Munich — how British newspapers reported the 1938 crisis
If the recent Netflix adaptation of Munich by Robert Harris wasn’t enough, the the Russian troop build-up outside Ukraine and ensuing diplomatic stand-off have brought the events of 1938 to mind.
Eighty-four years ago, the “quarrel in a far-away country” (to borrow Neville Chamberlain’s phrase) was not Ukraine but Czechoslovakia. The aggressor not Russia but Germany. So historical parallels are limited.
But what is sometimes forgotten is the extent to which British newspaper opinion was split on Hitler’s claims over Czechoslovakian territory (in stark contrast to the widely negative view of Russian claims to eastern Ukraine in today’s Western press).
Indeed, The Times had escalated the crisis in 1938 by almost welcoming the possibility of Sudeten secession to Nazi Germany. Editor Geoffrey Dawson, in one of the less glorious moments of the newspaper’s 237-year history, had written Czechoslovakia could be ‘a more homogenous state by the secession of that fringe of alien populations… with which they are united by race.’
The editorial in early September 1938 caused a global sensation. The illustrious Times was seen as a mirror for UK government thinking by embassies around the world. It was lapped up in Berlin.
In the following weeks Hitler increased his calls and threats over the Sudetenland and western powers, led by Prime Minister Chamberlain, attempted to reach a settlement which avoided war.
The resulting Munich deal ceded the German-speaking Sudeten territories to Germany. It was agreed in a series of meetings by Britain, France, Italy and Germany (and not Czechoslovakia). Hitler promised it was the end of his territorial claims in Europe.
The deal was soon seen as a cowardly sell-out and a capitulation to Hitler, who quickly moved onto Poland in 1939. But at the time it was celebrated in the British press. ‘The Munich Agreement brings to Europe the blessed prospect of peace,’ was the Daily Mail’s verdict.
The Sunday Times was very positive. Government pressure toned down the News Chronicle’s aversion to the deal. The Times was supportive but it came at a cost, with several junior staff members resigning in protest.
A poll after Munich revealed 86% of Britons did not believe Hitler had no further territorial ambitions — a finding that Walter Layton, editor of the News Chronicle, chose not to print so as not to offend Germany at such a sensitive time.
The Daily Telegraph stands out for seeing through the Nazi ploy. Hitler had ‘obtained, through the machinery of Munich, a still larger slice of Czechoslovakia than he had sought by the method of the ultimatum at Godesburg,’ it wrote in the weeks after the deal.
The Guardian had been largely pacifist through the 1930s but finally started arguing for rearmament after Munich. Its correspondent Frederick Voigt, who did more than almost any reporter to expose the truth about Nazi Germany, wrote in his diary: ‘Poor Czechoslovakia! I wouldn’t mind so much if I thought we would learn the lesson — and arm, arm, arm.’
Did we? Chamberlain’s true intentions at Munich — whether he knew Hitler could not be trusted and so, via the deal, deliberately bought much-needed time to re-arm — will never be known. The Harris interpretation considers NC a wily operator who saw through Hitler and outfoxed him by winning a pledge of peace, which would later prove his deceit.
That undoubtedly helped rally allied support when the time came and may have helped persuade the Americans to eventually join the war. But Chamberlain was unwise to be so triumphalist on his return to Heston airport in 1938. Promising ‘peace in our time’ was rash to the point of foolhardy. And historical opinion is divided on whether we rearmed quickly enough even after the deal.
Reporting on Hitler (Biteback, 2017) available via Amazon and Waterstones
