INQUESTS ON CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 165, 15 July 1939, Page 10 (Supplement)

INQUESTS ON CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Books In Review

IF the Munich Agreement was what at the time it was optimistically hoped it would be the end of the post-Versailles era and the beginning of a new era of international understanding and peaceful development the history of the events leading to it could be studied with keen interest. For certainly the developments in the troubled months which culminated in the. throat of war in September have not hecii fully understood except by a few ni privileged and eontidential positions. But the worsening of interiintioiinl relations since September and the virtiinl seizure last March of what remained of Czechoslovakia, impel most people to he interested in what will happen rather than what has happened. So three interesting hooks on the Czechoslovak nlfair arc now less interest ing than they might have been. Indeed, they arc hve interf«*tinjj now than when their writing was almost completed, fur the authors of two of them limil to add a postscript recording the (ieriimn seizure in Mnreh. The third had his book published before the event. Two Partisan Accounts The three books arc "Kyowii ness in Czechoslovakia" (Hnrr-ip). by Alexander Henderson, "L«wt Liberty?" (Chatto and WindiieK by .loan and Jonathan OrilTen, and "Where There i* No IVaee* (Macmillan), by Hamilton Fish Armstrong. Mr. Henderson was in Prague as the "Daily Herald' , correspondent an<l also as editor-in-chief of the Central European News Agency. Mr. and Mrs. <Jriffen were also on the spot. Mr. Armstrong, who is editor of "Foreign Affairs," was in the United States. Nevertheless*:, his book, while the least "readable." is the most valuable of the three. He has compiled all the known facts, first in a connected and eloselyrensoned narrative, and secondly in a chronology. His standpoint is that of a fair-minded hut critical judge. Both Mr..Henderson and Mr. and Mrs. Griffin are partisans. Probably any of us who had known and admired the

Czechs, and had seen the catastrophic events of September-October from the Czech side, would he partisan*, ton. l!ui each book contain* parts that are o; especial value. Mr. Henderson, in a chapter called "The Orjjn nidation of Disorder." describes in considerable detail the activities of the Heiilein party in the .Sudeten areas, particularly* from May onwards, in making impossible a settlement of the dispute within the limits of the Czechoslovak Constitution. He aleo gives an interest-

ing account of tVp fighting, after Munich, '(•twreM < " ■ ■'.. \ ">ps mill Hungarians ■ ■I !U; .;.*.;:.a 1... ! !":i«!eni Slovakia, 1 ..en some hundreds were killed. was in Prague la,st March when the (i'M'iuaiu came. ••Tlie Onii.-ins." lie says, "endeavoured ,„ injury tin- iMTupiiiimi i'f rzpchnnliivaklii "ii the trro 1 Hiiil the Kernn Cuvi'l-MllicTil Illlil r.-illen back iiitu Ilir "bail ways' iif the Bencs rejriliie. and was not eii-niiertillllK with I he Keich us it slionld. (If c.iursc it was not, <>E cimrsr I'.eran resisted as best he could. iSeran is a

Czech. There is not a sinele man _of r'-iiriv-ter in- ability in the Czech nation ~ : i would hnve done otherwise. The C/.i-i-lis linve passive resistance, the gift Hi silent obstructionism, in their bones. This by no means to the discredit of tlie Czechs, lint tliis estimate of their character l>3 - an admirer provokes the reflection that in tlie years and months leading up to last September the same "silent obstructionism" may have played a part, first in persuading- the Sudetens that negotiations with Prague would not avail them, and secondly in persuading Hitler that the Czech Government was not to be trusted. "Observer" at Munich Mr. and Mrs. Griffin give an exceedingly vivid description of the events in Prague during the crisis, especially after GodPfiberg, when the Czechoslovak forces were mobilised. Their main point is that the Prague Government, when it accepted the Anglo-French plan, did so conditionally, and that Britain and Fiance broke the conditions. The authors publish several documents from the Czech pidc. including a roport by Dr. Masaryk, who was one of the Czech "observers" at Munich. He describes how he and a colleague were summoned it nd told of what had been decided. It wae 1.30 in the morning. They asked for the elucidation of certain points. "Chamberlain yawned continuously without bothering himself in the least." They were told that nothing was expected of them, as the plan was regarded as accepted: there was no right of appeal or possibility of modification. Having regard first for such bitter experiences as this and others suffered by the Czechs, the authors are exceeding condemnatory of the British and French "betrayal." They completely fail to take into account that a Government in such a situation as the British Government found itself in last September and October, has information of which tho private citizen is ignorant. But certainly the arguments which Mr. Chamberlain chose to use in defence of the Munich Agreement look odd in the light of subsequent events.