The Munich Agreement | History Lessons

This video is part of History Lessons, a series dedicated to exploring historical events and examining their meaning in the context of foreign relations today: • History Lessons
The Munich Agreement is one of the most criticized diplomatic agreements in history. In 1938, Adolf Hitler turned his sights on absorbing the Sudetenland, the part of Czechoslovakia dominated by ethnic Germans, into Germany. With tensions rising, British prime minister Neville Chamberlain rushed to Germany in September for talks to keep the continent at peace. Without consulting with Czechoslovakian leaders, he agreed to Hitler's demand, a decision that was ultimately formalized when Germany, Britain, France, and Italy signed the Munich Agreement on September 30. Chamberlain returned from Munich proclaiming that he had achieved "peace for our time." He was wrong. Less than a year later, German troops invaded Poland. The Second World War had begun.
James M. Lindsay, CFR's senior vice president and director of studies, highlights the lesson learned from the Munich Agreement: Appeasing an adversary's demands may defuse a crisis, but it can also increase the chances of war by emboldening that adversary to demand more. Chamberlain thought that if Germany gained the Sudetenland that Hitler would finally be satisfied with the status quo in Europe. But Hitler instead viewed Munich as confirming his belief that Britain and France both lacked the will to stop German expansion. Lindsay invites his audience to consider on what issue or conflict the United States might repeat Chamberlain's mistake.
For more analysis from James M. Lindsay, visit The Water's Edge blog: blogs.cfr.org/l...

[@Arianeria]

Czechs don´t call it Munich Agreement, we call it Munich Betrayal.

[@m.p.6573]

In Slovakia most people call its Munich Diktat

[@Mirinovic]

Mnichovský diktát!

[@dennisroyhall121]

@@caesars_top_guy Hé wasn’t allowed in by a) Hitler didn’t want him there and b) Britain and France were frightened - and overridingly inconsiderate if not arrogant in their so being - he would upset the talks....People of good will but naive are not necessarily if at all the people you need as saviour s.

[@exaid0556]

We Russians also call it that.

[@dennisroyhall121]

@@exaid0556 You’re also a laugh, you told the German communists NOT to vote for the Socialists because they were « Social-fascists“.

[@conor2943]

i feel like this man is looking into my soul

[@singhstar3202]

Factssssssss

[@arrielradja5522]

And i have fall in love

[@danielstorey2598]

He’s leg

[@sebastianruhland5198]

He is so focused to get his lies across.

[@sto2779]

lmfaooooo

[@Chorochronchotor]

My country (I am Czech) almost seized to exist because of this abhorrent betrayal. Mainly from French, who were our allies, our bigger brother on an intellectual level from before the great war. We gave our blood for France in WWI (Rota Nazdar) we worshipped French people and their art and culture. We were prepared well to defend our country and to fight, but we got betrayed by our ally. Stabbed into back by France and Albion. And They had the audacity to call it victory. I find it only fitting that our then great tanks t38, given to Hitler by these traitors on a silver plate, helped Hitler to blitzkrieg France to hell.

[@Wombah-rc6zz]

"Our then great tanks t38" Are you just kidding?[The Russians made the T34] The only tanks used by Germany in France were German tanks. The Czechs WERE betrayed by France & England & when the Germans occupied Czechoslovakia they got the Skoda munitions works & the engines in some of their U- boats, WERE Skoda engines! The pre war years plus the early war years were marked by miscalculation & betrayal on the allied side. No wonder Hitler was so delighted. He could see he was dealing with FOOLS!

[@Wombah-rc6zz]

Stalingrad WAS not the first Nazi defeat on the eastern front but it was their first SIGNIFICANT defeat & marked the turning point in their war fortunes! From then on the situation only got worse for the Third Reich. Kursk was supposed to reverse their fortunes & when this FAILED, even the ordinary soldier in the field KNEW their goose was cooked! Hitler had gambled EVERYTHING on defeating the Russians BEFORE the USA could join the Allies in the European conflict & miscalculated very badly!

[@funglee64]

@@Wombah-rc6zz They actually used a Ton of Polish and Czech tanks mate.

[@goofygoober1009]

@@Wombah-rc6zz He's talking about LT 38. In German it's called panzerkampfwagen 38(t), where T means "Tschechisch" - Czech. Famously, these truly great tanks were used by Rommel's ghost division. During the operation Barbarossa, nearly every third tank was this tank. Also plenty of infantry weapons were captured by Germans. In the beginning, these weapons were used mainly by Waffen SS, as they didn't have access to Wehrmacht's weapons.

[@goofygoober1009]

@Fabian Kirchgessner We have fought for Czechoslovakia. Without Czechoslovak legions kicking German and Austrian ass, there wouldn't be Czechoslovakia. Without Czechoslovak soldiers killing third highest ranking man in the Reich, the allies wouldn't reject the Munich agreement. We weren't given anything, we fought for it.

[@Mega00112233]

He is not blinking

[@jimcamacho8636]

He is a figment of ur imagination

[@Ng-oj7ib]

2:10 is the only time aha

[@flaccidego9468]

Because he's a brainwashed stooge of the CFR.

[@thehouseofstark]

This is still relevant

[@didierroux4596]

Sir Winston Churchill said "You had the choice between dishonor and war and you chose dishonor and you will have war" London on October 1938

[@ShapeCZ]

Ukraine - Putin 2014 2022 And so on… Also you forgot an important part. We, Czechoslovakians, had an alliance agreement with France who threw us under the train. Also our country was mobilizing and ready to fight. When the west sold us for “peace”, our leaders decided that fighting is pointless since we were a much smaller country than Germany and would likely by exterminated if we fought.

[@samuelkovac1008]

its not the same. Nobody has military alliance with ukraine. Czechoslovakia had military alliance with france and they were obliged to help in defensive war as we would be. They betrayed us. Not talking about britain because they werent our allies.

[@thethirdman225]

@@samuelkovac1008 Why did you not fight? Surely it doesn't matter whether France fought or not. If you were really committed to defending Czechoslovakia, the presence or otherwise of France doesn't matter. Why else would you have a defence force?

[@roksolanatorba8875]

sorry, but it's not Ukraine against Putin, but Ukraine against Russia, aka free people against Russian slaves.

[@ShapeCZ]

@@thethirdman225 It matters a lot. With France we could win and the WW2 would never happen. We would never be occupied by Germany and later reoccupied by the USSR who helped us, but wanted something in return. We had to become a communist state, a part of the eastern block. They destroyed our economy and stole resources such as gold and uranium. They also took a part of our country which is not Ukraine. France said they are throwing us under the train and we should not fight as they will not help. They said they will not honor the alliance treaty. I still think we should have started to fight. And then maybe give up later if really nobody helped us. But our leaders were afraid Czechoslovakia could cease to exist at all. It’s not like today when everybody is helping Ukraine. It’s like if Putin said give us Crimea, the whole eastern part and all other countries even imaginary allies of Ukraine would say - give it to him, we will not honour our agreement. It’s great the world helps this time. Cowardly French and British started the WW2 by their decision. Mostly French. British weren’t obliged to help us.

[@ShapeCZ]

@@roksolanatorba8875 Sure! But back then 10 months ago, I thought Russians do not support Putin. Now I know they mostly do. So Ukraine vs. Russia.

[@bobsbiggestfan6281]

2:12 the only time he blinks

[@ZoraMacko]

Why do you still call it "Munich Agreement" when in fact it was a "Munich High Treason"?

[@СерафимТоманов]

In USSR it was called Munich Collusion

[@blackgate4735]

It’s strange. Why everyone talks about Molotov-Ribbentrop pact but few people talk about Munich agreement

[@MalleusImperiorum]

Because them communists are a threat to oligarchs. Class interests are obvious.

[@abalayn22]

@@MalleusImperiorum Communists are threat to everybody. Even themselves.

[@MalleusImperiorum]

@@abalayn22 And what is this supposed to mean?

[@abalayn22]

@@MalleusImperiorum That communists historically killed more of their own than their ideological opponents.

[@MalleusImperiorum]

@@abalayn22 So, communists commited more suicides or capitalist countries don't have homicides? What's your point?

[@TheDivinepromise]

Watching this after watching the movie “Munich-The Edge of War” in January of 2022. It’s a timely reminder for what is happening now in Ukraine and Russia. We should always seek peace but be ready for war.

[@value8035]

Aren't you just ahead of three weeks? Today is the day of NATO's betrayal of Ukraine. United Kingdom and United States betrayal of the promises of Budapest memorandum. Those who do not study history doomed to repeat it. WW3 is already here, whether NATO likes it or not. They have chosen dishonesty, and the war will be there anyway.

[@Neoptolemus]

USSR was strongly against this consession. They had no choice than rapprochement with Germany, which eventually led to the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939.

[@quanghuyvu7378]

@@paulwilson8061 haha western propaganda. Where did u take the number 15 million

[@васях-ъ1о]

@@paulwilson8061 Dumb idiot with washed Russophobia brains. The USSR would be one of the last to sign a peace treaty with Germany. Even the European hyena Poland signed an agreement with Hitler before the USSR

[@jessijoy5503]

@@quanghuyvu7378 USSR wanted to protect Czechoslovakia and send army to do it - but guess who did not give permission to go through its land?? Poland... that also invaded a part of Czechoslovakia...

[@7777777fresh]

@@aidarark5558 ohhh sure they are not , they just burned and kill people.

[@felician2632]

@@jessijoy5503 So Poland is it to blame?

[@rl55555]

"The history book on the shelf Is always repeating itself"

[@caesars_top_guy]

The Allies had a meeting with Hitler in Munich and said Chamberlain: "Look we're gonna give you what you want" Hitler: "Really?" Chamberlain: "Yeah" Hitler: "Just like that?" Chamberlain: "Yep" Hitler: "What's the catch?" Chamberlain: "Just sign this piece of paper that you are going to promise to not invade the rest of Czechoslovakia" Hitler: "Okay"

[@martyrobinson149]

Britain and France both followed a policy of appeasement in an attempt to avoid the horrors of 1914-18 which ultimately failed when Germany occupied all of Czechoslovakia, instead of the Sudetenland as agreed in the Munich Agreement. Personally I believe Britain and France should have challenged German aggression much sooner and together with Czechoslovakia, Poland put an end to the Nazi regime.

[@martyrobinson149]

+Tomáš Laštovička You are wrong ! The USSR and Romania were not "friends" of Czechoslovakia. Romania joined the Axis Power's and fuelled the German war effort throughout the war. The USSR signed a non aggression pact with the Axis Power's (Germany & Japan) Stalin agreed to carve up Europe with Hitler. The USSR helped feed Germany and supplied the Axis Power's with oil, fuel and raw materials till June 1941. You claim Czechoslovakia had the world's second best Army? So why didn't Czechoslovakia defeat Germany? You say Poland was the enemy? Have you ever heard the expression "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" ? I believe IF Britain, France, Czechoslovakia and Poland should have stood up to challenge German aggression and expansionism. The USSR helped and supplied Germany against Britain. However within weeks of Germany's Axis invasion of the USSR Britain proposed an Alliance to defeat a common enemy and started to send supplies both industrial and military , also 650 pilots, aircrew, mechanics to train and provide immediate defence of certain USSR ports.

[@Elador1000]

+Marty Robinson 1)USSR indeed was considered ally (more of neutral but leaning to positive spectrum) of Czechoslovaika before Molotov Ribentrov pact (August 1939). Why? Becuase the Rusia had reputation of defending slavic nations and the idea of panslavism was strong. Some men were worried about help form USSR since it would probably try to implement communism in Czechoslovakia. Why would USSR want to help Czechoslovakia? Panslavism and opportunity to increase sphere of infulence 2)We weren´t 2. strongest army, that´s just bullshit. I have no idea why he thinks we were. It´s obvious that Czechoslovakia coulnd´t face germany. But most of the military budget was focused on building lines of defence strucures along the borders with germany and austria, so mainly in Sudets. Without sudets we lost our fortresses aswell as our natural defences, mountains. 3)Romania joined Axis Powers after Molot Ribentrov so aswell it´s status was different before world war 2. Czechoslovakia, Jugoslavia and Romania were all member of Little Entente, miliary alliance. Overall Romanie is till this day praised for being only country of Warsav Pact that didn´t invade Czechoslovakia in 1968. 4)Poland was indeed not considered friend at the moment. He rightly stated that we had some minor skirmishes with Poland after 1918 but mainly the relations were tensed since Poland took some of our land during Munich agreement aswell. Another reason was that USSR coudln´t help us even though we would maybe want to, since Poland wouldn´t let their troops cross the borders. 5)"the enemy of my enemy..." woulnd´t really go in that situation. Citizen of Czechoslovakia really woudln´t trust UK or France after they betrayed them and they would definitely not call them friends. One of the reason why Czechoslovakia fell into eastern block was because of distrust to west. And of course where would you look in 1938 if your former capitalist allies turned to be traitors? To the east to USSR. Hence point 1. If you want to look at the history, you have to look at the period you are talking about and not use arguments revealed to us, since they happened x years after said events.

[@Elador1000]

+Marty Robinson I just checked, Czechoslovakia had defensive pact with USSR since 1935.

[@martyrobinson149]

+Tomáš Laštovička You claim Czechoslovakia was so strong and had strong allies? So why didn't Czechoslovakia and it's Allies stand up to Germany?

[@aewinnm.8118]

You have to understand that at that time, we were completely alone against Third Reich. Eventhough USSR wanted to help us, Czechoslovakia didn't have border with them and the states surrounding us didn't want to let the USSR army to go through their country. That's why USSR couldn't send their army to help us. France and Britain signed this agreement, so they betrayed us in our eyes (and of course they weren't willing to help). And other countries around us were all the dictatorial regimes (we were only completely democratic country in Middle Europe) and they all sympatized with nacism. So there wasn't any help either. Beneš approved to this agreement because he wanted to save a thousands of lives of Czechoslovakia people. He truly believed that he would save them. Moreover, the fortification around the borders with Third Reich wasn't complete. We could have strong army (not the strongest one, but with modern weapons, well organized and will to fight and defend our country), but without complete fortification is hard to defend. What Beneš did wrong was that he approved it alone, he didn't let the goverment vote about it. Maybe, in that case, it would be different.

[@aaronz7056]

Gotta love the way Chamberlain was always so smug and pleased with himself... he thought he was so flippin' "great..." lol

[@importantname]

Lesson - do not trust politicians to do what they say.

[@sovietunion8103]

(sorry for my bad knowledge of English) Still want to laugh (not because of fun) when I hear something like "Soviets started war too just as Germans". Before the Molotov Ribentropp pact Soviets not once tried to build a coalition against nazis. But Britain and France just let Germans eat Austria, Sudetenland, rest of Czechoslovakia... England and France just had let Hitler build his Reich and its military power and industry. During the Munch Agreement/Munich Betrayal there was delegations of France England, Italy and Germany. Where's Czechoslovakian delegation? Well, "civilized" west did not Invited Czechs. After the agreement/treachery Soviets offered help to Czechoslovakia but under pressure of English and French politics Poland and Romania refused to give an access to the Soviet troops to reach Prague. Soviets even was ready to breaking through polish and romanian lands with fight to help Czechoslovakia but under pressure of England and France Prague Rejected help of USSR. And yes, Poland took Zaolzie from Czechia after the agreement in co-working with nazis. Even after fall of Czechoslovakia Soviets tried to build coalition against Reich, but even after 6 months there was no movement from the side of former Entente. All of delegations of Western allies had no authority and no rights to discuss military issues and of course to deciding something when from soviet side there was the 1st men's of military and government. 6 f**king months and no result. And suddenly at the end of August it 1939 German diplomats offering pact of non-aggression and some secret protocoles. In August 21 discussion with Germans started in August 23 ended. 2 days. 2 days against 6 months. Reich just showed itself as more reliable and fast partner. And yes, Soviets were the last who signed a pacts of non-aggression and friendship with nazis. Yes Soviet Union invaded Poland in its moment of weakness but didn't Poland did the same during Civil War in Russia? USSR just returned lands to Belorussians and Ukrainians, reintegrated fragments of former Russian Empire and standing chill after the deal had been made. Hvat? Why Germans can annex countries with no reaction from London and Paris but USSR can't? THIS is kinda unjust doesn't it?

[@keithhallam1155]

Good article: plus the UK (foreign office, still appeasing) was expecting Rudolph Hess when he arrived in Scotland in May 1941, turning on the landing lights on the Duke of Hamilton's airfield. SOE agents (under Churchill) turned the runway lights off, so Hess had to parachute. The RAF radar logs showed Hess flew over the north sea, just as neutral flights had been doing, escorted by Luftwaffe to the agreed point, and flying the same route as the neutral aircraft did. The UK records of the UK govt negotiating with Hess are still secret, but the Soviet spies in the UK establishment (Burgess & Maclean, George Blake, Kim Philby) informed the Kremlin/KGB about what was taking place. The KGB archives were briefly open in 1990; it does appear we in the UK can find out more about our own government's from the KGB than from our own sources. A practice landing on the Duke of Hamilton's private airfield by the British aircraft most similar to a ME110 took place the week before Hess arrived; a German industrialist who had worked with the Hess family had been interned at the outbreak of war in Togo, a former German colony. This industrialist was moved to London (before Hess landed), presumably to assist in arranging the economic co-operation between UK and Germany, had they signed a peace treaty. Possibly Rudolph Hess died in the Sunderland aircraft crash which killed Prince George (younger brother of King Edward VIII) in August 1942; they MAY have been flying to Scandinavia to arrange some sort of end to the war between UK and Germany.

[@fellowservant34]

I think the lesson here is to recognize who you're dealing with. There is a certain faulty mindset which says that everyone generally wants the same thing. If we are a little nicer, a little more persuasive, a bit more generous, then everyone will eventually come on board and do what is 'right. The hard truth is there is real evil in the world that doesn't play by the same rules and can't be bargained with. The failure of leftists like President Obama to recognize this puts us all at risk.

[@DonMeaker]

fellowservant34 The US tried to be Generous in the 1920s with the Dawes and Young plans to reduce reparations from Germany. How did that work out?

[@ralphbernhard1757]

DonMeaker The Dawes and Young Plans would have been unnecessary, if the Treaty of Versailles had been less ridiculously one-sided. Germany should have been left intact, and all Germans and (pre-1914 Austrians) who voluntarily wanted to joined Germany, should have been allowed to do so (as foreseen by Wilson 14 points). Austria should have been allowed to join Germany in a union (NOT the annexation they got 20 years later). A healthier economy, achieved by open borders and free trade with her new neighbors, would have strengthened the hand of true democrats all over Europe, to counter the rise of radical right wing parties. Lastly, a slightly lower reparation should have been negotiated, which would then have been paid in full. Most of this, in a slightly altered form, happened after WW2.

[@DonMeaker]

Ralph Bernhard The Versailles treaty would have been less one sided if the aggression and war crimes of the first world war had been less one sided. Germany should not have been left intact, rather, it should have been separated back into Prussia, Bavaria and some Rhine confederation. Low tariffs between various German states and their neighbors would have assured prosperity, so long as Germany was productive and willing to trade on terms of mutual advantage. Reparations were not paid by post war Germany because Weimar Germany didn't want to pay it. Germany was asked what their reparations in lumber should be. Germany provided a number. Germany failed to fulfill the terms of the treaty, because they didn't want to to fulfill the terms of the treaty. Just like they didn't want to keep the terms of that 1839 treaty in which they, and Britain guaranteed Belgian neutrality.

[@Biskawow]

lol I was reading your comment and thinking "yes yes, this guy has a point" and then you go and blew it in the last sentence

[@jimmy27paul]

USA is the top evil today that "doesnt play by the same rules".....No matter who the fuck is president or who, is a "leftist"....

[@tcoudi]

i am born in 1982, but it easely bring tears to my eyes. we should have stand up and fight. we bled heavily anyway and on top of that ,we lost character and dignity. what a shame.

[@pix046]

+SkiFi Sk Music Spot on.

[@ourhour]

+SkiFi Sk Music So your claim is super strong nazi Germany army would not easily broke Czechoslovakia by power if they wanted to? That is stretch too far. On top, it is virtually guarantee that no "allies" would support such military move, worse yet they very possibly could declare Czechoslovakia as guilty of starting war. So on the Europe´s map we would practically cease to exist and Germans would got what they wanted anyway. We just could foolishly "fight" them for some short time and then, after piles of bodies of unnecessary victims were burried under grave of nationalism, finally "heroically" gave up. That is what I call lose-lose scenario...

[@Elador1000]

+SkiFi Sk Music It´s easy to say Czechoslovakia was never defeated by arms when Czechoslovakia never fought in a war. We were invaded in 1939 aswell as in 1968. You can´t shout that you are undefeated if you wont ever fight.

[@Elador1000]

***** Then you can´t say states of Czechoslovakia weren´t defeted by arms, that´s just bullshit. Slovakia lost in world war 2, Revolution/uprising 1848, Peasnat uprisings 1680 and 1775, Battle of White Mountain, Battle on the Marchfeld 1278, Hussite wards (lost of radicals), Slovak Hungarian war. All loses. And defending from middle east? Slovakia maybe but not Czech republic. Hungary/Austria/Poland/Slovakia maybe but not Czech republic.

[@dr.finance7619]

The lazy Russian prostitutes should have defended Czechoslovakia as part of SU.

[@Nippon131]

Mr. Lindsay, you miss one point as result. Such "agreements" link to situation when occupied nation never trusts to all nations which agree with occupation. We, Czechs will never trust to any help from France or UK.

[@FRANKIESIXTOES]

Yes agreed, the British and French betrayed the Czechs.

[@foreignfat6009]

@@FRANKIESIXTOES Brits didnt betrayed czechs, because they were our allies, but France was...

[@simonmeadows7961]

Watching this in mid Feb 2022, with mounting tensions over Russian expansionist claims over Ukraine.

[@MicroSoftner]

Cant they appease Putin ?

[@simonhuffa9885]

Well spoken lesson…thankyou .

[@vietnamfarmer7669]

USSR could have send army to help Czech but Poland didnt allow it. Just so sad.

[@localscammer4108]

but they would definitely want something for it

[@danielavenero9036]

this was very useful! Thank you for making this video!

[@janefonda5542]

Considering what happened in regards to the Munich Conference is it ANY wonder WHY Czechoslovakia expelled ALL Germans from the Sudetenland!!!

[@foreignfat6009]

Hitler expeled czechs from Sudet lands first... So.. IT was more of revenge.

[@langrab_Ivan]

The Soviet Union could have come to the rescue but Poland did not let it pass

[@ringzy]

So they came anyway?

[@pauldezv5884]

@spicecrop USSR invaded Poland 2 weeks later, and attacked only to prevent Germany from getting all of the land. The german-soviet boarder would be too close to Moscow and if the Soviets wouldn't attack they would probably lose the war

[@tefky7964]

@@pauldezv5884 Or they would get help from Allies sooner than in 1943 and other nations would fought for them maybe a little more,but after Katyn it isn´t hard to say why Poles didn´t saw Soviets as saviours.

[@alex-em4em]

@@tefky7964 oh yeah. The allies would have helped the Soviets the same way they helped the Czech. Stalin knew very well that he can't count on the Western powers, because simply no one wanted war. Even Truman said that USA wants to watch how the Russians and Germans kill one another making themselves weaker.

[@kirillassasin]

@spicecrop also historians leave the part when Poland took land from Czechoslovakia in 1938

[@mcallisterwill]

It is interesting to try and reimagine this situation without the benefit of hindsight. Chamberlain's reputation was utterly destroyed by the concession and the political establishment turned to his chief opponent to lead them. The story of the Munich agreement is often told in such a way that Chamberlain appears as a fool and then it is dangerous the way this period of history is mythologised. Just as we view Hitler as being so perfectly evil almost like a fictional character that we forget to learn the lessons from him; we view Chamberlain as being so perfectly foolish that there are no real lessons to learn from him either. However, the first world war was still a recent memory and that felt like an apocalypse to those countries involved, almost like the world was suffering from collective PTSD, the trauma of what happened affected peoples' judgements. Although the second world war played out differently on the battlefield the civilian costs (of the war itself, not even including the holocaust which would have happened anyway) were higher thanks to the new technologies and you can certainly understand Chamberlain being of the view that war must be avoided at all costs. Rather like the cold war, there must have been this feeling that if war were to start, then life as we know it would surely end. This was wrong, the second world war didn't wipe out all of humanity but you can understand why people like Chamberlain felt it would have. Secondly, there was indeed a majority of German speakers in the Sudetenland, prior to the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, this region had even been considered by some as part of 'German Austria'; however it was historically Czech, and still had a large Czech minority, it had been part of the former Kingdom of Bohemia and if incorporated into Austria would be a long thin and hilly panhandle, almost impossible logistically, while it was of strategic importance as a natural boundary between the Czech and German speaking lands, so it made sense that it was included in Czechoslovakia. Still, given the German majority in the area and the recent dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire you can understand people feeling that Hiltler's claims on the area were reasonable and in line with Woodrow Wilson's post-WW1 desire for self-determination. In fact the US had initially been in favour of the Sudetenland being placed in Germany immediately after World War 1. From the initial response Chamberlain got in the UK people genuinely did seem to believe that war had been avoided. His claims that the Germans were poorly treated by the Czechoslovak government were false and his own estimation of just how many Germans lived in the Sudeten likely exaggerated, while just as in Gdansk, he had placed pro-Nazi political parties there to stoke up division and tempt or intimidate a majority of ethnic Germans into siding with him. It all served to present Hitler as being voice of reason, simply seeking to head off the inevitable war that would come should the inhabitants of the Sudeten be denied their reasonable request that following the recent break-up of the Austo-Hungarian empire they should be allowed to choose which country they be placed in. All lies and exaggerations of course, but easily believed ones for anyone who was around at the time. It's worth noting that Chamberlain had initially agreed that Germany could annex the Sudetenland only if a vote were held in the area and the people voted to join Germany. This vote never happened, presumably in spite of his attempts to totally Germanise the population, Hitler never felt that he could win such a vote. Once it became clear that German soldiers were just going to march into the Sudetenland and annex it then Chamberlain knew that Hitler couldn't be trusted and war was inevitable.

[@grahamhodge8313]

Will, thanks for your interesting comments, most of which I agree with. Historians have been a bit kinder to Chamberlain in recent decades. I suspect that he knew that Hitler could not be trusted and that ultimately war would come but Munich bought extra time for the rearming of the UK that he had already set in motion.

[@lampionmancz]

The mind-boggling thing is that with hindsight and thanks to found paperwork, diaries and other documents we know that Wermacht officers wanted to coup Hitler if he tried to give the order to invade Czechoslovakia. But this plan was postponed because of the last minute call to meet in Munich. Which means that the war that killed over 50 million people could have been avoided... just by a last minute decision.

[@gjdrake8605]

I ended up having a staring contest against him

[@HenTie_Lord]

O nás, bez nás. (About us, without us)

[@JBC814]

Chamberlain was twice the fool: 1) speaking for France's treaty with CZ, and 2), proposing an absurd capitulation to Hitler, which started the ball rolling towards WW2. France should have never let Chamberlain speak on their behalf.

[@Houthiandtheblowfish]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/f6PGaHeeaJyhe6c

[@MarkHarrison733]

It was Chamberlain's decision to form an unworkable pact with Poland after it had invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938-39 that led to World War II. He should have pressured the anti-Semitic fascist regime in Warsaw more heavily to allow a referendum on Danzig.

[@FRANKIESIXTOES]

Give Winston Churchill credit. Churchill knew the Munich Agreement would lead to war.

[@FRANKIESIXTOES]

Hitler negotiated, then attacked. He broke his agreement not to take over the rest of Czechoslovakia. He broke his non-aggression agreement with Stalin when he attacked Russia.

[@slouberiee]

@Garrim Gyr Parts of Czechoslovakia that Hitler took NEVER belonged to Germans (German tribes or whatever). Learn some history. Look into DNA history. Slavic people lived all over the place even in now "Germany". With the same approach as yours we could easily take parts of Germany now. But we won't we are respectful and don't want to start a war... unlike your fellow Hitler.

[@petrskalak5070]

@Garrim Gyr You, sir, are fucked in your head :D. I have never seen so much nonsense in one single paragraph.

[@ЕвгенийСоколов-ж6я]

Yes he was true

[@laurenhutton596]

I believe that Chamberlain meant well when he appeased Hitler as he wanted to avoid another European war. However, the saying "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" applies here.

[@ursus9104]

This history lesson is downright scary in january 2022, because they have a tendency to repeat themselves at regular intervals.

[@foreignfat6009]

Yep. But people tend to forget that USA did same shit with Hawai. Also dont forget about Iraq or Afganistan. But that was ok, because "western" countries were mendling. But isnt it just little bit suspicious that USA pulled out of afganistan in 2021 and there is another possible country occupation in 2022? Just something to think about

[@VercaHoll]

Tohle stále bolí!

[@value8035]

Isn't this the same what is happening in Ukraine today? I am just writing here after Ukraine has been just invaded by Russia, and NATO refuse direct involvement in Ukraine against Russia.What do you think Mr. Jim Lindsey.? "You have given the choice between war and dishonor, and you chose dishonor, and you will have war." - Winsten Churchil, 1938 Regarding the Munich Agreement between Chamberland (British PM) and Hitler.

[@sluxi]

The point in time where this happened with Ukraine was already before the 2022 invasion, the west reacted weakly to Russia's land grab in 2014 and that emboldened Putin. Indeed you could say Russia being able to wage its previous wars played a part too but Ukraine's fate was sealed when the west did practically nothing after annexation of Crimea and war in Donbass. Nato not getting directly involved was not similar because Nato and the west has still greatly supported Ukraine and Ukraine has been able to fight back. There's also Nuclear weapons to worry about which was not the case back in the 1930s.

[@helliboi]

This really helped thankyou

[@alexeikai]

great vid. ty!

[@romanclay1913]

People criticize the August 1939 Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact but they overlook one salient piece of hidden history. In March 1939 USSR Foreign Minister, Maxim Litvinov, proposed a united front with UK and France against Nazi Germany. They both rejected it. Litvinov was replaced with Molotov who signed the treaty with the Nazis.

[@jeffrey8847]

UK and France rejected the USSR proposal because they want to be allowed to conquer the Baltic countries as part of the the deal.

[@fep_ptcp883]

And Molotov is that one, from the cocktail

[@markmewhinney]

Thank you for the information and perspective.

[@timeisrunningoutforthebeast]

Thanks

[@DHARMIK_M]

thanks for this video sir

[@-xirx-]

In the end it turns out that the recent event most similar to Neville Chamberlain allowing Hitler to take the Sudatenland was trump vocally withdrawing American support for NATO and practically praising Putin for annexing the Crimea and invading the Ukrainian territory of Donetsk & Luhansk. Which has just this week seen Putin move on to phase 2: full invasion of all Ukraine. 😥 Support&Love to Ukraine 🇺🇦

[@value8035]

Today is the day of NATO's betrayal of Ukraine. United Kingdom and United States betrayal of the promises of Budapest memorandum. Those who do not study history doomed to repeat it. WW3 is already here, whether NATO likes it or not. They have chosen dishonesty, and the war will be there anyway.

[@huuphuclecao8712]

I don’t think they really supported Ukraine like you think,They just want the The war won’t stop too fast.

[@kimjongoof9344]

Mate I agree with this entire video except that last bit. The United States is literally the only country starting wars today. China doesn’t start wars and neither does iran but the USA does.

[@r.higgins212]

Sad truth is Britain and France were ill prepared for war and Munich was to stall Germany. Chamberlain returned waving that piece of paper while British rearmament was going in to fever pitch. Britain and France had both been weakened by the blood bath of world war one. America was over 3,000 miles away in the fortress of Isolationism yet being critical and Japan was raising H in Asia and lusting after the European colonies. The Brits and French had a poor deck hand of cards to deal with and the cold sad reality was they were going to get war anyway and they knew it.

[@slouberiee]

So they sold Czechoslovakia to Hitler to gain some time..?

[@Summerstitch539]

We’ve heard the same grievances recently… and now look at Ukraine.

[@dukynguyen8217]

i’m here because of this but recently people don’t know that was happened and putin do the same thing like hitler did in the past

[@robn1872]

Bro are you a time traveler?? Because everything you're saying is for us in 2022 thanks for the warning the west is doing exactly the same thing and they are weak much the same way..wow your are godlike

[@sluxi]

Problem isn't that you needed a time traveler but that the lessons from history have not been sufficiently learned.

[@didierroux1547]

Dishonorable agreements for France abandoning by an infamous betrayal our ally Czechoslovakia with whom we had signed a treaty in Paris on January 25, 1924, by the President of the Council of the French Republic Raymond Poincaré, and the Czechoslovak Minister of Foreign Affairs Edvard Beneš. Raymond Poincaré having died in 1934, had to turn over in his grave, likewise the initiator of these alliances (Poland and Czechoslovakia) the talented strategist Marshal Foch also died in 1929. Their adversary, since 1918, the jealous and vindictive Pétain was completely Munich and pleaded with the Permanent Defense Committee, the French Academy, parliamentarians and the French press that it was absolutely necessary to abandon Czechoslovakia, our ally, thus taking revenge on Foch whom he hated, and acting for the benefit of Germany as a good agent for Germany. If we still had Georges Clemenceau instead of Edouard Daladier as Prime Minister and if our British allies had had Winston Churchill instead of Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister. Hitler would have in front of him who to talk to.

[@wallybarker1535]

The professor draws the predicable conclusion that aggression should not be meet with appeasement. However, the professor overlooks key points (a) the point the previous commentator made - that the French (bound by two military pacts) abdicated their obligations, (b) the country did not exist before WWI and was created by British, French and other WWI victors, joining Czechs who rejected their previous Austrian rulers and of the Slovaks who rejected their previous Hungarian rulers, and (c) the British and French also simultaneously allowed the Hungarians and the Poles to amassed their military on the Czech border let them “take parts” of Czechoslovakia. This last point is rearely discussed. Anyway, people who see this as appeasement universally fail to say what exactly the French and British should have done. The German had not yet invaded. Send troops? Send them where? Go to war simultaneously with the Germany, Poland and Hungry - they were all complicit. The reality is that the Czechoslovakia was just not important enough to France and England to go to war for. Sad but true. As for the French, they over promised (in writing), underdelivered, and looked silly. As for the British, no one should really expect much from them - ever. They are masters of committing other people, not themselves.

[@jimfromdiscord.8904]

Curb your Munich Agreement

[@Beatles88live]

is no one going to mention his lack of shoulders its a floating head

[@MattyTheTobaccoCamel]

Hey if from ČR and there Is something what i can't understand. Look at Hitler, look at his speeches. Would you belive man like this when his say there will ve peace??

[@marconiazize6768]

What is the lesson of the Munich agreement, that war is inevitable. As long as we allow our policy makers to hold shares in the military industrial complex, or to be paid by lobbyist who represent the military industrial complex, they will continue making policies that lead to war. The Treaty of Versailles, which was drafted by the victors of World War 1, was configured in a way as to almost guarantee another world war. The treaty was harsh on Germany and unfair to its people, it crippled its economy and placed Germany under tremendous debt. The German people felt humiliated, that humiliation quickly turned into animosity and hate for certain European countries. All these variables ensured another war, which was exactly what the "policy makers" wanted. When Neville Chamberlain , god bless his soul, went to broker peace, the men who wanted war, like Churchill, mocked his effort and criticized him heavily. That alone shows you their true intentions. Many men became millionaires and many dynasties were born from the blood and ashes of world war 2. One of these families being the Bush family, who reap all the benefits of war and it's profits without feeling its wrath or the pains of death. The CFR is in bed with the military industrial complex and is an arm of the Rockefeller propaganda machine, look it up. This should be the proper answer to the narrator's question but it wont be.

[@aewinnm.8118]

When I started to read your comment I started to think: "Yes, somebody actually understands that the reasons why Hitler even could rise and gain power dates back to the Treaty of Versailles." However, what came next completely destroyed my opinion. You are right when you say that the Germans felt humilitaded, not talking about all the war reparations they had to pay, mostly to France. They were too high for damaged German economy. You should also know, that the USA tried to help their economy with the Dawes Plan and Young Plan, but it was already too late. When the Great Depression (I hope I got the name right) came in 1930 to Germany, it completely destroyed what was left of their economy. Now imagine the situation - you don't have a job, you don't have money and you don't know who to accuse of your situation - then someone cames and tells you he can give you a job and then he points his finger at some people and tells you that they are the reason for your situation. Of course you will vote for him in the next election and that's exactly what happened in 1933. That's how Hitler gained power and then started a war. Not because the "policy makers", as you called them, thought: "Yes, maybe if we make the Germans pay very high reparations, there might appear some dictator who will gain power and start another war. Yeah, and don't forget to plan the Great Depression to ensure that the German economy will be brought to its knees for sure." I do not think that Churchill was someone who wanted war at all cost. He just realized that it is unavoidable sooner than Chamberlain. Churchill didn't believe that the German will be satisfied. However, Chamberlain wholeheartedly did and I can understand his reasons why he signed the Agreement. However, at that time was clear, that Hitler wasn't just another politician, that he was a dictator and there's nothing in Germany what can stop him, as he already held all power. And what dictators love to do? Start wars. Do you really understand why the Munich Agreement is judged so negative? It is not about the effort to save the peace. It's all about the fact, that the democratic states - Britain and France - told Czechoslovakia that it doesn't matter what they they think about it, what their opinion is. They went against the treaty of alliance (which France had with Czechoslovakia) and the principles of democracy we are so proud of, and along with Hitler and Mussolini practically dictated Czechoslovakia what to do. They told them that if they started to defend their sovereignty, they will be left all alone against the Third Reich and even if they had won, they would have had to give the territories to German either way. It's called "about us, without us" or "Munich Betrayal" in the Czech Republic nowadays. I do not want you to immediately change your opinion. I just want you to consider another options, not only your version of truth. There are still many things we don't know, that are locked and will be revealed with time.

[@The80sWolf_]

They should have helped communists from the start in germany, who were the ones actually fighting the fascists in the streets

[@zoefinch8631]

am i having a staring contest

[@martinkodet6429]

Not an agreement, more a dictate.

[@jozefmasny8349]

And yet you wonder why Czechoslovakia voluntarily chose communism unlike Poland where it was forced. Czechoslovakia saw that democracy means betraying the allies. Now the situation is being repeated, the western part of EU ignore our decisions and force their politics.

[@jozefmasny8349]

But Czechoslovakia didn't know what would happen in 20 years back then. I am just saying, Munich Agreement contributed to the belief that democracy failed.

[@MikeGill87]

There are so many examples of infamous appeasements throughout our history (for me, as I'm Czech, Munich being the most infamous) that one would expect people to avoid the next one, that people would finally learn the lesson. Sadly, they won't. To study the history and to live now are two different things and it can hardly be expected from the majority of population, or even for the majority of politicians, that they'll now their own history well enough to lean from mistakes of their grandfathers. I always say that history is the by far most important subject in the school, that without it's good knowledge one can never be a capable citizen with background to make informed decisions; needless to say I'm often laughed at for that.

[@garymorris1856]

In my view, Chamberlain did demonstrate weakness, but he was trying to do the right thing, he had to ask himself if it was worth spending British lives for Czechoslovakia, or perhaps he was buying time to prepare for war, at any rate, he had no way to know what Hitler would beyond this. He did not act out of strength, I get this, but some of the bitter criticism heaped upon him has been from the convenient position hindsight.

[@conradmurphy2876]

Cool vid.

[@TANKTREAD]

Yup and Churchill was fit to be tied, which he had every right to be. You never make "shady, back door" agreements with madmen.

[@hill_side]

it is sad to hear the chears of the people beliveing there was peace in there time

[@mredwardgibbon]

To think that Mr. Chamberlain, a member of the Royal Society, would take anyone's word merely at face value... Now that's ironic indeed...

[@williamhealy6381]

He looked right at me😳😁

[@ehand07]

Why can't we just listen to his lecture and comment intelligently without a bunch of imbecile statements ? This is a history lesson not a fascist workshop.

[@faliciarinehart7071]

So WassUp with you stranger I never hear from u anymore, I tried calling you, & I see you got your no# changed again u got my no# Gime a ((CaLL)) Not text Please (call)

[@AdamPotocka]

No, they also didnt want go to the war. And only Franace has treaty with czechoslovakia, England has trearty with France, so basicaly de iure it was France who betrayal czechoslovakia. I can be of course corected by some who know more.

[@phobics9498]

They both betrayed Czeckoslovakia because they both wanted to not invite Czeckoslovak diplomats to the munich conference and then decided to not fulfill the diplomatic need to protect Czeckoslovakia incase Hitler was threatening them by saying to Czeckoslovakia that they should give up the sudetenland, that is nowadays called "The western betrayal"

[@jimirbon]

i cant understand the people who accuse the soviets for their pact and dont accuse the western powers for this all the same. If you decide to go sentimental on war and diplomacy, please go all the way

[@svenwilldoit4544]

Dr phill s brother be like

[@mickaelb.3931]

80 years then, nothing has changed... Cowardness is still rulling Great Britain and France. Simply, the enemy is not Hitler but Islamism...

[@caxaptt6514]

Cowardice is not a synonym of betrayal; it cannot be considered cowardice if the body never planned on following through with the obligation in the first place.

[@Unknown-zg2ge]

Not Islam, but Radical Islam

[@JBC814]

Why haven't you included France's reaction to Hitler's demands, since France was Britain's partner in the treaty to protect Czech. from Hitler's agression. I have never heard any discussion concerning the French viewpoint of the situation. Did they leave everything up to the British gov't?

[@FRANKIESIXTOES]

One of the ironic things about France is they claimed the British deserted them in the Battle of France. The British saw Dunkirk as a heroic retreat, the French did not.

[@foreignfat6009]

​@Nogent Russia offered alliance, France rejected. France had protective pacts with Czechoslovakia, which had strong industry and decent army. There was possibility that Poles would join up, as their relationship with Germany wasnt the best Germany at the start of the war had worse tanks than Czechs and French. Germany had no chance against all this might. That is why Hitler played this political game, he knew he couldnt win with army alone.

[@dragonlukasmapping805]

USA was triggered when UK give sudetenland to germany they want help but they were in big recesion and their army was not in good condition

[@DavidJones-pv8zu]

How would one compare this to Kuwait (1990) & the current situation regarding Taiwan?

[@bornreadyproductions]

Here from 2023 to mention Ukraine.

[@danielstorey2598]

Greg Paul is a saint

[@phx4closureman]

*WHO'S WATCHING THIS IN LATE OCT 2022 ?????*

[@robertewing3114]

He says the background to Munich is Hitlers rise to power. The background to NC premier was NC objecting to the French precipitating Hitler in power. Munich did not precipitate success for Hitler.

[@kushagrasharma6541]

Am I the only who can see is shoulders clearly

[@foreignfat6009]

Czechoslovakia + France had enough equipment, technological level and man power to face Germany. France, we were allies. I feel no compassion for your suffering after Germany invaded you. Around 25% tank in that invasion were confiscated Czechoslovakian tanks. Poetic justice.

[@Ghreinos]

The czech republic wouldn't habe the strenght. It was was smaller than Polands army and Poland got demolished in 4 weeks.

[@Ghreinos]

@Tomáš Laštovička I don't know what you are dreaming, or what you are smoking, but the industrial mainland of Austria Hungary was Buda and Vienna and the army of Czeckslovakia was 200.000 men and 50.000 reserve units. Also the slovenians wanted to again indepence in that time.

[@Ghreinos]

@Tomáš Laštovička It was a general mobilization not conscription, these are two diffrent things. Mobilization just means that the troops get ready for war, not the civilians though, Britain also mobilised their forces and put them into position. After the mobilization czechsolvakia had an army of 388.000 men, but many of them deserted after slovakia broke away.

[@Ghreinos]

@Tomáš Laštovička Also why didn't the Czechs fought back after the 3. Reich annexed the rest of czechsolvakia? The only gerneral, who faced the germans was Karel Pavlik.

[@Ghreinos]

@Tomáš Laštovička Makes no diffrent, the czech republic only had 388.000 soldiers, which is still way less than germanies army and that doesn't include all the germans living in the Sudetenland.

[@luckerhdd3929]

Agreement? AGREEMENT?! IT WAS A FUCKING BETRAYAL :)

[@ralphbernhard1757]

Well. I guess that what happens when you make the wrong friends. In 1919 it was "Yeah, yuppie!! Look at all this land grabbing..." In 1938 it was "What? What? Your (GB and France) empires are more important than us???" See what happens when you make "friends" who care more for their empires?

[@Newdivide]

Peace in our time!

[@PhoenixProdLLC]

I think some details should've been included, and there s tendency to be way too conciliatory about m. 1) The London Times editor had been getting reports from his field journalists in Germany, and he consciously and willfully REFUSED to print them so the British people would not be able to know what was brewing. 2) Because Hitler had a purported sorry of twisted respect for the English, probably because upper class families had entertained members of his NSP, he didn't let the Luftwaffe flatten London, which could've been achieved rather easily, all things considered 3) London INVITED Ribbentrop, Hitler's messenger boy, to come talk with them. He gave them an ultimatum and they conceded. It was *that* decision hid from their own citizens, that *required* they knife their two closest skies, Italy and France, right in the backs. undermine the trust of the League of Nations, and set Hitler about to speedily build his navy and airforce up. It was this betrayal and violation of a treaty from WW1 ( Versailles) England had signed, that caused Mussolini to say,"Two can play at that game." and ally himself with Hitler! England's doing this cost 80 MILLION human lives Sir. Most incurred by Russia and America. IMO, this is a good video, but your discussion about it was far, far too Chamberlainesque by tippy-toeing verbally around the severity of England's bungling and betrayals. I don't think, either, that the fascination some if the English upper classes, and members of the Royals, with Hitlers *racist* ideology embodied. If the Devil is in the details, and I think with History it always is, then ignoring them is shaking his hand. Like the old saying goes,"You can't shake hands with the Devil and say you were only kidding." So, to, or hindsight *must include* both the details of these mistakes and the emphasis on their costs in Human Lives. Austria has seen a dense rise in Fascism in the last decade, at least, which is NOT GOOD because they act as a kind of buffer, ideologically speaking, in that geography. The spirit of Fascism, almost always a backlash against large human migration of some sort that makes "the natives" restless, is occurring and must be watched carefully. We think we'll notice its spread in the West because of all the Nazi symbology we're familiar with. NO! Each generation improves on the propaganda of the previous, and so they water it down into Friendly Fascism. Schwastikas and SS uniforms and jackboots would be an immediate tipoff, no? Of course they would. So in analyzing the political maneuverings of the part we must be brutally honest as a present society on it so we can catch this sort of backlash effect sooner. And I mean a *sobering* understanding that as the citizens of whatever country we're in, we are more involved and are vocal about our objections to any repeat of such disgusting destruction and decimation of ourselves. That, imo is what shows us allows us alive in The Present, to be able to Honestly say we acted with future generations in mind, otherwise we are bullshitting ourselves about our individual and collective "concern for the future by remembering the past." Fascism takes hold as a majority primarily by *deceiving* the very members it claims to be working for. For the sake of the millions of bodies that lay on all those battlefields because other men, women, and children were being marched into ovens and cooked alive by the hundreds of thousands. Their lives MUST be remembered and considered from one generation to the next. To fail to do this almost ensures it will be related again and again and again. That's the very definition of Insanity. Chamberlain blundered because toi many members of the upper class believed they actually were 'more special', or valuable, than the middle and lower class. Their own culture made Fascism attractive, let's not kid ourselves here.

[@markfox4491]

Hi, I'm teaching a novel, upon which the understanding of why Poles were being attacked by Russians in 1945 would be helpful. I understand Germany was attacking on one side, and the Ribbentrop/Molotov agreement had covertly agreed to divide parts of Poland between Russia and Germany, but why would the Polish characters in the novel be frightened of Russian soldiers? Also, with the outcome reached in the Munich agreement, how could this be unilaterally agreed by the 4 countries involved, without the consent of Czechoslovakia?

[@tefky7964]

Poland attacked by Russians in 1945?

[@keithhallam1155]

Big countries had often traded smaller territories between each other - the colonisation of Africa is a good example, land in Africa transferred from one European country to another, with no asking the local people. Also territories were given as dowries when a Princess married abroad, so the territory was 'given' to another Royal family. The mother of Richard the Lionheart bought Aquitania as a dowry in to the Anglo-Norman orbit; Aquitanians were not consulted. This is not right, but it happens. As regards the 1945 fighting between Poland and the Soviet Union, there was a huge area of disputed land between the two countries, AND the Polish government in London (and their Home Army in Warsaw) were opposed to the communist doctrine of the USSR (and the communists opposed the Polish landowners & aristocrats, who were supporters of the London Polish government). Poles in 1945 would be afraid of Russian / Soviet soldiers, if they thought their town would be taken from Poland into the USSR, or if the Poles were against communism.

[@jyotikumari9034]

The sound is very low

[@doctorsocrates4413]

The one leader who should of been involved in the munich agreement and wasn't was the czech leader edvard benes...

[@Farmer-bh3cg]

Question: What happened to that piece of paper? Is it in the British files?

[@aaronz7056]

It definitely still exists, I can't remember exactly where it is preserved, some museum someplace.

[@marlboro9tibike]

Damn Chamberlain fool. What a great ally, together with France.

[@janebiddick6161]

History seems to be repeating itself.

[@Gabiman66]

pro tip: if you dont want to get in war dont do agreements about defending your allies if they are invaded

[@ebermtheburn]

Eastern Ukraine is appeasement politics today.

[@andrewmunford6617]

Where are your shoulders?

[@MentrySK]

We were ready and willing to defend our land, but our allies betrayed us...

[@vregile]

Where does the "Peace in our Time" motto come from? Chamberlain doesn't say it, but it is such a widespread phrase...

[@kasimirdenhertog3516]

Apparently, it was first used in 1878. And Chamberlain did say it, only not on the airfield but at Downing Street: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time

[@itson3338]

I wonder if history repeating itself

[@keithandrewbounds967]

Give the bad guys and girls an inch and they WILL take a mile!!!

[@richardschipper7139]

cool

[@Jacob1986]

this guy looks like lenin.

[@eppiehemsley6556]

He talks like Lenin too.

[@radek6648]

what if Lenin Is his grandgrandad

[@thegodfather3678]

And this is Lenin

[@vojtechslezak4553]

Nerozhodujte o osudu zemí bez jejich vědomí a co to přinese.

[@aurorapena5720]

History repeats itself. Just look at what's happening in Hong Kong.

[@thomasdevelops3087]

Does this man have the ability to blink? I am getting scared.

[@Dionisious1965]

Appeasement does not work