 29 September 2020 11: 24
    0
    Show me the chronicle of the entry of Hitler's troops into Czechoslovakia, the heroic battles of the Czechoslovak army, or at least the protests of the "freedom-loving" Czechs.
  • TAMBU
    TAMBU 29 September 2020 11: 27
    +1


    Here people versed in the topic raise this issue ...
  • Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 29 September 2020 12: 13
    +1
    I must say that the army of Czechoslovakia could well repel the attack of the Wehrmacht on its own.

    In theory, yes. Hold out for three weeks, according to the General Staff. And there, you see, help will arrive in time, and the political situation will change, etc. In principle, it could have worked. Under favorable circumstances.
    Just do not forget that it was not only the Wehrmacht that posed a threat - the gut of the ChSR is surrounded by potential adversaries from all sides. The Czechs had no illusions that Poland would remain on the sidelines in the event of a batch - gene. Kreichi (General Staff of the Armed Forces) back in July 38, at a dinner at the Soviet Permanent Mission, he asked Ambassador Aleksandrovsky on the forehead what the USSR would do in the event of an attack by Poland on the Chechen Republic.
    1. iouris
      iouris 29 September 2020 13: 15
      -3
      Why didn't the USSR surrender?
      1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 29 September 2020 13: 37
        0
        And why is this a question at all?
  • Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 29 September 2020 13: 10
    0
    and the beautiful fortified areas in the same Sudetenland gave every chance to turn this campaign for the Germans from an easy walk into a blood bath.


    Of course, URs greatly impressed Hitler and Speer when they passed into the hands of the Germans, yes, BUT! The nodes of resistance (as the beginning of the Red Army Savchenko calls them in his memorandum on his visit to the Chechen Republic) are mostly were not completed - there were no armored caps, towers and artillery weapons. In this state, they were certainly not "fine fortified areas." Simple defensive points - "Model 36" bunkers, which the Czechs pushed along the border as many as 850 pieces, would probably not have been a special obstacle for the Wehrmacht. However, the Wehrmacht of the 1938 model. was far from what it was 1-2 years later. So, about the "bath" I would rather agree with Comrade X - yes, it would have been very difficult.
  • Alexy
    Alexy 29 September 2020 14: 01
    0
    Everything is correct. Only this should be reminded not by Mr. Kharaluzhny on the pages of VO, but by Mr. Lavrov in official statements and international speeches.
  • NF68
    NF68 29 September 2020 16: 12
    0
    Both of these in Europe now prefer to forget.
  • Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 29 September 2020 16: 35
    0
    And the most curious thing in this story is that almost immediately after Munich, the French and British who passed the CSR began pouring slop on the USSR in the press. accusing him of betraying Czechoslovakia... Absurd, but true. If TASS responded to the antics of the press, then when high-ranking officials from the British cabinet (Lord Winterton in particular) began to carry such crap, diplomats had to intervene - Ambassador Maisky, at an audience with Lord Halifax, conveyed the last note of protest from the government of the USSR in connection with the slanderous statements of some morose cabinet members. In this connection, they had a curious conversation with the lord - the May prophecy, in particular, Hitler's blitzkrieg in the West.
  • Boris ⁣ Shaver
    Boris ⁣ Shaver 1 October 2020 06: 25
    0
    Once a shameful page.
    Two shameful page.
    When the next book is typed, we will put it on the shelf already bursting with the weight of other such books about the shameful pages of Europe.
    And nothing. We are still evil, and they are forces of good.