15

The Munich Myth

Can you refute the Munich Myth?

By Perry Willis

As I write these words Vladamir Putin’s Russia has just invaded Ukraine. Old debates about appeasement seem likely to reignite. The word Munich has already been invoked. So it seems like a good time to explore…

The Munich Myth

Whole books have been written about this subject, but I can give you the crucial insights in less than two thousand words.

Munich refers to the 1938 peace conference where Britain and France tried to appease Adolf Hitler. The resulting agreement allowed Hitler to annex a chunk of Czechoslovakia that had a large German population. Britain and France hoped that this “correction” of the borders created by the hated Versailles Treaty would satisfy Hitler’s territorial hunger.

Critics of the agreement charged, then and now, that it emboldened Hitler to demand even more territory, leading to World War II. These critics think France and Britain should have declared war to defend Czechoslovakia.

Could World War 2 have been prevented?

Munich is part of a larger argument asserting that Britain and France could have stopped Hitler early, by waging war against him at the first possible opportunity. That first opportunity is usually identified as the day Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland. Similar claims are made about the annexation of Austria and the Munich conference. Interventionists see each event as a missed opportunity to stop Hitler.

Let’s examine these assertions, and also consider what guidance this history might provide for the current problem with Vladimir Putin.

The Rhineland

The Rhineland was a legitimate part of Germany. But the Versailles Treaty prevented Germany from stationing troops there. Nearly all Germans viewed this as unjust. But it wasn’t only the Germans who felt this way. Millions of people around the world disliked the Versailles Treaty. This included members of the British government and its Royal Family. Hitler’s move into the Rhineland was not only wildly popular with the German people, but also it had supporters abroad.

Few people at the time yet knew that Hitler would be the author of a world war and a genocide, or that he would be viewed as the most evil person in human history. People knew he was a hyper-nationalistic racist tyrant, but many could see merit in his attempt to overturn draconian aspects of the Versailles Treaty. World War I was a recent memory. No one was going to start a new war over an arguably legitimate exercise of German sovereignty. But let’s imagine for a moment that they did start such a war. What would have happened?

Not much. The Rhineland was a no-lose opportunity for Hitler. If he succeeded he would be popular for that, but if it failed he would still be popular for trying. The Rhineland incident presented no opportunity to depose Hitler or to thwart his ambitions. The interventionists seem to imagine that Britain and France would have occupied the Rhineland and then marched on Berlin to depose Hitler, but that is sheer fantasy. In reality, French and British forces would have stopped at the Rhine, and Hitler simply would have scurried back across the river, only to try again later, when he was stronger. So what about…

Austria

The annexation of Austria involved a small country of ethnic Germans joining a larger country of ethnic Germans. There was definitely some coercion involved behind the scenes, but no actual military invasion. Hitler was met by cheering crowds when he went to Vienna. It’s hard to tell if this was because many people were afraid to dissent, but the annexation appeared to be popular with Austrians at the time. No world leader was going to start a war over it, so it was not an “early opportunity” to stop Hitler. That leaves…

Czechoslovakia and Munich

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain famously declared “Peace in our time” after giving Hitler part of Czechoslovakia at the Munich conference. Chamberlain was happy, as were millions in the West who remembered the horrors of World War I.

But one man was unhappy. His name was Adolf Hitler. He didn’t want peace. He wanted war. The peace treaty was not his preferred outcome, even though he got part of Czechoslovakia for free.

This presents us with a strange situation. The interventionists claim that war over Czechoslovakia would have stopped Hitler and prevented greater bloodshed later, but Hitler himself actually wanted war. Why? He thought he had the advantage. He believed a quick victory over Britain, France, and Czechoslovakia would secure his western flank, leaving him free to conquer the Soviet Union in the East.

Britain and France upset Hitler’s plans by making him an offer he couldn’t refuse. Hitler’s short quick war with France and Britain would have to wait until 1940.

If Hitler’s assessment of the strategic situation was right, then there was no clear opportunity to stop him by threatening war at Munich. That would mean that the interventionists were (and are) wrong about Munich. So which view is correct? What would have happened if Britain and France had declared war over Czechoslovakia?

Which side was stronger?

A case can be made that Hitler’s strategic assessment was wrong. Britain, France, and Czechoslovakia had more men, weapons, and wealth. Czechoslovakia also had defensive advantages that would have made things difficult for the Germans. But numbers alone don’t tell the whole story.

Britain and France couldn’t bring their power to bear on the battlefield in Czechoslovakia. The British were too far away, and the French army was designed to defend, not attack. Both countries were in the same position they would experience with regard to Poland in 1939. In that case, French and British troops never did reach Poland, despite pledging to defend it. It was the Soviets who drove the Nazis out of that country, and it took three years to do it.

Britain and France would have been relegated to attacking Germany on the periphery had the war started in 1938. So…

Why didn’t Czechoslovakia choose to fight alone?

The Germans seemed likely to prevail eventually, even if the Czechs won a few early rounds. Such a defeat might cost the Czechs their entire country, so they too tried to appease Hitler. Here’s the thing to notice…

Neither scenario, war or no war, would have stopped Hitler. Germany would have absorbed Czechoslovakia in either case. Hitler would then have attacked Poland, followed by France and Britain, and then Russia, just as happened in real history. Nothing suggests that Czech resistance would have changed the course of history in any significant way.

Please notice something else – Germany won against Britain and France in 1940 despite having smaller forces. This is another indication that Czech resistance would have done little to change the ultimate course of the war.

Only two things could have stopped Hitler

  1. Keep him out of power in the first place. I have written elsewhere about the role U.S. politicians played in Hitler’s rise.
  2. Persuade the German Generals to depose him. I have also written about how U.S. politicians could have fostered that outcome.

As a practical matter, the latter approach was only possible after the Germans lost at Stalingrad. That was the first opportunity the Generals had to convince the German people that regime change was warranted. Prior to that defeat, Hitler was simply too popular.

So what does all this mean for our current situation?

Learning from history

Hitler wrote a book telling the world he wanted to conquer Russia. Nothing would deter him from that purpose once he gained power. That means…

  1. Hitler could not have been appeased
  2. Hitler was not going to be stopped by fighting him earlier rather than later
  3. Munich neither shortened nor lengthened the war that followed – it was largely irrelevant

There is no lesson to learn from Munich, but there is a Munich Myth to unlearn.

What to do about Putin?

Is Putin another Hitler? Does he want to conquer vast territories? Probably not. But he’s definitely a bad person doing bad things.

Can he, should he, be appeased, or should he be resisted? Should he perhaps be ignored?

The Munich Myth holds that appeasement is always wrong, but that is moral grandstanding, not wisdom. Wisdom balances costs with benefits. I have shown in past articles that the cost of military intervention almost always outweighs the gain. Sometimes it’s better to appease so as to preserve peace. At other times it’s most wise to do nothing, because all the possible actions would make things worse. We seem to be in the latter situation when it comes to Putin and Ukraine.

War against Russia could kill millions and cost many billions. The Ukrainians we seek to help would likely suffer the most. Such a war also risks nuclear escalation. Meanwhile, sanctions almost always fail. They harm the people, but not the rulers. These realities favor inaction.

Instead, we should improve our own freedom and prosperity to such an extent that eventually all countries want to emulate us. We should trade and engage in cultural exchange with anyone willing. That’s the best way to change the world.

Final verdict

Please consider that the Munich Myth contributed to Vietnam and two wars with Iraq.

  • We were told we had to stop communism in Vietnam, just like we should have stopped Hitler at Munich. The politicians claimed we could not appease communists. Countries would fall like dominoes, just like they did in World War II. But the exact opposite happened. It was our intervention that destabilized the region and spread communism to neighboring Cambodia, with genocidal results.
  • George H.W Bush and George W. Bush each told us that Saddam Hussein was another Hitler. Those who opposed war with Iraq were called appeasers and their wise counsel to do nothing was shouted down. But our wars in Iraq, like our war in Vietnam, made the world worse, not better.

Belief in the Munich Myth has squandered many lives.

Please, share this article with others. Do what you can to make sure the Munich Myth does not kill again.
—–
Perry Willis is the co-creator of the Zero Aggression Project.

Show Comments 15

 

  1. Perry, i just have to say this article is disappointing. don’t you know why? it’s because you totally ignored the most important battlefield – the same battlefield in which the bad guys win and the good guys lose every single time there has ever been a historic war – the battlefield inside the minds of the majority of the people in literally every such situation there has ever been. here’s a “what if” for you; what if an army of honest Christians and Unitarian Universalist thinkers had been unleashed in these troubled regions at the right time, lead by Generals like Adam Kokesh, Amanda and Larken Rose, Mark Passio, Foster and Kimberly Gamble (ofcourse this list could go onandon)…. i only hope you will get the meaning of what i’m saying by this point i don’t know how to say it any better unfortunately. any and all replies will be very interesting. thankyou!

    1. Post
      Author

      I’m all for unleashing Adam, Larken, etc. on the German scene prior to WW2. But had we a time machine to permit that I think the impact would be the same as having Adam/Larken, etc unleashed on the North American continent here in 2022. Not much. Thanks for your comment. Sorry you were disappointed by my article.

  2. You make a fair case, but I’m not dissuaded from the view that if the U.S. stands down from a challenge, it’ll be open season on American interests around the world, firstly with China seizing Taiwan and an expanding scope of military control of Southeast Asia. Russia also won’t stop at Ukraine if a treaty is signed giving them control over most or all of it. Putin will certainly see this as a precedent for taking more assets of interest to him, both for natural resources and as a buffer against NATO forces (i.e. reviving the Iron Curtain). His only downside will be poorly negotiated treaties, not military defeat, meaning the cost/benefit analysis is obvious. This will be aided by the new economic prosperity brought through Russian dominance of Ukraine’s resources and ports. There has to be severe negative consequences to initiating aggression against one’s neighboring countries or doing so will proliferate.

    1. Post
      Author

      I’m not persuaded that the small countries that border Russia and China are an American interest. I’m also not persuaded that invasions and colonies are profitable in the long run. The U.S. choked on Vietnam and the Soviets and the U.S. both choked on Afghanistan. Great Britain had the largest empire in history, but it steadily declined despite that supposedly huge advantage. I think profit and real power stem from production, not invasions and colonies.

  3. Also cite Henry Ford bailing out Hitler with millions when Hitler was losing popularity in the 20s. Also Texaco giving his war effort oil. And ITT owning German factories building German bombers. Not to mention Enlish nobles donating to Nazis. Plus, the Businessmen’s attempted coup against FDR fits in there somewhere.

  4. Also cite when the Iron Curtain fell, there was no reason to retain NATO. If keeping NATO, no reason to keep Russia out. Further, a few of us advised the new Russian government on paths to a _just_ market economy. After we left, the official US economic advisors followed behind and undid all the good work we’d done, so Russia collapsed into gangs and corruption. The US military/industrial complex–which Ike warned us about–also wants an enemy so to profit. And the ruling elite in general does not want a prosperous Russia as an economic competitor. Pretty silly. Western Europe makes us richer. Eastern Europe, including Russia, could do the same, too.

  5. Your ‘roll over and surrender’ implying essays I find quite unconvincing and very much out of the realm of moral philosophy represented by ‘Zero Aggression’.

    The US or other western powers did not start the Ukrainian invasion, or the invasion of Czechoslovakia (though they may have been complicit as accessory after the fact). That means both invasions were AGGRESSION by an INVADER. A clear moral wrong clearly ALLOWING under the N.A.P. a response from anyone else against the aggressor. If everyone allows aggression to go unchallenged, aggressors, at least in the short term will get what they want and continue to be aggressive.

    “The Rhineland was a legitimate part of Germany.” – appears to be an assertion without evidence or supporting statements. I question it as the second major flaw in your argument.

    Modern parallel between pre-WW2 Czechoslovakia and Ukraine would not be whole of Ukraine but rather Crimea, the part of the Ukraine that the world allowed Russia to annex in 2014 in violation of their previous agreements between Ukraine, US, NATO and Russia regarding Ukrainian possessed nuclear weapons and Ukrainian borders and independence.

    Agreed that Austria was a (largely) democratically chosen Annexation – perhaps though, this is a side comment that holds no weight in the totality of your argument? I certainly see no reason for the point.

    Finally, the Zero Aggression principle is just that – that we as individuals and as various collectives do not AGGRESSOR against others who are not aggressive themselves. But the Ukraininan invasion (and the Czechoslovakian one of WW2) are clear aggression by bad actors, ones who violated treaty (contract) with other nations, and use violent aggression against others.

    Whether or not responding with force is morally appropriate or not, is a clear moral YES.
    Whether or not using force or alternatives is the BEST long term strategy likely depends on the exact goals, methods and tactics, of using that force or their alternatives. At this point the sanctions and media attention seem to have done nothing to dissuade Putin or his followers in their aggression against not just the Ukraine but various other nearby nations.

    The US succeeded quite well against Saddam Hussein, it was the reconstruction afterward that the US failed at. Against Russia it is highly unlikely we will roll US troops into Moscow. Against single strongman bad actors the US/UN/NATO actually has a distinctly POSITIVE result record. It is against large long term distributed ideologies (extremist Islam, communism, etc.) that these powers fail when responding with military force. Is ALL of the Russian people really so gun-ho for the invasion of Ukraine that if their president and top couple generals dropping dead wouldn’t dissuade them?

    1. Post
      Author

      None of my articles advocate rolling over and surrendering. They merely question the wisdom of tax-funded politically managed interventions. One of my articles even describes how intervention should be done correctly, and another describes how a ZAP-consistent approach could have saved Eastern Europe from Soviet domination after WW2.

      I agree that Russia is at fault. I also agree that intervention to defend others is consistent with the Zero Aggression Principle, so long as it is voluntarily funded. I merely question the wisdom of intervention in this case, and reject it if it is tax-funded.

      I think it would come as a surprise to most of the world to hear that the Rhineland is not part of Germany. I think that take may be unique to you.

      I’m glad to see that you recognize that it’s not always wise to intervene. But you are also clearly more supportive of tax-funded politically managed intervention than I am. Thanks for your comments.

  6. Historian Paul Johnson says that the Munich “appeasement” actually gave Chamberlain’s successor, Churchhill,TIME to build up his military resources and contributed to Britains winning the air war with Germany.

    1. Post
      Author
  7. Pingback: Can you refute the Munich Myth? – Rational Review News Digest

  8. The whole war drum beating could have been prevented back then, (as you point out so well) and can be prevented now. I could understand humanitarian aid from the private sector as a response to the whole Ukrainian mess, but things are often more complicated than they seem. (Especially when the MSM is trying to cover for 4th branch activities and the people are catching both up to them and are on to the lies) I trust this current administration to do anything good for America or the world as far as I can throw a house. (that is, not at all) I personally hope we stay out of the mess, or follow your advice. However, I am not so gullible as to think this will happen without pressure (and a truckers’ convoy full) from the constituents of the House. I will be calling both the House and the Senate and advising them to read your articles before doing anything, (Not that they all will listen…..) Maybe if enough of us do this , they will wake up!

    1. Post
      Author
  9. I generally agree with this article. One question: What do mean by saying the Germans defeated Britain?In 1940 the Germans defeated France but not Britain. In 1940 the winner during the Battle of Britain was not Germany.

    1. Post
      Author

      The Germans defeated the British army in France. They had to retreat from France at Dunkirk.

Leave a Reply to Dean Blehert Cancel reply

Fields marked with * are required