The Real Story Behind Munich - The Edge of War | Netflix
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- Before Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain desperately sought a peaceful solution to prevent going to war with the Nazis. Dive deeper into the true story behind Munich - The Edge of War.
At the tense 1938 Munich Conference, former friends who now work for opposing governments become reluctant spies racing to expose a Nazi secret. Based Robert Harris' internationally bestselling novel, the gripping thriller is now streaming on Netflix.
Munich - The Edge of War stars George MacKay, Jeremy Irons, Jannis Niewöhner, Ulrich Matthes and Jessica Brown Findlay.
#MunichTheEdgeOfWar #GeorgeMacKay #JeremyIrons
➡️SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE: bit.ly/29kBByr
About Netflix:
Netflix is the world's leading streaming entertainment service with 214 million paid memberships in over 190 countries enjoying TV series, documentaries, feature films and mobile games across a wide variety of genres and languages. Members can watch as much as they want, anytime, anywhere, on any internet-connected screen. Members can play, pause and resume watching, all without commercials or commitments.
The Real Story Behind Munich - The Edge of War | Netflix
/ stillwatchingnetflix 
Развлечения
I liked the film as a whole, but for me as a Czech it was completely ruined by the end in which the film tries to excuse this disgusting betrayal.
I completely agree. I enjoyed the film (having read the book) as a work of fiction. Factually, it fails in a number of ways.
I’m not Czech, but I agree. I thought the film gave a fair view, giving you a better understanding of Chamberlain’s decisions. There was just a chasm between the bullying aggression of Hitler and the stiff upper lip politeness of Chamberlain. He tried to manage it to his best abilities, but ultimately was not the right man for the job. The epilogue seems a complete disconnect: after seeing the film I was not at all convinced Chamberlain was outsmarting Hitler and playing the long game.
Unbelivable how some men can give away other peoples land to someone else. And the Czech was not even invited. They did the same with Hungary in Trianon. (In this case they were invited which made no difference.)
Don’t let the credits ruin it for you. I agree that Neville Chamberlain probably didn’t have that plan but regardless, it was a fantastic movie and I’m happy it didn’t portray Neville Chamberlain as a complete fool. Of course you Czechs should have been invited to the conference, but Neville Chamberlain had good intentions
@@oracle372 But nonetheless arrogant. Lets save ourselves by throwing the citizens of a democracy under a bus.
The film is a poor attempt to justify the Munich betrayal of Czechoslovakia, an ally of both UK and France. The additional time given to the allies did not help them prepare for war, contrary to what the end credits say.
That's true. Czechoslovakia's defences against Nazi Germany were also largely in the Sudetenland which meant that it could not resist a Nazi invasion afterwards. If the Sudetenland had not been given away then maybe Germany wouldn't have had the strength to fight France, the UK, and invade Poland. Moreover the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact may not have been signed as Stalin wouldn't have thought that the Western democracies were conspiring with Hitler.
It's a poor attempt to justify Chamberlain's intentions, and horrible to think that the Great Powers of the time could make decisions like that, but there was no way the UK could defend the Sudetenland in 1938, or Czechoslovakia in 1939. Just look at a map.
The film is wrong on Chamberlain, but you're also wrong about war preparations. Neither France or Britain were fully prepared for war in 1938, however the extra two years absolutely helped bolster Britains defences - particularly aerially. This changed the course of WW2 in 1940.
@@MrDragon1968 They could have opened a second front, attacking Germany from the west or aiding Czechoslovakia via Poland.
Don't forget that the extra time was given to Germany as well, plus they were given more land to support German war effort. Czechoslovakia was industrially highly developed - most of Austro-Hungarian industry was based in Czechoslovakia, which prevailed until WWII.
@@vaclavsafar1508 Well, not really. The UK wasn't going to unprovokedly attack a major European country in 1938, especially one in the heart of Europe, over a dispute on a piece of territory that actually wanted to be German. Also, what your describing is a total logistical nightmare for the UK. Czechoslovakia was a landlocked country in the heart of Europe. Britain is an island on the other side of Germany, with the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Switzerland and Austria in-between on one side, and then the North Sea, Denmark/Sweden, the Baltic and a huge chunk of Poland's landmass on the other. Just look at a map. Britain was a great naval power but without a huge standing army - it had to build it up every time it went to war, and historically all of Britain's European wars were fought at great cost and always with major partners. You also have to remember that no-one at the time wanted a repeat of WW1. It's easy in hindsight to do a 'shoulda, woulda, coulda'.
However, I fully agree that France and Britain shouldn't have signed the Munich Agreement. It was incredibly foolish and gave Hitler the green light to immediately start invading whole chunks of Europe. I also find it frankly grotesque that other countries just signed away a chunk of another country like it was in their gift to do so - regardless of whether the Sudetenland wanted to be German or not.
@@MrDragon1968 Can we agree that the movie is portraying history in a more British-appealing way compared to reality?
People who argue that Chamberlain bought time for Britain seem to forget he also bought time for Germany. And not only time, but also all military equipment of Czechoslovakia, which was not marginal, as 70% of former Austria-Hungary heavy industry was situated in Czech Lands, and all this industry was now forced to produce for German war effort. He also broke the last democratic country in central Europe - an important hub for refugees fleeing fascism, leading to much more civilians sent to camps. Before annexing Czech indusrtry, Hitler had no chance aganst Britain, France and Soviets. I mean he never had a chance, but there could be a fast local conflict instead of world war. Hitler gained much more than Britain with that "bought time".
To add to that, the Czech tanks that Germany captured in the fall of Czechoslovakia were put into excellent service by the Wehrmact.
Why did Austria-Hungary develop the industrial sectors in the Sudetenland of Bohemia and not around the Danube, say in cities like Vienna, Pressburg, or Buda?
Did they decide to do this because it was more convenient to build up industry near the Ore Mountains? Wouldn't it have been easier to import and export materials if the factories were alongside the banks of the Danube?
@@Redactedredacted5837 Not only Sudetenlend, the whole Bohemia. But giving up Sudetenland de facto gave Hitler the whole Bohemia (Sudetenland was not a real district or division before the crisis itself - it just was a term created for the part of the country where 50%+ ethnic Germans lived, which was just an arbitrary ring by borders. But it was not a separate unit in any other sence. That's why the whole country could not survive without it - the infrastructure did never expect borders at that place, there were never any borders during 1000 years of Czech state there.)
I am no expert here, so I hope someone else will see this, but Bohemia had a good geography and was historically prosperous region. So Austrians did not "decide" that. (For most of Austrian Empire history Bohemian Crown existed as its own unit inside like in the case of US states - it's not like American president can decide that instead of California factories will be built in Texas. Only at the end things started to be more centralised and individual Lands felt they are losing their identity and individuality - that's why Czechs lobbied for dissolution of A-H). Austria itself was smaller, less populous and less economically strong country than Bohemia itself, let alone the whole Bohemian Crown and Habsburgs knew that. They resided in Vienna and they stylised themselves as Austrians, but most of the stuff in Cisleithanien economy wise happened in Bohemian Crown - that's why the loss of most of Silesia in 18th century was so devastating.
@@martinsvoboda8267 I would add to that (the Sudetan Land had never been part of German) and the German minority who lived there were not German as such. When the so-called Sudetan Germans first went to live in the Czech lands, they were invited to live in sparsely occupied land, hundreds of years ago at a time when Germany didn't exist. They also lived with and often married Czechs. When the state of Czechoslovakia was created, they, like everyone else, were given Czech citizenship. My father came from Decin, some 5k from German border. Three of my (5) aunts married Sudetan Germans. My father went to a German gymnasium, the only Czech in his class. All his friends were Sudetan Germans. My father, naturally, thought very highly of them. He joined the Czech army, then the Air Force and had to escape the Nazis. He ended up in the RAF. A significant number of his RAF colleagues had German surnames. His best friend (Josef Richter) was an ethnic German but he was in the RAF, fighting Germans. The situation is a lot more nuanced than people in Britain know. It wasn't a case of giving back territory that had belonged to Germany. Ethnic Germans had lived in Czech territory for hundreds of years and were Czech citizens. The German people (in Germany) didn't even consider them to be 'real' Germans. I could probably write a book addressing all the points raised. I find it very worrying that people today are being misled by what happened. So many people died, so many people had to leave their homeland, so many families were divided, so much tragedy. I would suggest people realise that when a film is made, there is usually an agenda. In the case of Munich, The Edge of War, maybe the agenda is the rehabilitation of a British prime minister who dishonoured Britain?
@@Redactedredacted5837 As Martin Svoboda already stated, Austria-Hungary didn't have a centrally planned economy as it was capitalist.
I keep seing this notion, that the Austrians through Sudeten Germans somehow handed out all the industry to us and that we had no part in it, as if we were some sort of illiterate, incompetent people who can't be succesful because they're of course Slavs
That's not the case though, the utter majority of heavy industry and engineering was situated in predominantly ethnic Czech parts such as Pilsen, Prague, Brno and Silesia (where it was like 50/50 to be frank).
Germans mainly owned light industry enterprises (textile, porcelain) and that's why they were hit the hardest during the great depression.
All in all, the best-known and largest Czech companies were all founded and owned by Czechs, not Germans: Škoda (Emil Škoda), Laurin-Klement (Laurin and Klement), Tatra (Ignác Šustala), ČKD (mr. Kolben and Daněk), Avia (Beneš, Hajn, Koch, Malý), Baťa (Tomáš Baťa), Zbrojovka Brno (state founded), Jawa (Janeček) and I could go on and on.
I thought the film was brilliant. Brilliant performances and managed to create suspense despite knowing how it was all going to turn out (at least I assume most people know the basics of WW2).
This film is madness. It is a fictional movie with fictional characters. You shouldn't take this as historical accurate and impartial. It's allied propaganda brainwashing the public. We should also get a point of view from the Germans eyes, that way, it'll be impartial. We always get the allies view, because if we always do, then it's clearly biased and propaganda.
Fr, I was so anxious for him to just shot the bastard hitler even tho I knew that didn’t happened
@@omega0195 Could u please explain you point further
@@omega0195 Ok, so what do you propose would he different from the Nazi point of view? Would it be one detailing how Hitler was forced into committing the horrific crimes he committed and that in fact history has falsely educated the world that Hitler was a monster? Because if that’s what you believe to be true then you clearly don’t understand fact.
@@omega0195 Also , i would say that the film opens up a new perspective and awareness to Neville Chamberlain’s involvement. History paints him as a fool, but the film shows people that there is another argument. Nobody can know for sure what happened off the record after such a long time. But the film sheds a new light on a different perspective
Fun fact: in Czech, Munich pact is also called “about us without us” :)
The Czech government had no united position to articulate and the conference or conferences were about what the rest of Europe would do.
Talking to a friend this week, she mentioned that her mother (a Jeremy Irons' fan) refused to watch the film. As a girl, she remembered her (English) parents' views of what happened at Munich. They were disgusted and called Chamberlain 'an evil man'.
Hitler always had the intentions of war, this kind of things happen even today, China wants power over the world, we can never trust in a communist country, who knows what is going to happen with the world, that only I am sure this virus has totally planned.
@@elsatorres7138 the US has more than anyone displayed that they want to control the whole world in the 21st century and it was Britain that basically did for much of the 19th and 20th centuries
So… closed to any other interpretation then?
Who knows? They were reacting to something that was happening at the time in which they were living. Are you? @@thethirdman225
the actor who played Hitler really scares me because of his eyes and how he portrayed this character
A shame he looked nothing like Hitler. Which is quite an achievement, because you'd expect anyone to look like Hitler with the right moustache and hair.
@@MV-sn1kf totally agree 😢
@@MV-sn1kf agreed, the actor would be better off playing someone else other than Hitler. Like Joseph Goebbels.
@@HWDragonborn The actor's name is Ulrich Matthes, and yes, he played Goebbels before in "Der Untergang" with Bruno Ganz as Hitler.
@@HWDragonborn In fact that is who he played in the movie Downfall.
Whether or not it's true what the end credits say, let's all at least admit that this was a very well put together film, beautiful music and superb acting by the cast
Yes. A lot of viewers, as well as myself, would agree with you. However... beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Though you may believe your comment to be harmless... Injecting, "let's all at least admit" is rather pretentious.
Please... Don't get twisted. Some people just don't like to be swayed to admit to anything that they might otherwise wouldn't.
@@Seemsayin takes home the award for weirdest thing to be offended by!!! 🏆🎉 Congratulations!
@@user-ko8yx3ny4q And J takes the award for NOT Paying Attention, thus NOT Understanding. Hence... Replying Like A Twelve Year Old!!! Kudos!
@@Seemsayin Lol just because you say thus and hence it doesn't make you any smarter or make what you said seem less petty and irrelevant. Plus you didn't have to say my name twice, it was already there when you hit reply. Have a good day finding other nonsensical things to be upset about!!
@@user-ko8yx3ny4q Ya know something, J? I tried to be as adult as I could when I initially commented. Apparently, it wasn't worded soft enough for you. So, you're telling me that *I'm* being upset, when in fact... I was nothing short of mature and polite? So now... you believe that I deserve your pitchforks & torches routine? Truth is... you don't handle criticism very well, and apparently, you have a problem with anyone typing your name more than once.
If my criticism was that petty, and nonsensical... then why get SO bent out of shape? Why continue to insult me? All I did was point out how you MIGHT be perceived when asking a question, worded in the manner in which you typed it. You could have simply ignored me, told me to mind my own business, or simply said "ok". I would have been fine with any of those. But, *you chose to belittle me.*
You have yourself a good day, too, J.
Jeremy Irons was a very good Neville Chamberlain
I loved this film. The music was fantastic and the characters were compelling. I found the relationship between the two men very interesting and really felt for Lena.
As a proper film buff, I loved this film. It makes so many things about WW2 personal. Personal for Chamberlain, personal for the Germans and personal for everyday Brits.
yes!
And, like the film, ignored the fate of the people who it most concerned, the Czechs! Although, they were referred to in the film, as in Why aren't the Czechs here? Imagine if, in a few hundred years time, a foreign country decided to invade Britain on the basis that a minority of people whose ancestors originated from it lived there. And this was decided in the absence of the British by other countries. Just try to imagine, if you can.
@@annabelvnoucek2148 Well that's kind of the point of the film is that the Czechs were ignored all in the name of appeasing Hitler was was absolutely wrong.
@@davidgilmour2299 Is it? I thought it was tried to rehabilitate Chamberlain. Looking at a lot of the comments, it seems to have worked. I don't see many people noticing the Czechs at all, pretty much like what happened in 1938.
But not personal for Czechs... Nice.
Jeremy Irons fully restored Neville Chamberlain's legacy in that lovely performance alone in my view. History lover from South Africa 🇿🇦
I enjoyed the film and appreciated that the story gave a nuanced portrayal of Neville Chamberlain rather than caricaturing him as a fool. I WOULD have appreciated if the story had given us a brief "afterward" telling what happened to Legat and von Hartmann. I imagine that von Hartmann would have eventually ended up hanging by piano wire in Plötzensee prison.
It's a fictional story 😂 Use your imagination.
That same German officer, we saw in Inglorious Bastards, is at it again. Same demeanor, same... Ohhhh SHIT!
Great movie.
Yes, this guy deserves a mention. Makes your skin creep right from the second he comes into frame.
Absolutely right. August Diehl was even more terrifying here than in Inglourious Basterds. He gave me shivers every time he was on screen.
@@kasimirdenhertog3516 And he will play Josef Mengele in an upcoming movie about his fled to South America. If he was scarier than Hitler here even without being a high rank nazi officer, imagine him as the nazi doctor Mengele a.k.a The Angel of Death!
Superb acting by a great cast. A very well made movie. Jannis, Jeremy and George were all fantastic. Absolutely loved this movie.
Loved this movie.. Jeremy Irons as usual is a masterclass of acting. The actor portraying Hitler was amazing... you can see the cold calculated narcissist in his demeanor perfectly imitating his character.
At the Nuremberg trials, Keitel was asked the question: "Would Germany have attacked Czechoslovakia in 1938 if the Western powers had supported Prague?" The answer was: “Of course not. We were not strong enough from a military point of view. The goal of Munich (i.e. reaching an agreement in Munich) was to push Russia out of Europe, buy time and complete the armament of Germany.
So then why did it take Mussolini contacting Hitler to set up the Munich agreement? Wouldn't he have jumped at the proposition from Chamberlain if otherwise they were about to invade Czechoslovakia and weren't cable of winning?
@@Hutchyy Benito actually hated Hitler quite alot so...
Nazis very risked in 1938, Czechoslovakia had fortification and more than milion men mobilised, ofcourse Hitler would defeat us, but it would be pretty bloody if Czechoslovakia resisted and without Czechoslovak industry, there would be no conquering France that fast and easily. I always say that Czechoslovak tanks conquering France was a revenge for Munich agreement. 🙂
@@Pidalin The truth is that Czechoslovak tanks were totally insignifant in invasion of France... However they were very important in operation Barbarossa.
@@GrimmaStadguard but don't forget that even many self-propelled cannons like Hetzer were based on Czechoslovak models, it was not only classic tanks as we imagine them today
Loved this film!
pleasantly surprised: almost everything is just like the novel, but with enough variations to maintain the suspense. It's also fun to notice that it's filled with actors from The Crown 😄😄
It's not a bad movie at all. Although given the current situation in Europe, it's historical crap and bad message. You have to admit the mistake, then you can avoid it in the future. If you do not do this, you will repeat the same mistakes.
Had the same reaction, loved the movie and was sympathetic to chamberlain's position. That is until he is giving new information and absolutely ignores it.
I was waiting for Jeremy Irons to meet the king saying “ long live the king”
Loved this film! Great acting
This film was amazing
The actor playing Hitler looked nothing like him. Would have made a good Goebbels, though.
Probably because that's the same actor that already played Goebbels in The Downfall (Der Untergang). 😄
@@suspendedtwice4sayingrasis261 Now, Bruno Ganz played Hitler like nobody else. Shame he was...unavailable.
He looked funny😂 I was laughing whenever he appeared in the film 🤣
The British public initially supported the policy of appeasement. When Chamberlain returned from Germany with the promise of peace in our time he was treated as a hero.
As many others mentioned, I cannot share the glorified brilliant move of especially the British government, who also dragged French into signing that agreement. Leave alone the Italian fascist regime. You need to see it from the perspective of that time. Czechoslovakia was an industrial powerhouse and not only the whole population was raped by the smart-ass western politicians in short-sighted hope but they actually caused Hitler becoming stronger than ever and ready to attack Poland and France with Czech tanks, artillery and machine guns. The same figures had a share on the biggest disaster in Europe in next 5 years and decades after as a result. Should we say that movie makers tried to offer us alternative delusional interpretation of history which is less shameful than what it really was? The film is otherwise great and I love the actors and the scenes, but it is desperately missing the context that would probably make for other 3 films to explain the history of Sudetenland and the Czechs incorporated in the Austro-Hungary and even their relationship with Germany and the rest of Europe in the centuries preceding. Than the resolutions would clearly not be acceptable to anyone anymore. Even more important now in 2022 is to show everyone that the resolution of same situation with same attitude will lead to same problems and a gargantuan disaster. Don't let the history repeat. You had a chance to learn on the case of Czechoslovakia, whose people suffered next 50 years because of that and whose people were either executed during the war, or after the was by communists, leading to massive exile and the whole country was dragged back Europe was zoned and the iron curtain separated it for decades of living in fear. So how smart was Chamberlain's decision really?
Pretty much all of that is incorrect.
I really enjoyed the film. Chamberlain is often looked at in a negative light for his appeasement strategy but this was an interesting different perspective. Very well paced and brilliant acting made it feel tense with the stakes while the historical outcome was already known.
It's factually inaccurate in trying to portray Chamberlain as playing some "long game". But it's fiction, not history.
@@zippymufo9765 Are you going to back that up at all?
Great little stay-at-home film , every film about Churchill is quick to point out how weak Chamberlain was in dealing with Hitler, but that scene at the end makes him come off as being stuck between the hammer and the anvil. WW1 was a traumatic experience for Europe and that generation did not wish to repeat the decadence of the old monarchies
The end Is like.
We have given all the country of the world except us, without their consent. Finaly peace
But Is was great movie.
To everybody harping on and on about "British Betrayal of the Czechs"; Under the Munich Agreement, the United Kingdom and France did not cede Czechoslovak sovereign territory. Rather, the two Western powers agreed not to intervene with Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland, leaving it up to Czechoslovakia's leadership to decide to fight or not.
I'm inclined to think that his decision was the least bad one to be made. In the best-case scenario, the Munich Agreement could have averted the Second World War altogether. If a small border change could have averted war, this would have been a good thing. It might even have been defensible: I noted in my answer to Did the people in the Sudetenland want to be part of Germany? that, notwithstanding the shared history of Czechs and Germans in the Lands of the Bohemian Crown, the impulse of the two populations when nationalism emerged in the 19th century was to separate, and that Germans in the Sudetenland had long been separatist by inclination. Their territories had stayed part of Czechoslovakia following Austria-Hungary's collapse only because the Czechoslovak army had been sent in. I'm personally not opposed to the idea of separatism, not even in the case of Québec in my Canada. If the Sudetenland's population wanted to secede to Germany, and this secession would have preserved the peace in Europe, what not allow it?
Of course, for this best-case scenario to have worked, Nazi Germany would have needed to have been a polity that would stop with the Sudetenland, that it would have been satiated with this annexation and go no further. In hindsight, we know that Nazi ideology, which claimed all central and eastern Europe to be rightful German land, would not have permitted this. It's not clear to me that this was known to enough people at the time of the Munich Agreement. If it had been, it's entirely possible Chamberlain would have made this decision.
This leads us to the one benefit of the Munich Agreement, its postponement of the war. Neither Britain nor France were prepared for war, particularly for an offensive war against Germany. Their fleets and armies were not in order, their air defenses were not effective, their civil defense non-existent and their alliances tottering. Postponing war in Europe gave these powers time to re-arm, to prepare their militaries for war and to start building up their foreign alliances. This postponement not only worked to the benefit of Britain and France, it also worked to the detriment of Germany, for as shown by historian Adam Tooze in his The Wages of Destruction the Nazi economy was tottering. Had war been postponed to the 1940s, the German economy might have collapsed first, neatly undermining the German threat.
Would it have been preferable if Britain and France have guaranteed Czechoslovakia's independence and its 1920-1938 frontiers against Nazi Germany? Yes. For it to have done any good, the two powers would have been able to effectively make the guarantee. At the time, they were not. A Munich Agreement that postponed the outbreak of war, giving them time, was likely the best arrangement possible.
France was a guarantor as Britain was a guarantor for Poland (and we all know what that meant when Chamberlain had to declare war on Germany - for it was he who actually went to war with the Nazis in the end). The point was that if France had honoured its treaty obligations (and I would say nobody really ever blames the French which is odd), then Britain would have been joined in by its own treaty obligations with France. Henlein staged incidents of abuse for the British delegation to the Sudentenland to show how Sudenten Germans were being treated, so Sudenten Germans (pretending to be Czechs) attaked Sudenten German property. Much in the same way, German prisoners were dressed in Polish uniforms to attack the radio station to show how Germany was justified in defending itself against Poland - hence why it invaded. A lot of things were fabricated to provide an excuse. War with the Nazis could never have been averted by appeasement. People at the time knew it - those who were living in the affected countries, those who fled Germany in the years up to 1938 (think of the Nicholas Winon as just one example) and even a few British politicians. Read the speech of the Duff Cooper who resigned and whose final words were 'at least I can still walk about the world with my head erect'. The British had embassies. Either the staff were incompetent or the British government ignored what they were told. Either way, the British are culpable. I suggest watching The World at War, narrated by Laurence Olivier, for anyone who want a factual account.
@@annabelvnoucek2148 you would have to be naive to think Appeasement would have worked to make peace. that was never the issue. as I've said before Britain an france was in no position to wage war, much less an offensive war against Germany. the issue with the French was that they tied their foreign policy to the British who much like in the Rhineland, did NOT want war with Germany. and for good reason.
The Sudetenland is an artificial formation in Bohemia and Moravia. It has always been their territory for a thousand years. The Germans moved there. Would you dedicate part of Great Britain to the Poles if they settled in one territory where there were most of them than the native British? Today it is a current topic such as Crimea, Donbas, Donetsk. The Czech territory has been Germanized for centuries and the Ukrainian territory has been Russified. Would you like someone to betray you and leave your territory to someone else, without British officials at the conference? Yes, it is betrayal.
@@LesAnanas1701 I am certainly not naive. I was brought up by a mother who watched thousands of Czechs being driven out of their homes, a girl who had to become very street wise in a country occupied by the Nazis (and never forgave their cruelty) and a father who managed to escape the Nazis to fight for Britian. Czechs know about betrayal.
"Rather, the two Western powers agreed not to intervene with Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland, leaving it up to Czechoslovakia's leadership to decide to fight or not." - That is not historically accurate and rather manipulative. France and Britain threatened Czechoslovakia that they would not interfere and they would let Hitler to take whole Czechoslovakia by force. Ofc, you could say that thay could defend themselves. Well, Germany is five times bigger. Czechs strategy in case of a German attack was to hold the sudetanland bunkers ring as long as it would take for western allies to come to help. Allies betrayed them and they should be stading against nazi (which the west feared) alone? Also the text literally speaks about "cession and occupation"
"I noted in my answer to Did the people in the Sudetenland want to be part of Germany?" - The land was historically Czechia and the Germans were there on a borrowed land. Why it should become theirs? They were free to leave. After the WW1 there were bunkers and defence so it made no sense to sacriface them. It wasn´t a small border change, it was almost 18% of Czechoslovakia.
"It's not clear to me that this was known to enough people at the time of the Munich Agreement." - It was. Chamberlain knew it for sure, Beneš warned them and that is also why Czechoslovakia was prepared, there was a mobilization and the army was ready.
About the postponing thing - it also postponed a war for Germany, getting them more prepared as well. Czechoslovakia had a quite big and modern army and it was one of the most industrial country in central Europe, so again, why to give him this advantage?
sorry for my English, tried my best, I am not so used to writing as I am to talking. Greetings to Canada!
Excellent video!!! Congratulations. Best analysis i've seen about this wheels. Greetings from CDMX!
Saludos paisano desde tracy California
It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart-the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour. Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that Neville Chamberlain acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned.
*Winston Churchill's eulogy of Neville Chamberlain in 1940
Amazing movie, touching with a great cast
best actor to play Chamberlain. I can only guessed budget constraint as the reason for whoever played the skinny short Hitler.
Awesome acting and production 👍
Por más films de George Mackay en Netflix!!
Love him. Have you seen Sunshine On Leith. He sings and dances, as well playing an emotional role brilliantly.
@@ozbrizzie8869 se cuál es pero no pude verlo aún porque no tengo como. Ojalá Netflix lo suba!♡ Hasta ahora todo lo que vi de George es fantástico. No sólo las películas, también la música y los cortos. Viste el de Ataraxia? Infinit. Pieces? Faaa es alucinante ,un artista completo!
The western power’s betrayal of Ukraine? Haaaan?
For us in Ukraine it looks like today
Yes Its also came to my mind while I was watching this movie
But the east did not betray
I remember in 2014 when Putin took Crimea and nothing happened to him, nobody really protested, it was the same what happened to Czechoslovakia in 1938. That's why we were so scared back in the day, many people believed that there will be WWIII. Today, we are already used to such news, which is also crazy that you can get used to all those "WWIII" scenarios that you stop caring about that. These plans are always like "Czechia will be a buffer zone, boths sides will drop nukes there" and Czechs are like: "Who cares, that's old"
I thought it was good. Did Chamberlain really know what he was doing or was he just a coward? Did he know that war was inevitable so he played for time before full blown war, or was he just avoiding war?
Nope, you must see Neville Chamberlain perspective... He knew WW1 is devastated event in europe and people scare about that, so make agreement peace with hitler is most logical than wanting the war
This happened in US too. US government want joint with Britain and France in the war but the people at time wanting peace so after Japanese imperial attack pearl Harbor for people got new perspective when the peace condition can't happened.
I think he really believed he is doing good thing, but we should not repeat this mistake again, now, we now that it doesn't work. When Putin took Crimea, we all knew that it's just a start, he took Crimea and nothing happened to him, only few countries sent letter that they don't agree and that was all, so he knew that he can take more later. Fortunately, world has changed a lot since 2014. If Ukrainians will decide to give some land to Putin to stop the war, it's their decision, but we can't order them to to that as UK, France and Italy did in 1938 with Czechoslovakia.
Neville Chamberlain was no coward.
@@thethirdman225 Chamberlain was coward and traitor of the europe. To think, naively, that making a deal with a dictator who had announced many years before that he would restore Germany's glory, that he wanted peace, was the biggest stupid decision of the twentieth century. Germany should have been stopped at the demilitarization of the Rhineland, at most at the Munich betrayal. If anyone is to blame for the wasted lives in Europe, it is Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Chamberlain.
Love this movie♥️ so import we remnber to all lost they lives in WW2 and we need stand up togther agianst hate and rasismen , and we help other and eather♥️♥️ We can make a diffrent and make a diffrent togther♥️
Great movie.
Franz looked familiar until i realized he was a Nazi too in Inglorious Bastards.
As a Czech, I don't even know if I want to see that movies, this is so sensitive topic which most of people from other countries totaly don't understand, I don't want to get angry. People who say we were allies of nazis or we were the nazis don't even know what are they saying. First - western countriers gave our land to Hitler and second - some UK person says that we were nazis, it's always so shocking how badly educated they are about these things. And this is also why Czech Republic was one of the first with help to Ukraine, because that what's happening on the east of Ukraine reminds us 1938, we can't order other countries to give land to the agressor in name of peace as France and UK did in 1938. We call it "about us, without us" and 1938 is also reason why many people after WWII voted commies, because they considered west as traitors. With no 1938, communists would probably not win elections in 1946 and Soviets would have much harder times with installing dictature here.
The most sad thing is that even Poles are very badly educated about this topic and they still spread a lot of antiCzechoslovak propaganda from that perior of time, which is just sad.
The Second World War began for the Czechs in 1938
Yeah, and some people (mainly Poles) think they only they suffered and Czechs were just drinking beer and chilling or something, it's always so painfull to hear such opinions. These people should go and check all those memorials and look at those names, more than 300 000 people were murdered during protectorate which is a lot for such a small country.
@@Pidalin nejhorší pro nás byli Husitské války a Třicetiletá válka. Tehdy jsem přišli i o polovinu národa z důvodů války, nemoci, hladomoru. Dnes by jsme mohli klidně mít třeba 30 milionů.
@@Prometheus101 A kdo by těch 30 milionů živil? 😀
@@Pidalin jak uživil? Jak se dnes asi uživí 10 milionů lidí u nás a jak se uživí 40 milionů v Polsku? Dnes by velká města mohla mít trojnasobny počet obyvatel, trojnasobna ekonomika,....
@@Prometheus101 Polsko 4x větší rozlohu, takže stejná hustota zalidnění, navíc maj všude dobrou zemědělskou půdu a dělaj jídlo doslova pro celou Evropu, naše země má problém uživit těch 10 milionů lidí. Nebyli bysme soběstačný už naprosto v ničem.
In April 1939 USSR Foreign Minister, Maxim Litvinov, proposed a united front with UK and France against Nazi Germany. This could have prevented WW2 but they both rejected it. Litvinov was replaced by Molotov who in August 1939, signed the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact.
@@saadzaidi2202 That was the shadow of UK/Chamberlain's Appeasement policy ie strengthen Hitler and unleash him on the USSR. Hitler didn't want another WW1 two front war, so he attacked west before he unleashed the army east.
@@romanclay1913 That's a pretty incredible claim, it's going to need some incredible evidence
@@leonodonoghueburke4276 Michael Jabara Carley 1939: THE ALLIANCE THAT NEVER WAS AND THE COMING OF WWII. P. 127. This proposed treaty is ignored in most UK/US history books...for obvious reasons. UK strategy at Munich was to bring the nazis and USSR into conflict. Hitler attacked west to avoid another two-front war, before he invaded the USSR.
@@leonodonoghueburke4276 If the Litvinov alliance had been agreed upon by UK and France, Hitler would probably been overthrown by the German military and WWII avoided.
@@leonodonoghueburke4276 William Manchester THE LAST LION WINSTON CHURCHILL: ALONE 1932-40 pp. 450-6. This is one of the great bio-history tomes. Superb research, beautifully written and the highest drama.
So at the end of the day did hitler also directly attacked Britain? Chamberlain also used Czechoslovakia as tool to see what would hitler would do if he would invade.
Rubbish.
Some very funny bits. Clearly the casting director chose to ignore historical and social reality. And I write as someone whose uncle served Churchill personally during the war.
0:48 I think you mean earlier half of the 1930s. Hitler became Furher in 1934.
After Munich September 1938, in Paris, in the Chamber, a single realistic deputy declared to La Tribune on October 5, 1938 "You have just demonstrated to the world that it was imprudent and dangerous to be the friend of France. ..!"
Switched off after 5 minutes.
Handheld camera made me feel sick.
That's too bad. You missed a good movie.
Here we go... About us without us... again 😁🙈
such an amazing movie
Hugh legat reminds me, of mr hugh trevor-roper:(1914-2003)
Great film
This is still hard and painful to watch.
The worst part about the Munich agreement was that. If Czechoslovakia went to war with Germany, Britain would declare that as an act of aggression and ally with Germany. Putting the Czechoslovak government into a corner, and they could do nothing more than surrender to Germany.
The Czechs had no concrete position on the matter.
Look at that outline map after the Austria came under Nazi control at 1:00 - it was known as the "Wolf's Mouth" in the 30s. Hitler's geopolitical advantage was that he could invade in a matter of hours. The Western Powers wouldn't even be out of bed... It's the flip of Clausewitz's much (mis)quoted phrase "war is the continuation of politics with other means"; a "bloodless" war to achieve a political end. Chillingly relevant today if you look further East to Ukraine.
The peace between Britain and Germany lasted only a year and under heavy criticism Chamberlain resigns and enters Churchill , Munich document gave Allies the warning shot
Remind me… who declared war?
I cringed so much when the Indian lady said ‘if you want to know where I’m from, im from Nottingham’. Bruh no one would have spoken like that in the 1930s. That’s the woke bs you expect people would say in todays climate
She's pretty though
Think about it. We as white North Americans (I’m Canadian) should and do feel guilt and sadness towards slavery. Why shouldn’t modern day Germany feel the same towards the Jewish people. They should!!! Our parents grandparents caused this. No we don’t belong In jail or killed. But it is our responsibility to make sure this never happens again !!! If not us … WHOOOOO ?
White North Americans did not invent slavery. Why would you feel sorry for something you didn’t commit? Practically every country on earth at one point in time condoned slavery. Slavery still exists to this day in Africa, Asia, etc.
Watched the movie. Those 2 spy always act nervously.
I did not see the movie but in general I can understand Chamberlain´s perspective. There was no direct Alliance Treaty between Great Britan and Czechoslovakia. In addition, Czechoslovakia was a relatively new country about which British people hardly knew anything. Technically speaking Britain did not betray us. The country which acted in breach of an Alliance Treaty was France only. History showed, however, that Chamberlain was completely wrong. Among other things he "donated" Hitler around 40 divisions of Czechoslovak army which, if I am not wrong, was considered the second strongest in the region, plus the military industry which was highly developed in Czechia. Many people in the Czech republic still believe that even left alone and heavily outnumbered the mobilised Czechoslovak army should have resisted. We would have lost the fight, no doubt. Czechoslovak generals told the government that we could hold alone for not more than a couple of weeks. From this point of view I can understand the sort of "rational" desicion of chief military commander, Czechoslovak president Edvard Benes. To be honest I am almost sure that if I were in his shoes I´d choose the same, BUT despite the fact I believe this was another wrong decision following the wrong decision of Chamberlain. Czechoslovak army could have weakened Wehrmach which would than be less powerful when attacking Poland. As a result of Benes´s decision to withdraw the army from border fortifications many Polish people (whose ancestors bravely fought) believe that Czech people are cowards. The situation of Czechoslovakia was worse that the one of Poland since Czechoslovak government was "advised" that in case we engaged war over Sudetenland we would be considered an aggressor. But inspite of this fact I am far from being proud of this dark hour of Czechoslovak history. In 1968 when Warsaw Pact armies invaded Czechoslovakia the country was an "easy pray" as no resistence was expected. I was told that in the 80´s when Solidarita movement came to exist in Poland, Breznev hesitated to invade the country since he knew Polish people are fighters and was quite happy when Jaruzelski proclaimed martial law and handeled the situation himself. Any comments from Poland are welcomed since I am interested in history.
This started well but some of your conclusions were not completely fair. On the other hand, since you appear to be Czech and coming from a Czech perspective, I was quite interested.
But I should add that the trope of 40 divisions is not very helpful. In 1938, the Czech Army had 14 regular divisions, with another 15 made up of reservists, volunteers and fortress troops, all of varying quality and indifferently led by generals who got their positions for largely political reasons.
@@thethirdman225 Yes, I am Czech, I assume you are British. I am very happy you replied to my comments. I do not want to be dogmatic about Munich Treaty the way the communists were for forty years. As I said, if I were in Chamberlain´s shoes and if it was the year 1938 I´d probably believe just as he did that I was saving “peace for our time”. But I hope you know how I feel about Munich Treaty. It was an ultimatum. Czechoslovak government was not allowed to participate in the meeting. It was an agreement to the detriment of a third party. I also believe this was the point when things started to go terribly wrong for Czechoslovak democracy. Many people felt betrayed and started to look East towards Moscow. Munich Treaty became a successful part of communistic propaganda. “They betrayed us and the Soviets liberated us” is what they were saying. They even construed a concept of “Double Betrayal”. "Not only France and Britain betrayed our workers but so did Czech and Slovak capitalists. In order to keep their possessions they rejected the military assistance from Soviets." I do not believe it at all. Stalin had no reason to go into war over Sudetenland in 1938 even without French military assistance. But many people believed this scenario. From this perspective you should understand that this is not Chamberlain but Winston Churchill who is quite popular in Czechia and his words "You chose dishonor and you shall have war" are often mentioned. From what I know, he was twice lobbing for Czechoslovakia. In 1938 and later in 1945 when he was trying to persuade American generals to allow George Patton to liberate Prague. As for the Munich crisis. There was a mandatory military service in Czechoslovakia. I admit I do not have exact data. Just a minority of the army seems to have been professional soldiers but I believe the remaining ones were properly trained too. Over a million of men were called to arms. The army was well organized since it was getting ready to resist German army from the beginning of the 30s´. I do realize that the Czechoslovak army was of little importance to France and Britain and no match for Wehrmacht. But due to border fortifications and mountainous areas along the borders it could resist for some time and weaken Wehrmacht as I said. This is my opinion at least. I do not think that lack of training was an issue. There were different problems which need to be admitted. Many of the soldiers were Sudeten Germans and it was unpredictable what they would do if the war started. In addition, the Slovak soldiers were far less motivated to defend the Czech borderland than the Czech soldiers. The fortifications were not completed, some of the fortresses were missing weapons. This is what I consider the major risk of a potential fight. Apart from military issues, there is one more impact of seizure of Czechoslovakia. From the times of the Czech Crown and later the Habsburg Monarchy Czechia had a modern industry. This industry was largely abused by Hitler for military production after Wehrmacht occupied the reminder of Czechoslovakia. As I also said, I am very realistic and I know how countries from the former Soviet block are looked upon in the West. I, of course, can not make you like my country. But I do like Great Britain. 😊 I was in London in 1994 and making another trip to this city is a part of my bucket list. 😊
@@Jan-km3ir
*_"I assume you are British."_*
I'm Australian but it probably doesn't have a lot of influence on what I think. Nobody here has any idea about the Munich Agreement.
*_"But I hope you know how I feel about Munich Treaty."_*
Yes and it interesting.
*_"I believe this was the point when things started to go terribly wrong for Czechoslovak democracy. Many people felt betrayed and started to look East towards Moscow. Munich Treaty became a successful part of communistic propaganda. “They betrayed us and the Soviets liberated us” is what they were saying."_*
This was the bit I found interesting and I agree more than disagree. The question I'd ask is this: could this have simply been nationalism, rather than communism? Because it seems to have been consistently applied whether the government was communist or liberal democratic. The claim appears to have lost none of its impetus. And as you say - quite righty - Stalin had no reason to go to war over the Sudetenland. There is an interesting comparison here with France: both would have to cross neutral or hostile countries to get to Czech territory. Going by sea was not an option.
*_"As I also said, I am very realistic and I know how countries from the former Soviet block are looked upon in the West. I, of course, can not make you like my country."_*
Yours is a well considered point of view. Not because we basically agree but because you're not simply parroting the same grievances as everyone else. I've read quite a bit abut it and from what I can tell, you're right. You've raised a couple of points - like the loyalty of Sudeten German soldiers - that I hadn't considered and don't remember reading about.
By the way, my view of Eastern European countries is probably a bit different from that. I simply take them as they come, on the basis of what the people are like.
Fantastic film. Really love this one 👌
Czechoslovakia had the 5th most developed heavy industry in the world at that time and Herr Hitler needed these factories for war preparations. Also, it was a very calculated move, since the Sudetenland territory was where all Czechoslovak defense fortresses were located. So when Daladier, Chamberlain and Mussolini agreed for Hitler take this land, this rendered Czechs defenseless. If Czechs did fight for their land despite the Munich agreement (which was about us but without us), we could be possibly looked upon as the ones who started the war. Politics and history are a tricky business. We were betrayed by western allies. Like Chuchill said, they had picked shame and got war.
yeah but the US shouldnt go into war with Russia over Ukraine.
He bought much-needed time for the U.K by sacrificing the millions of people, what a man... lol
Chamberlain was a servant of the *British* people. He put *his country's* interests before all others.
Also, didn't the major Western powers need time to prepare for war?
@@Redactedredacted5837 All this ignores the fact that Hitler had already breached Versailles by re-arming hugely, retaking the Rhineland and annexing Austria. His generals were against these actions. Hitler used bluff to proceed and no one stood up to him or stopped him. He could have been stopped years before Munich. The fact is that a lot of British politicians and the aristocrisy rather liked Hitler. They thought he was good for Germany and they turned a blind eye to the persecutions of Jew, Gypsies, homosexuals, dissenters , communists etc that were already happening. It reminds me of the children's game 'What's the time Mr Wolf?'
@@saadzaidi2202 Yes, and didn't it work well!!!
Ulrich Mathers a well splendid actor didn’t fit the appearance of Hitler in this movie. Heinrich Himmler’s character also wasn’t of the same appearance either
Good film but the guy who played Hitler 😂🤦🏻♂️
Why ?
The movie failed to point out that Hitler ambitions was never to conquer all of Europe but only in the East against the Soviet Union, which he believed his aryan people were superior to the Slav’s. He never wanted to go to war with the Allie’s and he even proposed an alliance with them when the time came of war against Bolshevism. Still he was absolute Monster.
Not the perspective of Chamberlain that is repeated ad nauseum. Chamberlain is looked on so poorly by most because of who succeeded him. Delaying the war was the right decision as Anglo-French military spending would have overtaken the Germans in 1941. Delaying the war allowed for the military strength to be more even.
as a Czech this movie was pretty bad
Did the guy who played Hitler did he have his voice distorted?
Ponen muy bien a Chamberlain, muy preocupado por la paz, lo que no dice es lo poco que le importó los españoles y los checos
Ok
They should’ve casted hitler from “THE WORLD WARS “ history tv show. This guy looks nothing like him
I like Robert Harris but he's pushed his luck a step too far by attempting to rewrite history in such a way that Neville Chamberlain is revised from a massive loser
in to one of the most unacknowledged and greatest heroes of the 20th Century. It's a nice story but Chamberlain never manipulated Hitler into anything.
I just watched this movie !! Fucking intense
So Neville, your old mate Hitler can be trusted?
Oh yes yes dear sir, nothing to worry about.
Some in power were fanciful dreamers...especially when others bodies were on the line..he was stupid..didn't listen when common man did..what do they care anyway..not their bodies on the line
Jeremy Irons is great, but overall the movie is average at best. It was clearly written by someone with very little historical knowledge. It seems like the writer spent 15 minutes on Wikipedia reading about the Munich crisis then decided it would make a great teen movie. Millennials will probably love this movie and historians will be repulsed by it.
31 year old with a History degree here..I loved this movie. Probably because I don't look for every movie to be 100% historically accurate since you know, it's Hollywood.
@@user-ko8yx3ny4q perhaps you just have low standards and/or prefer simple films.
@@ajdoubleyou6781 Or maybe I'm not some simp with a false sense of intelligence and instead just watches a movie to be entertained. You want an educational film on the Munich conference go watch a documentary, there are quite a few.
@@user-ko8yx3ny4q Maybe you just have low intelligence and gravitate toward simple films that are easier for someone like you to understand. I bet you really enjoy superhero movies too, don’t ya??
@@ajdoubleyou6781 Rofl and that's 100% confirmation that you are a true blue moron. Literally despise super hero movies. Any other theories professor?
Only thing I didnt like is the Hitler actor lol mine as well have made him black, not even close
Yeh, let's stick a random black guy in there to make the Netflix quota. Oh, and don't forget the pointless role for the Asian secretary. Woke Netflix at its worst!
umm there were black people and asians in the british empire you ignorant child.
@@14dwebb Nothing against black people or any colour but just making the point it's Netflix casting roles totally out of context.
I don't think the Asian secretary was pointless. There was a Sikh woman who was a spy for Britain during WWII so that casting was based on a real person.
You know, no one even notices stuff like that except from you. You're just a little racist.
only a true racist would be bothered by a minor role like this. they love outing themselves with a dart on their forehead.
I watched this movie same night I watched Darkest Hour (second time) and as much as I loved DH, I absolutely hated this film. I don't understand why I disliked it so much as I really enjoy movies portraying periods in history. I can only say it was a struggle to finish it. Maybe because it was portraying one of history's most successful monsters? I prefer good guys.
Du träumst
154
Did hitler really have the world snowed Was there any inkling that he was evil
Brilliant movie