Ollie Garchy

My response:

(1) The Rhineland is Germany. Berlin could hardly "gain it".

(2) Austria was Hitler's native country. As an Austrian, he "gained" Germany instead. The Austrians furthermore applauded Anschluss. The unification of Germany, as it was understood in the 1930s, merely represented an acceptance of a core plank of League of Nations policy -- that proclaiming the right of national sovereignty.

(3) The same is true of the Sudetenland. The former province of the Austrian Empire was composed nearly completely of German-Austrians. It was absorbed by Prague as a reward for Czech military participation against the Central Powers during WWI. [Why is it that Alsace-Lorraine is viewed as a major moral issue when most central and eastern European countries had countless similar cases?] The Czech state in 1918 was actually a bizarre amalgamation that reflected the ethnic composition of the Austrian Empire. There were 6 million Czechs, 3 million Slovaks, 1.5 million Germans, and various other groups including Poles, Hungarians, Ruthenians, etc. If you believe in national sovereignty, then the Sudetenland belonged to Germany or Austria or Germany-Austria or Austria-Germany or maybe even Austria-Germany-most of Switzerland. If you do not believe in the right of national sovereignty, then you can hardly use the argument against Germany and argue that Posen was Polish, or Schleswig Danish or even Lorraine as French.

There is also one really important point concerning Munich. When Chamberlain sold Prague down the river, other countries later participated in Hitler's "land grab". Poland negotiated for a piece of the pie, Hungary got a small share, and the Slovaks, who generally felt themselves oppressed by the Czechs, agitated for the status of German protectorate. The Czech state imploded. Why? Another artificial Versailles construction bit the dust. Yugoslavia imploded in 1941 and again in the 1990s. Why? The Allied politicians repeatedly ignored eastern/central European demographic and cultural realities.

Conclusion: As can be seen from these examples, it is cynical to argue that (1) the Rhineland, (2) Austria, or (3) the Sudetenland represented serious breaches of international norms or conduct. They represented a repeal of the Versailles treaty that the western Allies sanctioned. Remember that Paris and London killed remaining German reparations, agreed to German rearmament as long as it was controlled (British-German naval agreement) and in fact understood why Berlin wanted Anschluss and the Sudetenland.

In a geopolitical sense, Paris and London knew why Germany wanted Danzig and the corridor, Upper Silesia and other post-WWI territorial losses. How could German politicians and strategists be expected to stomach the fact that Prussia was cut off from the rest of Germany? If you argue that the German population and government had no right to return Europe to pre-November 1918, how can you logically argue that Allied politicians originally had the right to cut it up in the first place. If you decide that POWER is the issue here, then I agree with you. I in fact see no other alternative solution.

The most important realization: As mentioned, you can argue that the carving up of the Czech state represented a crime. But Hungary, Poland and the independent Slovak government become equally guilty. They all got their piece. Poland, since it was later carved up by Hitler AND Stalin, becomes a repeat of the Czech demise.

Primary Conclusion: The motor of European political decisions, then and now, remains naked power pursuits. Nobody really "started" WWI or WWII or any war for that matter. Governments see the world differently from others and opt for war when other means fail. Primary interests move policy. London could not stomach the idea of a resurgent Germany (either under Hitler or probably even Ghandi). Ideology, morality, etc. only play marginal roles. Whitehall opted for war in 1939 to combat the idea of German expansion. Geopolitical? Probably. A moral defence of Poland? Come on.

Ollie Garchy.