This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Munich Agreement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 29, 2005, September 29, 2006, September 29, 2008, September 29, 2009, September 29, 2010, September 29, 2018, and September 30, 2021. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Wikipedia article on the Munich Agreement is sadly unbalanced. It is slanderous to politicians who sincerely and for honorable, if debatable, reasons tried to save the peace. It is written with the Guilty Men hypothesis in mind. The suggestion that a good alternative title would have been "The Munich Betrayal" is evidence of a lack of objectivity. Titles should be neutral and not prejudicial. The Munich Settlement is a good alternative name. It is not widely understood that the Agreement cannot be considered a betrayal, for several reasons. In the first place the Czechoslovak Government accepted the Agreement and President Benesh declared, even after the war, to be proud to have made the sacrifices of his country at Munich to save the peace. He understood that Czechoslovakia could have defended itself not for long and that French assistance would not be helpful in this short period. So to avoid the destruction of their country the government agreed with the settlement. In the second place, if there was a betrayal at all, it did not happen at Munich, but a year before, or even much longer. In November 1937 France and Great Britain were already determined that everything should be done to prevent the outbreak of a military conflict between Czechoslovakia and Germany over Sudetenland - Czechoslovakia should give in to German demands. If a military conflict could be prevented, the obligation of France to go to war on the side of Czechoslovakia would not be activated. And a treaty is never breached by efforts to restrain an ally. Winston Churchill, while highly critical of the Agreement, acknowledged this, denying that there was any betrayal. What happened at Munich was that Czechoslovakia as a strategic asset, in the interest of France pointed at Germany, was given up. Its position in the hart of Europe outside the reach of France and the Soviet Union, but allied to them, and therefore potentially threatening Germany, was deemed dangerous for Europe, and in the end untenable. Surely, this position was no longer profitable for France, and highly risky for Czechoslovakia herself. Czechoslovakia had become even a nuisance for the western democracies while it tried to influence them in more antagonistic policies against Germany, while there were still possibilities for peaceful solutions for which Czechoslovakia itself hold the key. In the third place, while in Thirties the Left was highly averse to Hitler, this was only very late translated in approval of firm policies that could have restrained Hitler. Rearmament in France started only in 1936, and not yet full scale. The politicians in a position of responsibility during the Munich Crisis were faced with the consequences of decisions and omissions of a long period before. France and great Britain were not ready for war, and deemed the risk of war much too high. Being aware of their weakness they refused to bluff. That Hitler was bluffing about German strength was uncertain, but more important, it is not the same as bluffing about his willingness of fighting a war. The policies of appeasement resulting in the Munich Agreement may have been ineffectual, and overall and after all, mistaken. But this a judgment over a generation of politicians from the period 1918-1938. The repugnance to war brought about appeasement - efforts to redress grievances of Germany and win her over to international cooperation. Only in March 1939 when the cup of conciliation was at last emptied, was it possible in France and Great Britain to accept fully the risk of war, now that the price of peace had become unbearable. 2A02:A211:A3A0:600:A079:89C9:67D6:DF67 ( talk) 04:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC) 2A02:A211:A3A0:600:A079:89C9:67D6:DF67 ( talk) 04:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
NPOV rules require all important views, and the views in the article absolutely qualify with all their references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.23.6.111 ( talk) 11:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
See: 3 of 4 videos Adolf Hitler -The greatest story never told (E03) Origins of the swastika [1] WithGLEE ( talk) 17:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
References
the original wiki mentions chamberlains private agreement with hitler on the day after the munich agreement and the wiki called thst private agreement the anglo german naval agreement. thats wrong. the naval agreement was signed im 1935 and a completely different agreement. the private agreement after munch was signed in 1938 58.96.207.41 ( talk) 01:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
for any questions on the comment by 55.96.207.41 please email me at nmax@uk-cra.org Nmax2000 ( talk) 01:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
In the opening paragraphs, there is currently a "dubios" tag placed on a claim about Polish and Romanian rejection of Soviet transit rights. I have improved the source and believe the tag should be removed.
I wanted to receive feedback before doing so, though. Jcgaylor ( talk) 23:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the name 'Czechia' should be used. As far as I'm aware, that's a modern innovation, not a name that was used at the time. VenomousConcept ( talk) 19:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Munich Agreement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 29, 2005, September 29, 2006, September 29, 2008, September 29, 2009, September 29, 2010, September 29, 2018, and September 30, 2021. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Wikipedia article on the Munich Agreement is sadly unbalanced. It is slanderous to politicians who sincerely and for honorable, if debatable, reasons tried to save the peace. It is written with the Guilty Men hypothesis in mind. The suggestion that a good alternative title would have been "The Munich Betrayal" is evidence of a lack of objectivity. Titles should be neutral and not prejudicial. The Munich Settlement is a good alternative name. It is not widely understood that the Agreement cannot be considered a betrayal, for several reasons. In the first place the Czechoslovak Government accepted the Agreement and President Benesh declared, even after the war, to be proud to have made the sacrifices of his country at Munich to save the peace. He understood that Czechoslovakia could have defended itself not for long and that French assistance would not be helpful in this short period. So to avoid the destruction of their country the government agreed with the settlement. In the second place, if there was a betrayal at all, it did not happen at Munich, but a year before, or even much longer. In November 1937 France and Great Britain were already determined that everything should be done to prevent the outbreak of a military conflict between Czechoslovakia and Germany over Sudetenland - Czechoslovakia should give in to German demands. If a military conflict could be prevented, the obligation of France to go to war on the side of Czechoslovakia would not be activated. And a treaty is never breached by efforts to restrain an ally. Winston Churchill, while highly critical of the Agreement, acknowledged this, denying that there was any betrayal. What happened at Munich was that Czechoslovakia as a strategic asset, in the interest of France pointed at Germany, was given up. Its position in the hart of Europe outside the reach of France and the Soviet Union, but allied to them, and therefore potentially threatening Germany, was deemed dangerous for Europe, and in the end untenable. Surely, this position was no longer profitable for France, and highly risky for Czechoslovakia herself. Czechoslovakia had become even a nuisance for the western democracies while it tried to influence them in more antagonistic policies against Germany, while there were still possibilities for peaceful solutions for which Czechoslovakia itself hold the key. In the third place, while in Thirties the Left was highly averse to Hitler, this was only very late translated in approval of firm policies that could have restrained Hitler. Rearmament in France started only in 1936, and not yet full scale. The politicians in a position of responsibility during the Munich Crisis were faced with the consequences of decisions and omissions of a long period before. France and great Britain were not ready for war, and deemed the risk of war much too high. Being aware of their weakness they refused to bluff. That Hitler was bluffing about German strength was uncertain, but more important, it is not the same as bluffing about his willingness of fighting a war. The policies of appeasement resulting in the Munich Agreement may have been ineffectual, and overall and after all, mistaken. But this a judgment over a generation of politicians from the period 1918-1938. The repugnance to war brought about appeasement - efforts to redress grievances of Germany and win her over to international cooperation. Only in March 1939 when the cup of conciliation was at last emptied, was it possible in France and Great Britain to accept fully the risk of war, now that the price of peace had become unbearable. 2A02:A211:A3A0:600:A079:89C9:67D6:DF67 ( talk) 04:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC) 2A02:A211:A3A0:600:A079:89C9:67D6:DF67 ( talk) 04:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
NPOV rules require all important views, and the views in the article absolutely qualify with all their references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.23.6.111 ( talk) 11:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
See: 3 of 4 videos Adolf Hitler -The greatest story never told (E03) Origins of the swastika [1] WithGLEE ( talk) 17:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
References
the original wiki mentions chamberlains private agreement with hitler on the day after the munich agreement and the wiki called thst private agreement the anglo german naval agreement. thats wrong. the naval agreement was signed im 1935 and a completely different agreement. the private agreement after munch was signed in 1938 58.96.207.41 ( talk) 01:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
for any questions on the comment by 55.96.207.41 please email me at nmax@uk-cra.org Nmax2000 ( talk) 01:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
In the opening paragraphs, there is currently a "dubios" tag placed on a claim about Polish and Romanian rejection of Soviet transit rights. I have improved the source and believe the tag should be removed.
I wanted to receive feedback before doing so, though. Jcgaylor ( talk) 23:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the name 'Czechia' should be used. As far as I'm aware, that's a modern innovation, not a name that was used at the time. VenomousConcept ( talk) 19:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)