you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Richard_Parker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

That is not true either. Partition of Czechoslovakia after Sudrtrnland was without merit. Fall Weiss was a provocation,, even though claims on Danzig were absolutely justified.

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The partition of Czechoslovakia was to a large extent justified on the same rhetoric the Entente used in the first world war - self determination. The annexation of the Czech lands, however, was another matter and indeed a pretty blatant land grab. Hitler justified this on the basis of centuries of coexistence and commercial cooperation with the Czechs, but given the context, that was pretty clearly just an excuse.

[–]Richard_Parker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No. Germany had legitimate claims on the Sudetenland. They had no legitimate claims against the Czech lands populated by Czechs and no Germans.

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That's exactly what I just said, so I am not sure what this "no" is directed at.

[–]Richard_Parker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You are correct. Partition of Czechoslovakia usually refers to what you call annexation. Term I am familiar with is Sudetenland Award. My apologies.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Don't worry about it. Since you said partition, I assumed that you were referring to the parcelling out of Czechoslovak territory to Hungary, Poland, Slovakia etc.

[–]Richard_Parker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am a little quick on the draw. People are bothering me on Twitter and Reddit, then I see stuff like this stating Britain just had to carry on, from someone I respect no less.