Чтение онлайн

results of a plebiscite in the Sudetenland. The French premier,

?douard Daladier, and his foreign minister, Georges Bonnet, then

went to London, where a joint proposal was prepared stipulating

that all areas with a population that was more than 50 percent

Sudeten German be returned to Germany. The Czechoslovaks were not

consulted. The Czechoslovak government initially rejected the

proposal but was forced to accept it reluctantly on September 21.

On September 22 Chamberlain again flew to Germany and met Hitler

at Godesberg, where he was dismayed to learn that Hitler had

stiffened his demands: he now wanted the Sudetenland occupied by

the German army and the Czechoslovaks evacuated from the area by

September 28. Chamberlain agreed to submit the new proposal to the

Czechoslovaks, who rejected it, as did the British cabinet and the

French. On the 24th the French ordered a partial mobilization: the

Czechoslovaks had ordered a general mobilization one day earlier.

In a last-minute effort to avoid war, Chamberlain then proposed

that a four-power conference be convened immediately to settle the

dispute. Hitler agreed, and on September 29, Hitler, Chamberlain,

Daladier, and the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini met in

Munich, where Mussolini introduced a written plan that was

accepted by all as the Munich agreement. (Many years later it was

discovered that the so-called Italian plan had been prepared in

the German Foreign Office.) It was almost identical to the

Godesberg proposal: the German army was to complete the occupation

of the Sudetenland by October 10, and an international commission

would decide the future of other disputed areas. Czechoslovakia

was informed by Britain and France that it could either resist

Germany alone or submit to the prescribed annexations. The

Czechoslovak government chose to submit.

Before leaving Munich, Chamberlain and Hitler signed a paper

declaring their mutual desire to resolve differences through

consultation to assure peace. Both Daladier and Chamberlain

returned home to jubilant, welcoming crowds relieved that the

threat of war had passed, and Chamberlain told the British public

that he had achieved "peace with honour. I believe it is peace in

our time."

Chamberlain's policies were discredited the following year, when

Hitler annexed the remainder of Czechoslovakia in March and then

precipitated World War II by invading Poland in September. The

Munich agreement became a byword for the futility of appeasing

expansionist totalitarian states, although it did buy time for the

Allies to increase their military preparedness.

Copyright (c) 1996 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All Rights

Reserved

Сколько немцев жило на территории Судетов и сколько немцев погибло во Второй мировой войне, прелюдией к которой стало Мюнхенское соглашение? Ножом и вилкой гаранты "во имя мира" кромсали Чехословакию. Фраза премьер-министра Великобритании Невилла Чемберлена, произнесенная им по возвращении из Мюнхена в Англию "Я привез вам мир", стала анекдотом и символом политической тупости.

Итак, Чехословакия имела хорошие гарантии, которые моментально исчезли, когда встал вопрос об их реализации. Мало того, что гаранты не выполнили свои обещания, они обвинили свою жертву во всех мыслимых и немыслимых грехах.

К вопросу о гарантах и гарантиях следует добавит слова "компромис" и "умиротворение". Дискуссия о соглашении в Ольстере шла под моим заголовком "THERE ARE NO COMPROMISES IN THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM". Не имея возможности и не желая выполнить свои обязательства, гаранты выступают в роли миротворцев и ищут "компромис" между конфликтующими сторонами. Лучшие друзья превращаются в злейших врагов.

Вот мнение о миротворцах и сторонниках компромисов изложенное Larry Ball в двух посланиях. Я сконструировал из них одно и надеюсь автор простит меня.

Subject: Re: THERE ARE NO COMPROMISES IN THE FIGHT

AGAINST TERRORISM

Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:37:34 -0500

From: larry ball lball@INETNEBR.COM

To: CRIMINOLOGY@LISTSERV.GMD.DE

I agree with this poster about the situation in Northern Ireland.

Settlement of this issue has been attempted many times since Lord

Cromwell. Neither it or any other persistant political/cultural

matter will be settled by appeasement.

Appeasement is what the Northern Ireland agreement is all about.

Appeasement is also what is behind the pressure on Israel and the

Palestinians for settlement.

What Mr. Raikhlin has done here is to call into question the whole

insidious idea about an insidious movement called

Restorative/Justice. Restorative justice, compromise, appeasement,

what ever you call it will destroy civil society if it is given

full bit. RJ, compromise, appeasement, criminalize lawfulness, and

convert criminals into victims. In a way this is what is

happening in Ulster and also is what is being forced upon Israel.

Please notice my address, I am not a Zionist nor am I Irish.

The issue is the unfortunate use of "conflict resolution" to

terminate chaotic behavior and discarding punishment for crime.

Can any "social dyamics model" predict outcomes? Probably. But

is it correct to construct social policy arround ANY social

science prediction without having regard for the fundamental

beliefs and rights of those whom you are trying to impose your

social engineering upon?

I, for one, believe that those of you who are aghast at "zionist

chest beating" are, in fact, expressing your distaste for the very

idea of "culture."

Larry Ball

lball@inetnebr.com

Я хочу добавить к этому сообщению, что задача суда установить истину, а не искать компромис между конфликтующими сторонами. Поиски компромиса, как и подмена истины "справедливостью" или другими аналогичными понятиями ведут к краху судебной системы со всеми последствиями этого.