The Munich Agreement was a diplomatic failure but also a failure of forecasting

The Munich Agreement is usually remembered in the US as a failure of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain but it was a collective failure of Britain, France and Italy - the three main powers of western Europe and all three signatories to the betrayal of the Czechs.

The Munich Agreement (Czech: Mnichovská dohoda; Slovak: Mníchovská dohoda; German: Münchner Abkommen) was an agreement concluded at Munich on 30 September 1938, by Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy. It provided "cession to Germany of the Sudeten German territory" of Czechoslovakia, despite the existence of a 1924 alliance agreement and 1925 military pact between France and the Czechoslovak Republic, for which it is also known as the Munich Betrayal (Mnichovská zrada; Mníchovská zrada). Most of Europe celebrated the Munich agreement, which was presented as a way to prevent a major war on the continent. The four powers agreed to the annexation of the Czechoslovak borderland areas named the Sudetenland, where more than three million people, mainly ethnic Germans, lived. Adolf Hitler announced it was his last territorial claim in Europe.

Germany had started a low-intensity undeclared war on Czechoslovakia on 17 September 1938. In reaction, the United Kingdom and France on 20 September formally asked Czechoslovakia to cede its territory to Germany, which was followed by Polish territorial demands brought on 21 September and Hungarian on 22 September. Meanwhile, German forces conquered parts of Cheb District and Jeseník District and briefly overran, but were repelled from, dozens of other border counties. Poland also grouped its army units near its common border with Czechoslovakia and also instigated generally unsuccessful sabotage on 23 September. Hungary also moved its troops towards the border with Czechoslovakia, without attacking.

An emergency meeting of the main European powers – not including Czechoslovakia, although their representatives were present in the town, or the Soviet Union, an ally to both France and Czechoslovakia – took place in Munich, Germany, on 29–30 September 1938. An agreement was quickly reached on Hitler's terms, being signed by the leaders of Germany, France, Britain, and Italy. The Czechoslovak mountainous borderland that the powers offered to appease Germany had not only marked the natural border between the Czech state and the Germanic states since the early Middle Ages, but it also presented a major natural obstacle to any possible German attack. Having been strengthened by significant border fortifications, the Sudetenland was of absolute strategic importance to Czechoslovakia.

On 30 September, Czechoslovakia yielded to the combination of military pressure by Germany, Poland and Hungary, and diplomatic pressure by United Kingdom and France, and agreed to give up territory to Germany on Munich terms. Then, on 1 October, Czechoslovakia also accepted Polish territorial demands.

The Munich Agreement was soon followed by the First Vienna Award on 2 November 1938, separating largely Hungarian inhabited territories in southern Slovakia and southern Subcarpathian Rus' from Czechoslovakia. On 30 November 1938 Czechoslovakia ceded to Poland small patches of land in Spiš and Orava regions.

In March 1939, the First Slovak Republic, a Nazi puppet state, proclaimed its independence. Shortly afterwards, Hitler reneged on his solemn promises to respect the integrity of Czechoslovakia by creating the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, giving Germany full control of what remained of Czechoslovakia, including its significant military arsenal that later played an important role in Germany's invasions of Poland and France. As a result, Czechoslovakia had disappeared.

Today, the Munich Agreement is widely regarded as a failed act of appeasement, and the term has become "a byword for the futility of appeasing expansionist totalitarian states".

In these, our current unsettled times, when we see shadows of totalitarian authoritarianism in our own government as well as among many other previously freedom loving countries, it is sobering to consider the Munich Agreement.

It is now seems obvious that the settlement was morally noxious and ineffective.  Czechoslovakia was betrayed and the betrayal merely strengthened and emboldened the looming threat from totalitarian authoritarian Germany under its National Socialist regime.

What is glossed over is that both Poland and Hungary were also co-conspirators to the ultimate dismemberment of Czechoslovakia.  Everyone had their national objectives and no one acted on principle.  

From the speeches in the British Commons upon Chamberlain's return from Munich clutching his soiled parchment and promises of peace in our time.  On October 5th, 1938, it was moved, following two full days of debate,  "That this House approves the policy of His Majesty's Government by which war was averted in the recent crisis and supports their efforts to secure a lasting peace."  

The debate and speeches began at 3:30pm and continued until 10:30 at night when the session was adjourned to be carried over to the next day.  

Churchill was one of the lone politicians and one of the few voices in the nation speaking against the policy of appeasement.  He forecast that appeasement would make Germany and National Socialism materially stronger (by absorbing Czechoslovak munitions, armor and air force, as well as industrial capacity) and territorially more ambitious.

Everyone else clutched at the fig leaf of the accord, in relief at averting an immediate armed conflict.

We face the same calculus these many years later.  We have confronted, and for the time being, have destroyed the territorial ambitions of the various Islamic Caliphates.  Simultaneously though, Russia has resurrected a simulacrum of its once fearsome military forces and is now incrementally slicing pieces off of a sovereign nation.  As with Munich, there is no obvious or easy answer.  

 Over to the East, China's economic reforms and freedoms have ended up, not in an evolution towards greater political freedoms but the reverse.  The economic successes have been put to a revitalized nationalism also expressed in territorial ambitions.

Here was one the typical voices for appeasement in the parliamentary debate on October 5th, 1938.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft I am sure the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. H. Nicolson) will recognise that, in rising this afternoon, I am not moved by any kind of hysteria. In the recent days through which we have passed, I, for one, cannot help thinking that it was very natural that not only all parties in the House of Commons, but the whole of this great nation, should have been moved as never before, except perhaps on one occasion in our lives, by a spirit, not of hysteria, but of very great thankfulness that the world had been spared this disaster. I also want to say, in view of certain criticisms that naturally appeared somewhere, that, from what little I saw, I feel that the air-raid precautions, as far as they went, were really remarkable in the extraordinary response of the people of our country. The calm resolve of the great majority of the British people was something of which we can all be proud. The weaknesses which displayed themselves at that time must make an imperative demand upon this House to see that the lessons are learned and every form of precaution perfected. 

 

It is naturally a matter of great regret to me to have to differ on any matter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). I have had the privilege of working with him on so many causes, I have such immense admiration for his abilities and courage, and I know that he is actuated by the highest patriotic motives, and it is doubly to my regret that I find myself in complete difference with the main viewpoint that he has put this afternoon as to our position in the world. He started his remarkable speech by saying that Great Britain has suffered total and unmitigated defeat. Strangely enough, as far as I can see from the Press of the world, and especially the Press of those small nations which we are always mentioning, Great Britain is hailed as their saviour from a world calamity, and I feel that it is about time that it was stated in this Debate that, after all, it was not as a guarantor, but as a friend that we entered into this matter, and I think we in that act of friendship saved Czechoslovakia from annihilation.

My right hon. Friend spoke of our calling into being all the apparatus of crisis. I cannot help thinking that in the great flow of his oratory he probably regrets having used that phrase. The apparatus of crisis was not called into being; the 375crisis was there. We had to stiffen ourselves in a few hours into taking terrific decisions. Again, he said that we have not the slightest power to make good the pledge which was given to Czechoslovakia—I think he should have added "directly"—except by indirect action. Surely that must also have applied had a pledge been given months ago. I remember we had a long discussion at that time, and I ventured to say that if Britain was to pledge its word to stand by the Czechs, that was a pledge which could not be fulfilled, and must not, therefore, be uttered. I regret that we have now to give this pledge. I have always felt that we have burdens enough in our present commitments, and ought not to go meddling in the distant parts of Central Europe. But, although I have resisted the burden of further commitments, I feel that when Britain and France unitedly gave that advice to Czechoslovakia, to save the peace of the world by acting wisely, we had no alternative but to give that pledge to stand by their State in the days to come.

Not to pick on the Right Honorable Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft - his was a common position, arrived at through empiricism, reason and logic.  His whole speech is worth reading.  

Incidentally, he makes mention of one thing which is particularly notable.  As true classical liberal credos slowly progress around the world in fits and starts, it is easy to lose sight of just how far we have come and how much has been accomplished in making Age of Enlightenment values the de facto norm of the world.  Croft mentions:

The second school of thought in this 376country I think can roughly be described as saying, "We realise that the dictatorial form of Government has now existed in a great many countries for many years, starting with Russia, Turkey, Italy, Hungary, Portugal, Germany and Greece, and I suppose we can say the system is being built up in other countries—[An HON. MEMBER: "Poland."] Poland and Rumania—in fact I suppose we can almost say that if you run your finger across the map the large majority of the people from Vladivostok to Cape Finisterre are under dictatorships." The second school, I think, is of the opinion that there is no evidence of any great uprising of the people in those countries where they are subject to dictatorships, and, since you cannot wait for all this great range of countries to eliminate their firmly-established dictators, if the machinery of civilisation is still to work you have got to understand their mentality, you have got to work with them, and, if possible, you have got to reach agreement. In other words, we have either to talk with dictators whether they are dictators we like or dictators we do not like, or we have to fight them ultimately. You have either to reason with them and understand them or, it seems to me, inevitably war must come. 

From Vladivostok to Cape Finisterre, the territory is strewn with states at least mimicking Classical Liberal norms.  Many are mere shadows of a Classical Liberal state but most are reasonably well grounded (or so they seem, the counter-example of Canada being too present to set great store by the claim).  We have made progress, virtually all the developed world, other than China are reasonably well established democracies with human rights.  In contrast to the majority of dictatorships in 1938.

Churchill's response to the celebration around peace in our times and the policy of appeasement was articulate and regretful.  His was a different forecast.

I do not grudge our loyal, brave people, who were ready to do their duty no matter what the cost, who never flinched under the strain of last week—I do not grudge them the natural, spontaneous outburst of joy and relief when they learned that the hard ordeal would no longer be required of them at the moment; but they should know the truth. They should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting. And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.

What a gifted orator.  Nearly every sentence a necessary building stone to the next and all weighted in culture and meaning.  

As we face international challenges such as China and Russia and the internal ideological corruption represented by the totalitarian and authoritarian mind evidenced in Critical Race Theory, Social Justice Theory and Postmodernism, we confront the same challenge from which we still shrink.  The we need, in the face of these corrupting ideologies to exert a "supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour" in order to "arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time."

Rereading the debate, you hear reasonable positions and intelligent responses.  You hear good rationals for the unprincipled sacrifice of Czechoslovakia.  And there are several notes echoed today.  Emotions driving decisions.  The role of the media in amplifying positions.  The manufacture of crises for political ends.  The ever present danger of totalitarianism and authoritarianism in the face of Classical Liberal values.  

Churchill's was a different forecast against a roar of appeasement.  And he was proven right.