March 1939. Nazi ‘diplomacy’ and the dissolution of Czechoslovakia
On March 13, 1939, Adolf Hitler received Slovak leaders Jozef Tiso and Ferdinand Durcansky at the Chancellery in Berlin. Among those present were Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and high-ranking military officials, including Generals Walther von Brauchitsch and Wilhelm Keitel. Hitler made his intentions clear. ‘Czechoslovakia owed it to Germany that she has not been mutilated further. […] Yet the Czechs had not appreciated this. […] Did Slovakia want to lead and independent existence or not? It was a question not of days but hours. If she hesitated or refused to be separated from Prague, he would leave the fate of Slovakia to events he was no longer responsible’1. The next day, March 14, Slovakia declared its independence under German influence.
This maneuver was merely a precursor to Hitler’s ultimate goal—the dismantling of Czechoslovakia. That same evening, Czech President Emil Hacha and his Foreign Minister František Chvalkovský arrived in Berlin. Though given the formal honors due to a head of state, their reception was anything but diplomatic. At 1:15 a.m. the next morning, Hitler informed them of their country’s impending and inevitable doom at the hands of the German army. ‘Hacha and Chvalkovský sat as though turned to stone’ noted Dr. Schmidt who attended this meeting. As was his custom, Hitler wanted to give his victims time to brood over what they have just been told and asked for a recess. Nazi leaders Hermann Göring and Ribbentrop escalated the pressure. Chvalkovský protested against the outrage to their nation. […] They [Goering and Ribbentrop] literally hunted Dr Hacha and M. Chvalkovský round the table on which the documents were lying, thrusting them continually before them, pushing pens into their hands, incessantly repeating that if they continued in their refusal, half of Prague would lie in ruins from bombing within two hours and that this would be just the beginning.’2 Ultimately, Hacha capitulated, and by March 15, Nazi troops occupied Bohemia and Moravia, reducing the country to a German protectorate. The fate of Czechoslovakia and the indirect complicity to her demise by the Western guarantors is well known. The Munich Agreement of 1938 deluded the appeasers but not Hitler. The brutal, coercive ‘diplomacy‘ of the Nazi regime was the prelude to the global conflict that erupted only a few months later.
February 2025. Different Meetings, Similar Patterns.
On February 28, Donald Trump received Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House. The official protocol of hosting a head of state was observed. Flanked by two Marines, the U.S. President welcomed his guest, shook his hand, and—flashing a smirk—turned to the press:: “He’s all dressed up.” An innocent joke or maybe a bad omen?
Inside the Oval Office, the Ukrainian president found himself outnumbered. The room was packed with Trump’s team and members of the press. Vice President J.D. Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio sat loyally by their master’s side. Trump, known for his unpredictable rhetoric, was direct but ambiguous when asked about his stance in relation to Zelensky and Putin. “I’m aligned with the United States of America,” he declared. And there was more: “I’m aligned with Europe. I want to see if we can get this thing done. You want me to be tough? I could be tougher than any human being you’ve ever seen.“
Why don’t you wear a suit? You own a suit? A lot of Americans have problems with you not respecting this office!
This is how an American journalist would address a foreign head of state in the Oval Office
Vice President Vance, the self-proclamed ‘hillbilly’, took a more confrontational approach. When Zelensky questioned U.S. diplomacy’s effectiveness since 2013, the Ohioan who, in the past had called his own boss ‘reprehensible’, shot back, “Mr. President [to Zelensky], with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come to the Oval Office and litigate this in front of the American media. You should be thanking the president for trying to bring diplomacy into this conflict.” The Independent would later observe: “On multiple occasions, Vance asked a stone-faced Zelensky if he had ever said ‘thank you’ for U.S. military assistance.”3 Stone-faced — a chilling echo of Hacha and Chvalkovský in 1939.
Zelensky however had not requested media presence—his hosts had. But in the glare of the cameras, he refused to be the proverbial lamb led to slaughter. The situation only worsened when Trump weighed in: “We gave you, through the stupid president, $350 billion. We gave you military equipment. You and your men are brave, but they had to use our military [equipment]. If you didn’t have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks.” The undertone was clear—Ukraine was being pressured into a compromise that could even involve ceding territory to Russia, thus mirroring the bullying tactics of Hitler and his cronies.
The Questions That Remain
Beyond the spectacle, several troubling questions arise. Why is President Trump willing to compromise on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine? When has he shown such willingness in other domestic or international affairs?
Trump claims he wants to be remembered as a peacemaker. Yet, how does he reconcile this with insulting his predecessor and undermining Ukraine’s resistance against Russia? Is his version of peace merely a financial calculation?
Perhaps the most grotesque moment of the meeting came when a journalist, Brian Glenn, asked Zelensky, “Why don’t you wear a suit? You own a suit? A lot of Americans have problems with you not respecting this office.” The sheer pettiness of the question was staggering. Leaving aside that Zelensky has not been seen wearing a suit since the beginning of the hostilities, why fixate on attire when discussing war and sovereignty? How is it possible for someone standing in that prestigious office to descend into such shamelessness? Didn’t this so-called journalist’s mother ever teach him that ‘clothes don’t make the man’?
The Cognitive Dissonance of Trump’s Supporters
How is it possible that Americans who voted for Trump a few months ago can still cheer in spite of this disgraceful spectacle? As Prof. Doris Kearns-Goodwin would say, ‘a leader is supposed to inspire and to show empathy’. How can genuinely decent and intelligent Americans can stand behind such a president? Leon Festinger’s 1956 study When Prophecy Fails may offer a plausible explanation for this unwavering support. He examined cognitive dissonance by infiltrating a doomsday cult led by Dorothy Martin (alias Marian Keech), who predicted a catastrophic flood would occur on December 21, 1954 and that true believers would be rescued by aliens. When the prophecy failed, instead of abandoning their beliefs, cult members rationalized the failure, claiming that their faith had saved the world. Festinger and his colleagues observed that people experiencing cognitive dissonance (the discomfort of holding contradictory beliefs) often resolve it by doubling down on their beliefs rather than admitting they were wrong. What do Trump supporters do when he displays erratic thinking and outrageous behaviour? They double down.
The Puppet Master: Putin
When Putin came to power over a quarter of a century ago, Svetlana Alliluyeva, daughter of Joseph Stalin, had warned: “Russia is quickly sliding back into the past—with that awful former KGB-spy now as an acting president! I do hope and believe the people will not vote him into the Presidency—but, then of course elections always could be rigged…”4 Her personal experience and a life indelibly marked by trauma meant that nothing could fool the tough septuagenerian. When Putin was finally elected she was indignant: “Russia has changed the flag and some names, to be sure—yet it is still the same USSR, so far as I am concerned”5 adding that Putin was reviving her father’s cult of personality.
The Russian influence is undeniable. American historian Timothy Snyder, in his book The Road to Unfreedom (2018), dug deeper into the matter6. He meticulously details Russia’s interference in European and American politics since 2012. Basically, the soviet ghost has reincarnated into a fascist body under Putin. The most recent example of one of its victims is Romania, a country whose elections results were voided following an unprecedented decision reached by the Romanian Constitutional Court. Snyder has also argued, with remarkable foresight, that Trump is indebted to Russia and ‘at some point Putin will come to collect’. Is Trump merely a willing participant in a broader strategy orchestrated by Moscow? Could this be that moment?
One thing is certain: Putin doesn’t need to sit at the table—his presence is already felt in every word spoken.
SOURCES
- William L. Shirer, The rise and fall of the Third Reich, Fawcett Crest, New York, 1970, pg. 595-596 ↩︎
- Ibid., pg. 598-601 ↩︎
- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-zelensky-transcript-white-house-b2706927.html ↩︎
- Rosemary Sullivan, Stalin’s Daughter – The extraordinary and tumultuous life of Svetlana Alliluyeva, Forth Estate, London, 2015, pg. 694 ↩︎
- Ibid., pg. 695-696 ↩︎
- Timothy Snyder, The road to unfreedom, Tim Duggan Books, New York, 2018, pg. 196 ↩︎
*The video of the White House meeting is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2inaQ_dfHw
The Undaunted Historian 
Leave a comment