German Federal ArchiveNeville Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Galeazzo Ciano, as photographed before signing the Munich Agreement.Historic Headlines
Learn about key events in history and their connections to today.
In the early hours of Sept. 30, 1938, leaders of Nazi Germany, Great Britain, France and Italy signed an agreement that allowed the Nazis to annex the Sudetenland, a region of Czechoslovakia that was home to many ethnic Germans.
Nazi Fuhrer Adolf Hitler had threatened to take the Sudetenland by force. The Czechoslovakian government resisted, but its allies Britain and France, determined to avoid war at all costs, were willing to negotiate with
Hitler. On Sept. 29, Hitler met in Munich with Prime Ministers Neville Chamberlain of Britain, Edouard Daladier of France and Benito Mussolini of Italy to reach a final settlement.
Czechoslovakian leaders were not included in the talks, having been given a choice by Britain and France: accept the terms or resist the Nazis on their own. The New York Times reported on Oct. 1 that Czechoslovakia “accepted the Munich terms and Premier Syrovy, announcing, ‘We have been abandoned,’ made a protest to the world.”
The Times also reported: “Mr. Chamberlain met a great demonstration when he arrived in London, and a similar one was accorded to Premier Daladier when he reached Paris.” The British prime minister famously declared in a Sept. 30 speech that the agreement ensured “peace for our time.”
The Munich Agreement did not, in fact, bring about peace. The Nazis seized the rest of Czechoslovakia in the spring of 1939 and in September 1939, invaded Poland, starting World War II. It is often argued that the reluctance of Britain and France to stand up to Hitler emboldened him in his quest to conquer Europe. In fact, the Munich Agreement is held up as the prime example of the dangers of appeasement.
Winston Churchill, Britain’s prime minister and a critic of Chamberlain during World War II, proved prescient in a speech before the House of Commons when he declared, “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.”
Connect to Today:
An Idea of the Day blog post in June 2010 asked New York Times’ readers to “rethink” appeasement, a term which has taken on negative connotations since the failure of the Munich Agreement. Many American leaders, particularly on the right, argue that we must never seek appeasement with a foreign enemy because it would empower the enemy.
The Times cites Yale historian Paul Kennedy, who argues that appeasement is a necessary policy to avoid war when it is not necessary. The United States, he writes, must “make a concession here, a concession there, though hopefully it will be disguised in the form of policies such as ‘power sharing’ and ‘mutual compromise,’ and the dreadful ‘A’ word will not appear.”
Do you believe that appeasement is a wise policy in certain situations? Why or why not? In your opinion, to what extent is the failure of the Munich Agreement relevant to international politics today?
Comments are no longer being accepted.