Easily Confused (67) Peace Conference

Munich, 1938: A so-called peace conference at which the aggressor receives all the concessions he demands, the victim of the aggression is not represented, and the participants and observers act on the unbelievably naive assumption that world peace can be established that way. The dictator uses the reprieve for further rearmament, six months later annexes a democratic neighboring country, despite his promises not to do so, and less than a year later starts another world war.

Riyadh, 2025: The same.

Unknown's avatar

About Andreas Moser

I am a lawyer in Germany, with a focus on international family law, migration and citizenship law, as well as constitutional law. My other interests include long walks, train rides, hitchhiking, history, and writing stories.
This entry was posted in Germany, History, Military, Politics, Russia, Ukraine, World War II and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Easily Confused (67) Peace Conference

  1. Unknown's avatar Anonymous says:

    Have been getting serious 1937 ‘grand strategy’ vibes for a while now.

    With the kicker that this time, while Putin and Trump laugh themselves to sleep, there is no word in their ‘deal’ that any of the proceeds will flow down to the American tax payer even.

    Trump is lining his own pockets on the backs of the Ukrainians who have been defending the market, political and military integrity of Europe. We owe them more than they owe us.

    It was the UK and the US who made Ukraine concede their nuclear arms by providing guarantees at the time. Today, both nations are in shambles.

    One can only hope that continental Europe finally wakes up from their slumber and start realizing that the red line has long been crossed -and- that there is still enough time to prepare for worse; a sentiment that’s often not accredited to Chamberlain who knew the UK wasn’t ready at the time, and, thus, his strategy is commonly misinterpreted.

    Germany will be a driving force in this and in less than 3 days we will know which direction the continent can even go.

    Fingers crossed 🤞

    • Good point about Chamberlain there. Angela Merkel actually pointed out the same when she was criticized for the Minsk Accords: In 2015, Ukraine was not ready to fight a full-intensity war. And they did really use the time.

      I have been hoping for a strong Europe ever since I can think (politically), but the problem is that you always have two or three countries who really want to sabotage Europe.
      Coincidentally (or not), Hungary also took parts of Czechoslovakia after 1938, and I cannot shake off the impression that Hungary would have been happy to take (back) Carpatho-Ukraine, should Russia have conquered all of Ukraine in 2022.

  2. Unknown's avatar Anonymous says:

    When you write the two situations are The Same, are you noting that Europe was unwilling to defend itself in 1937, and remains so today?

    • Well, in the 1930s, there was no concept of a unified Europe that needed to be or could be defended. This was still the heyday of the nation state and of bilateral or trilateral alliances at most.
      Also, the threat came from right within Europe itself.

      But that’s why, once that mess was over (thanks ultimately to intervention from abroad), Winston Churchill invented the European Union.

      And ever since, Western Europe has indeed relied far too heavily on US military protection. Economically, it was a great deal for countries like Germany, which could focus on the economy and have its security guaranteed by US-American, Canadian, British and French forces. (Which is why it’s totally absurd when some Germans still refer to this as “occupation”.)

      Now, we have an attack from outside Europe, if you want to treat Russia that way, and Europe is more united than it ever has been historically. But of course a club of 27 member states, which retain their sovereignty, will hardly ever speak with one voice. And sadly, we have a few voices in that club who care less about an independent democratic state in Eastern Europe or the people living there than about cheap oil and gas.

      What is the same is that medium- and large-sized powers think they can determine the fate of what they think of as small powers (neither Czechoslovakia nor Ukraine were/are really that small), that many Westerners look down on Eastern Europe (both Czechoslovakia and Ukraine were/are beacons of democracy in their region), and that some people believe a war-mongering dictator will suddenly stop being a war-mongering dictator when you give him a sliver of land.

    • Unknown's avatar Anonymous says:

      The best outcome would be for Europe to tell the USA to bug off, and deal with Russia directly. Though they (obviously) seem incapable. Kind of pathetic years after the invasion began.

      It is ironic Trump warned Europe of the need to increase their defense, and rely less on Russian energy, during Trump’s first term.

  3. So… it’s 1937 …. which means I’m ….. negative twenty-something? Then why the heck do all my joints hurt so bad? ;)

    Now, if this meant that we were headed for a bad world war, but would end up in 8 years with a period of relative peace and prosperity for a time, it might just be worth it. Unfortunately, with the current occupant of the White House, we’re more likely headed either for WW3 in all its’ nuclear glory. or a worldwide Great Depression that’ll make 1933 look like small potatoes. Either way, buckle up, kiddies, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

  4. ThingsHelenLoves's avatar ThingsHelenLoves says:

    Even the floral arrangements are eerily similar. It’s all a big old cycle, rinse and repeat.

Leave a reply to ThingsHelenLoves Cancel reply