Talk:Munich conference

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

RobS, can you confirm your source that says that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia prior to the Munich conference?

Germany threatened war; German forces may have moved towards the Czech frontier but that is not the same as moving into Czechoslovakia. The German army only entered Czechoslovakia after the powers had agreed that the Sudetenland be transferred to Germany. To imply that they had crossed the border before Munich is erroneous. Pachyderm 04:15, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Have a look at this chronology of events. The two meetings took place in September; German troops entered the Sudetenland on 1 October 1938.

Pachyderm 08:20, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

That refers to a military invasion. Hitler's legions precipitated the crisis by infiltration, that's why there was a crisis, that's why there was a conference. I'll link a literal source sometime today. Rob Smith 11:29, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Some sources

International Military Tribunal Nuremberg,

[Page 207]

...You will find, on Page 198, Volume I, Part 1, of the document book, a list of those present at the conference of 29th March, 1938, in Berlin. The part which I shall quote is marked with a red pencil. The list includes:

"Reichsminister von Ribbentrop, State Secretary von Mackensen, Ministerialdirektor Weizsaecker, Minister Plenipotentiary to Prague Eisenlohr, Minister Stibe, Legationsrat von Twardovsky, Legationsrat Altenburg, Legationsrat Kordt (Ministry for Foreign Affairs). Others of the group were S.S. Obergruppenfuehrer Lorenz, Professor Haushofer (Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle), Conrad Henlein, Karl Hermann Frank, Dr. Kuenzel, Dr. Kreisel (Sudeten German Party)."

It is not difficult to draw the correct conclusions as to the genuine intentions of the Fascist conspirators with respect to Czechoslovakia, if only from the single fact that among those attending the conference were such people as ...the leader of the so-called Sudeten German Party, Conrad Henlein, a paid factotum and "agent provocateur" of Hitler.

... following the orders of the S.S. and the leaders of the Hitlerite Conspiracy, Henlein negotiated with the Czech Government for the settlement of the Sudeten German question solely to create a provocation

...secret meeting between Hitler and Henlein in March, 1938, described in notes of the German Foreign Office, Exhibit USA 95, at which the line to be followed by the Sudeten German Party was determined. The "Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle" was represented at that meeting by Professor Haushofer and S.S. Obergruppenfuehrer Lorenz. And when the Foreign Office, in August, 1938, awarded further subsidies to Henlein's Sudeten Party, the memorandum of that recommendation for further subsidies contained the significant footnote "Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle will be informed." I refer to Exhibit USA 96, our Document 3059, which was read into the record by Mr. Alderman, at Pages 631 and 632 of the record.

Aggressive action (Contd.): CZECHOSLOVAKIA (Mr. Alderman): First phase: ...Campaign within Czechoslovakia since 1934, Activities and techniques of Henlein and his Sudeten German Party and Free Corps; 30.9.38: Munich Pact: Cession of Sudetenland to and its occupation by Germany Merger of Henlein's Sudeten German Party with N.S.D.A.P. Second phase: 1938: Hitler's directive Of 21.10.38 for the liquidation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia

The SA supplied many of the men and a large part of the equipment which composed the Sudeten Free Corps of Henlein, although it appears that the corps was under the jurisdiction of SS during its operation in Czechoslovakia.

Fair enough. There is no doubt that the German government carried out infiltration and subversion within Czechoslovakia, stirring up the indigenous German popukation in the Sudetenland, with the aim of creating a crisis and an excuse to invade. But - this is not the same as saying that 'legions rolled in to Czechoslovakia' which strongly implies an overt military invasion. Pachyderm 06:18, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Valid point; my text comes from a 1948 account written by a journalist using much the language that that appeared in press reports 10 years earlier. But for the purpose of an historical narrative it probably could be more fully expounded. Feel free to do so. Rob Smith 16:42, 26 August 2007 (EDT)