Geneva meetings

Munich and Geneva

 Instead of Munich, its equivalent this century is taking place in Geneva. Just as in 1938, the most affected party is excluded from the party. Czechoslovakia was not involved in the negotiations which doomed it into slavery, and Israel is not a participant in the Geneva discussions.

2013-11-11 by Jaime Einstein

 The great world powers met in Munich in September of 1938 in order to discuss a crisis promoted by Adolf Hitler against the only democracy in Central Europe, Czechoslovakia.


Czechoslovakia, created after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the end of World War I, was a multi-ethnic democracy. Three million ethnic Germans lived within its borders. They enjoyed equal treatment as citizens of a democratic state, and had their own representation in the Prague Parliament. All of Czechoslovakia´s neighbors were militaristic right-wing dictatorships which sympathized with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. A number of these countries had various territorial and ethnic claims against Prague´s democracy. They were deterred from direct action by the fact that the Czechoslovaks possessed one of the best equipped and efficient armed forces in the Central European area. Furthermore, the Czechs had signed an Alliance with France, which, in turn, was allied with the United Kingdom.


Hitler organized the Germans within Czechoslovakia into a very cohesive local Nazi Party… A new, fictitious ethnic identity was invented, “Sudeten” Germans (until the Nazis created this category, the inhabitants of the border zones between Bohemia, today Czech Republic, Austria and Germany, were simply “German-speaking citizens of Czechoslovakia”). These Nazi “Sudeteners” began a campaign to “reunify” with their German brethren in Germany and Austria (this latter state had already been annexed by the Nazi Reich).


Czechoslovakia and its president, Edvard Beneš, backed by their armed forces and Western alliance, refused to yield before the relentless German pressure. They were unwilling to cede an inch of their territory or national sovereignty. The defense of their country depended on their fortified borders with Nazi territories. To let go of these areas would be tantamount to disarming the nation and allowing its dismemberment.


Prague´s security services were mobilized against the “Sudetener” agitation, and many local Nazis were imprisoned. Hitler threatened to invade Czechoslovakia in order to “protect the legitimate interests of the oppressed Sudeten Germans”.


The German General Staff was very concerned with the Führer´s threats, as they were keenly aware that Germany was not quite ready for a new world war. They expected that the Paris-Prague alliance would have led to a new global conflict. Furthermore, Czechoslovakia´s own armed forces would have been a challenge for Germany.


Unquestionably, the Nazis would have ultimately overcome Czechoslovak resistance, but it would not have been a cake walk. Czech tanks were better than Germany´s, and Prague´s air forces were modern and efficient.


The Western Powers, the United Kingdom and France (the US was in one of its isolationist moods), although stronger than the Nazi state, were terrified at the idea of being dragged into a new world war. The horrifying losses caused by the Great War (1914-1918) plus the ongoing Great Depression, served as motivation towards attempting to appease the dynamic and resurgent Teutonic giant. Hitler was an excellent political Poker player, in addition to being the ultimate, accomplished bully. Nobody could out-bluff the Führer.

A frightened Neville Chamberlain, the UK´s prime minister, met with his French counterpart, Daladier, and they agreed to meet with Nazi Germany and Mussolini´s Italy in Munich. Czechoslovakia was not even invited to this Summit, where its own fate would be decided by the Great Powers, including its supposed “allies”.


Czechoslovakia was vilely betrayed in Munich. Its Anglo-French “allies” yielded to Hitler´s every demand and agreed to cede all “Sudeten” border areas to Nazi Germany in the name of the “self-determination” of its Germanic inhabitants. Chamberlain returned to London, wielding his umbrella in one hand and in the other the piece of paper, signed by “Herr Hitler”, where the dictator promised that he had no further territorial claims against anyone. The appeasing Brit triumphantly declared “peace in our time”.


Germany´s and Italy´s “peaceful intentions” were on open display in Spain. The Spanish Civil War was in full force, bleeding the Spanish people white. The Nazi Condor Legion and Mussolini´s Fascist armies continued their military operations on Franco´s behalf, against a collapsing Spanish Republic, which had been abandoned to its fate by all democracies.


The Czechoslovak Republic had two extremely unattractive options. It could refuse the Munich diktat and resist the Germans on its own, or surrender before international pressure and helplessly contemplate the nation´s destruction. President Edvard Beneš, betrayed by his “friends”, knew what price his country would pay in a hopeless fight against merciless enemies.


Hitler used his connections with the Slovak nationalist party in Bratislava, which was led by a pro Fascist Catholic priest, Monsignor Tiso, in order to provoke Slovakia´s secession from the Republic. Slovakia became an “independent state”, under German “protection”, allied with Nazi Germany. Poland and Hungary each took a piece of their unfortunate neighbor.


Beneš resigned and went into exile. Czechoslovakia ceased to exist. Less than a year later, Hitler forgot the little scrap of paper he had signed with Chamberlain and invaded Poland, starting World War II.


What does the tragic 1938 Munich agreement have to do with the Geneva meetings between Iran, the USA, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, the European Union and Germany? A great deal more than may appear at first sight.


In both cases, in Central Europe of the 1930´s and the Middle East of our own time, we are dealing with a singular democratic state: Czechoslovakia in Central Europe, Israel in the Levant. Both countries have shared the unfortunate circumstance of being surrounded by power-hungry, expansive dictatorships. Both nations have shared the challenge of coexisting with totalitarian, oppressive and murderous ideologies: German Nazism and Islamism. In both cases, the world was in the midst of an economic depression, with the Western democracies’ leadership in the hands of weak, appeasing leaders.


Nobody was willing to call a spade a spade. Hitler and Mussolini were widely admired by numerous intellectuals and populist movements throughout the “civilized world”. Those who did not admire the right-wing dictators, tended to admire the murderous government of Josef Stalin, which was killing millions within the borders of the “Proletarian Paradise” which was the USSR. Very few Europeans felt any affinity for the isolated Czechoslovak democracy. Totalitarian regimes were viewed as the “wave of the future”. Democracy was considered decadent, an obsolete aberration. Any similarity between the sympathy felt today by so-called Western “Progressives” for Islamist groups is not a coincidence. Also, there is a clear parallel between today´s massive increase in the popularity of “Populist” groups in Europe and the US, with the surge of local Fascist parties throughout Europe in the 1930´s. That, too, is no coincidence.


Motivated by his expansionist appetite, Hitler created an inexistent ethnic group… “Sudeten Germans”. This fiction had only one purpose, to liquidate the Czechoslovak democracy. Any similarity between this Nazi bastard child and the sudden appearance of an “Arab Palestinian People” after the 1967 Six Day War is also not a coincidence… wise old King Solomon already said that there is nothing new under the sun.


In our new century, Mr. Chamberlain, of sad memory, has reincarnated in the US Secretary of State John Kerry (without the umbrella, as far as we know). This very wealthy Massachusetts gentleman apparently considers that the time has arrived to force the small and pesky State of Israel to reach a “peace agreement” with today´s Sudeteners, the “Palestinian” Arabs. In his desire to stay focused on this very “pressing problem”, Mr. Kerry looks the other way from the ongoing massacres in the Syrian Civil War. It is interesting to note that in just 2 years, more people have been killed in Syria than in all Arab-Israeli wars since 1948. The arrogant New England patrician has also chosen to ignore the alarming growth in fanatical and murderous Islamist movements, which are affecting all continents, except the Antarctic, so far at least.


In his frantic search for a Nobel Peace Prize (so he may draw even with the one awarded to his boss for ¿??¿??), Kerry is ready to sacrifice all legitimate security interests of his only democratic ally in the region. But Kerry knows best.


Kerry´s world vision seems to contain an additional, rather minor problem… which pales into insignificance next to the existence of a pesky Jewish democracy, which is so annoying to its peaceful Arab neighbors: that is the issue of the headlong rush of the modern Persian Empire of the Ayatollahs towards acquiring a nuclear arsenal. Lest we forget, the Iranian hierarchy has clearly and explicitly stated that a key mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran is to liquidate the Zionist cancer (i.e., the State of Israel). Let us also remember that Iran is one of the world´s great petroleum producers, therefore, they need nuclear energy as much as I need six toes or three nasal cavities. Thus, just as Hitler clearly announced in his Mein Kampf that his movement would liquidate all Jews and advance Germany to occupy its lebensraum in Eastern Europe, the ayatollahs (and, in all fairness, all Islamists) have never hidden their intention to liquidate the Jews and their state, and establish a world Caliphate.


After long fruitless conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the West has grown weary of further confrontations with the Islamists. The time has arrived for retrying Chamberlain´s formula… appeasement. Iran has a new president… and the guy can even smile (sort of Hitler, without the Chaplin mustache). Let´s all make nice with the ayatollahs. In the back of Kerry´s mind there must be a certainty that Iranian missiles don´t have the range to disrupt the aesthetics of his Massachusetts country mansions, or his luxurious townhouse in Boston. So, do we have anything to lose?


Instead of Munich, its equivalent this century is taking place in Geneva. Just as in 1938, the most affected party is excluded from the party. Czechoslovakia was not involved in the negotiations which doomed it into slavery, and Israel is not a participant in the Geneva discussions.


All of the participants in this international conference seem to be enraptured by the Iranian smiles. The European Union´s Lady Ashton is so enamored of her Iranian colleague, that she even donned a deluxe chador in his honor. How many concessions is the West willing to give so that the Iranians, instead of producing their nukes tomorrow, postpone them for the day after tomorrow?


Fortunately, Monsieur Daladier does not seem to have reincarnated in the French representative in Geneva. Apparently the French have rediscovered they have a spine, and France has blocked the agreement which Mr. Kerry so desired. Vive la France!


As an epilogue to this rather sad and pathetic story let us keep in mind that:


1. Kerry has not given up, the Geneva Conference is rescheduled for the end of this month;


2. Bibi Netanyahu and Edvard Beneš are not in the least similar. I am no fan of Bibi´s, but I don´t doubt that he is aware that Israel´s defense is the responsibility of our own armed forces, and not of our “allies”. Ariel Sharon was quoted as saying that Israel is not Czechoslovakia.


3. When Czechoslovakia was liberated from the Nazis in 1945, the Czech government forcefully expelled 3 million “Sudeten Germans” from its territory. The general rule in the world has always been that: “if you start a war and you fail to win it, you are screwed”. Nobody has spoken again of the “Sudeten German Refugee Problem”. People still talk about the “Palestinian Nakba”.

Download PDF