Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Why did Hitler accept the Munich Agreement of 1938?

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006

  Just a poser for any history buffs out there...

  Link to this forum: Why did Hitler accept the Munich Agreement of 1938?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006

  He didn't, he just said he did.

  Link to this forum: Why did Hitler accept the Munich Agreement of 1938?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006

  CovTeacher, reply to#1,
  
  Well I can't beat Manis answer. He (Hitler) got the Sudetenland (which included the Czech defence fortifications and the Skoda works for nothing).
  
  More interesting would be what if Benes had told Chamberlain and Daladier to stuff the agreement.
  
  Cheers AA.

  Link to this forum: Why did Hitler accept the Munich Agreement of 1938?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006

  And don't laugh, but the Skoda works were one of the most high tech and advanced works and companies at the time!! A big prize.
  
  Maybe to buy a little more time, for everything to be just so prior to the main event.

  Link to this forum: Why did Hitler accept the Munich Agreement of 1938?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006

  Just a poser for any history buffs out there...Β 
  
  He accepted it because he was beside himself with glee whenit was offered. Had Britain and France stood firm and refused his demands, he would have backed down, and I honestly believe he expected to be forced into doing just that.
  
  When the allies signed the pact they gave him a huge military armaments industry and a massive armoured force that Germany never could have produced in just a year.

  Link to this forum: Why did Hitler accept the Munich Agreement of 1938?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006

  CovTeacher, reply to#1,
  
  Well I can't beat Manis answer. He (Hitler) got the Sudetenland (which included the Czech defence fortifications and the Skoda works for nothing).
  
  More interesting would be what if Benes had told Chamberlain and Daladier to stuff the agreement.
  
  Cheers AA.Β 
  
  As far as I have read, Benes was in no position to compromise or negotiate the agreement anyway. Chamberlain would never have gone to war over the Czech unless it compromised (in a significant way) the security of Britain (which strictly speaking it did not). France however had issued guarantees of protection as it was a component of the "Little Entente". France only went along with it to stay on terms with GB.
  
  But the question you have asked is a good one and deserves a better answer

  Link to this forum: Why did Hitler accept the Munich Agreement of 1938?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Friday, 3rd February 2006

  Cov teacher,
  
  I would disagree, the Czechs had a militarised society, and un-like Poland a modern well equipped military, so Benes could have had a choice, he just chose to say yes.
  
  I think Chamberlain has been made a bit of a scapegoat. He bought GB time that we sorely needed, at the time it was estimated that we were a full year behind Germany in war production and it was fairly obvious war was looming… We needed time and he bought it us, if what he paid for it was fair is a different story.
  

  Link to this forum: Why did Hitler accept the Munich Agreement of 1938?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Friday, 3rd February 2006

  Mani,
  
  I have misunderstood. On one hand you say that Benes had a choice because of the military prowess of the Czech... and then you said that Chamberlain bought time as GB was a year behind armanent production compared to GER...
  
  Surely the lack of support from GB meant Benes had no choice. Let us not forget that Hitler, unlike the rest of Europe, was prepared to take Germany to war over the issue of supposed "self determination".
  
  I suppose he had a degree of choice but if he were to oppose the MA it would have meant premature bloodshed... surely you can agree on that
  

  Link to this forum: Why did Hitler accept the Munich Agreement of 1938?

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 3rd February 2006

  More interesting would be what if Benes had told Chamberlain and Daladier to stuff the agreement.
  
  Cheers AA.Β 
  
  As far as I have read, Benes was in no position to compromise or negotiate the agreement anyway. Chamberlain would never have gone to war over the Czech unless it compromised (in a significant way) the security of Britain (which strictly speaking it did not). France however had issued guarantees of protection as it was a component of the "Little Entente". France only went along with it to stay on terms with GB.
  
  But the question you have asked is a good one and deserves a better answerΒ 
  
  CovTeacher,
  
  I'm sorry as I don't know enough about Czech politics to be able to refute any argument you may put forward as to why Benes couldn't have put up two fingers to Chamberlain, Daladier, Hitler and Mussolini. I know enough to realise that Benes was in a difficult position on the domestic front.
  
  My hypothetical question was phrased from an understanding that Czechoslovakia was at the time, given the defences of the frontier with Germany, the industrial complex they had and the comparitively advanced state of the military quite capable of defending itself against the powers of the Third Reich for some time at least. I suspect that the over run of Czechoslovakia wouldn't have been as easy as the over run of Poland as they had the arms, a defensive line and the lack of a Ribbentrop Molotov Pact to ensure that no one could interfere.
  
  So, my reasoning goes, if Benes had told them to stuff the agreement, what then? Would Daladier have reluctantly abided by the terms of the treaty to defend Czechoslovakia (hence invading Germany)? Could / would Benes have sought an alliance with Stalin? Could Benes have reached a compromise with the Poles? Could Chamberlain have stood by if any of these occurred (given that some believe he was a crafty fox gaining time, or some believe he was a fool thinking he could buy peace)?
  
  Here's my view, well if Benes could have told them to stuff it (and common sense says he should, but it may ignore certain realities of his own domestic political position), could France and Britain have stood by and watched a war break out? They didn't with Poland.
  
  Cheers AA.
  
  P.S. I posted my original response so I got the chance to rant and learn. AA.
  

  Link to this forum: Why did Hitler accept the Munich Agreement of 1938?

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 3rd February 2006

  And, forgot to say, this could be a fascinating thread, many thanks.
  
  Cheers AA.

  Link to this forum: Why did Hitler accept the Munich Agreement of 1938?

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Friday, 3rd February 2006

  Cov teacher,
  
  That's right, Benes could have refused, but what Chamberlain did was right...
  
  Remember that public sympathy before the war was on the side of the Germans, it was deemed that it was right that Germany had a say in the sudetenland.
  
  "Surely the lack of support from GB meant Benes had no choice"
  There's always a choice, the outcome is what was the variable.
  
  "I suppose he had a degree of choice but if he were to oppose the MA it would have meant premature bloodshed... surely you can agree on that" And there was bloodshed when he did agree on it.
  

  Link to this forum: Why did Hitler accept the Munich Agreement of 1938?

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Saturday, 4th February 2006

  <quote> Here's my view, well if Benes could have told them to stuff it (and common sense says he should, but it may ignore certain realities of his own domestic political position), could France and Britain have stood by and watched a war break out? They didn't with Poland <quote/>
  
  They didn't with Poland because they realised appeasement had failed spectacularly when Hitler signed... and then ignored the MA.
  
  <quote> So, my reasoning goes, if Benes had told them to stuff the agreement, what then? Would Daladier have reluctantly abided by the terms of the treaty to defend Czechoslovakia (hence invading Germany)? <quote/>
  
  As far as French foreign policy went, it was all reliant on an alliance with Britain. France struggled to act when Britain were not their "guarantors" so although we can hypothesise that France could have stepped in, we have to look at the domestic front in France at that time. Don't forget France wanted to avoid war at all costs because a lot of the WW1 fighting was done on her territory (hence the push for huge reparations and the harsh terms of military confinement Versailles sought to bring about).
  
  <quote> Could / would Benes have sought an alliance with Stalin? <quote/>
  
  Possibly, but Stalin had his eyes on that part of E.Europe as much as Hitler so would it have been any different?
  
  <quote> Could Benes have reached a compromise with the Poles? <quote/>
  
  Again possibly but with Stalin eyeing up E.Europe and with huge claims on Poland and with Hitler having eyes on everything, it would not have been a viable option. Like you said Poland was overrun by Germany from the outset although we can say that Hitler was not fond of fighting on two fronts.
  
  You are quote correct in saying that this is a fascinating area of history!
  
  Vaughan
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: Why did Hitler accept the Munich Agreement of 1938?

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Saturday, 4th February 2006

  but what Chamberlain did was right... Β 
  
  I'm not sure you can say it was "right". the sacrifice of one nation to appease the whims of another was proven to be poor judgement. But in terms of appeasement then it was prudent to buy time for rearming.
  
  There's always a choice, the outcome is what was the variable Β 
  
  I have said that Benes had a choice but the opinion is that without support it was better to not lead your country into a war which was completely unwinnable? GB were prepared to sacrifice the Czech homeland to save this war from happening and even when Hitler broke the MA, GB still did not act.
  
  And there was bloodshed when he did agree on it Β 
  
  I meant in terms of a world war without proper preparations from the Allied forces... not the Czech
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: Why did Hitler accept the Munich Agreement of 1938?

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 13.

  Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Saturday, 4th February 2006

  Would someone like to answer the actual question then haha... why did Hitler sign the MA???

  Link to this forum: Why did Hitler accept the Munich Agreement of 1938?

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 14.

  Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Saturday, 4th February 2006

  CovTeacher,
  
  I'm really struggling to see what the point of your question is.
  
  Anyway, let's look at what Hitler got from the Munich Agreement. The Sudetenland, comprising 66% of the Czechoslovakian coal, 80% of the Lignite, 86% of the chemical industry, 80% of the cement industry, 80% of the textiles, 70% of Iron and Steel, 70% of power generation and 40% of the timber.
  
  Figures I've found indicate that the GDP of Czrchoslovakia in 1937 was ~Β£520m (1937 value). So, Hitler got a revenue of, lets say Β£350m, together with as has been mentioned the Skoda works, at the time one of the top ten armanents works in Europe.
  
  Other benefits. A surge in popular opinion within Germany, the cancelling of the plot by Halder and other generals to remove him from power (okay Hitler couldn't count this one as he was unaware of it), the Czech made t38 tank, which was to prove so very useful to his armies over the next 4 years.
  
  Lets look at what he gave in return.
  
  
  
  Well, that was easier to sum up.
  
  Let's look at the testimony of General Keitel on the stand at Nuremberg about the reaction of the German generals to the MA. "we had alsways been of the opinion that our means of attack against the frontier fortifications of Czechoslovakia were insufficient. From a purely military point of view we lacked the means for an attack which involved the piercing of the frontier fortifications".
  
  Or Field Marshall von Manstein "If a war had broken out, neither our western border nor the Polish frontier could have been effectively defended by us, and there is no doubt that had Czechoslovakia defended herself, we would have been held up by her fortifications, for we did not have the means to break through".
  
  Or Jodl "It was out of the question, with 5 fighting and 7 reserve divisions in the western fortifications, which were nothing but a large construction site to hold out against 100 French divisions. That was militarily impossible".
  
  All these generals were telling Hitler this at the time, to fight against Czechoslovakia, without an absolute certainty that France would not intervene was suicide.
  
  So sign and you get all these goodies without firing a shot or loosing a life. Don't sign and what? Fight and risk loosing everything or give up on the notion.
  
  The reason I'm struggling to understand is that this seems such an obvious choice I'm suprised anyone has to ask, unless I'm missing something really deep. In which case please enlighten me.
  
  Cheers AA.

  Link to this forum: Why did Hitler accept the Munich Agreement of 1938?

  Report message15

• Message 16

  , in reply to message 15.

  Posted by nuneatonguitarplayer (U2327933) on Monday, 6th February 2006

  AA,
  
  Cheers for taking the time to reply...
  
  The original question I asked was simply to see if their was another opinion as the why Hitler signed the agreement. The argument you have stated for Hitler signing is that is was better to take the Sudetenland via a diplomatic route rather by force. If this was true, why did Hitler then break the agreement virtually straight afterwards by marching troops in?
  
  It doesn't quite add up to a definitive reason for me and I am sure I am missing something for my essay.
  
  Cheers anyway

  Link to this forum: Why did Hitler accept the Munich Agreement of 1938?

  Report message16

• Message 17

  , in reply to message 16.

  Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Monday, 6th February 2006

  CovTeacher,
  
  No problem. Once the Sudetenland had been ceded under the Munich Agreement it became German territory. Then, yes, German troops marched in the next day, into German territory, so no problem there with German troops on German territory.
  
  If you mean the annexation of the rump of the Czech state and Slovakia in March 1939, Hitler managed to cast a thin cloak of legality over it. Even if the French and British had a mind to protest and back it up with military force then they had no treaties with the Czech state or Slovakia to use as the legal reason and the Czechoslovakian state was defenceless with the loss of the Sudetenland, having failed to save Czechoslovakia for whatever reasons there were even fewer reasons to make a stand at this point.
  
  Cheers AA.

  Link to this forum: Why did Hitler accept the Munich Agreement of 1938?

  Report message17

Back to top