Disinfo: The Munich agreement began World War II

Summary

The West is engaged in historical revisionism. The historical truth is that the start of the war was not because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which the Western establishment likes to mention, but because of completely different documents. Do not forget that it was the Munich conspiracy that culminated in the policy of appeasing the aggressor and opened the way to WWII.

Disproof

This is a pro-Kremlin narrative which is itself a clear case of historical revisionism about the WWII and the Munich Agreement. The Munich Agreement (September 30, 1938), indeed, permitted German annexation of the Sudetenland, in western Czechoslovakia. The policy of appeasement towards Adolf Hitler was heavily criticized in Europe and proved to be a disastrous move. World War II began in Europe on 1 September 1939, when Germany invaded Poland. Great Britain and France responded by declaring war on Germany on 3 September. Before this, from May 1939 until August 1939, the UK, France, Poland and the USSR were trying to find a compromise to create a coalition during the so-called Moscow Negotiations. Polandcategorically refused to let the Red Army into its territory, fearing Soviet occupation. The USSR started in parallel negotiations with Germany and on 23 August 1939, signed theMolotov-Ribbentrop (Stalin-Hitler) pact, in which the Soviet Union and Germany divided their "spheres of interests" in Europe: the division of Poland, the Baltic countries, Finland, and Romania were agreed. On 1 September 1939, Hitlerattacked Poland, Soviet troops entered the territory on September 17 of the same year. From 3 September 1939, Great Britain and France were at war with Germany, creating an anti-Hitler coalition together with the expelled Polish government and other countries. Read a similar case that The Munich conspiracy of European powers launched WWII.

publication/media

  • Reported in: Issue 204
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 23/06/2020
  • Outlet language(s) Russian
  • Country: EU, Russia
  • Keywords: Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Historical revisionism, WWII
see more

A deliberate distortion, falsification of history occurs in Western countries

In the USA and many countries of Western Europe, the middle and young generation has a rather “original” and distorted idea of ​​the Second World War. These ideas are caused by objective and subjective reasons. Subjective reason is a deliberate distortion, falsification of history that occurs in Western countries in recent years. Objective ones are simply ignorance of the history about the participants, the results of the Second World War, based on modern cliches.

Disproof

This is part of the Kremlin’s campaign on historical revisionism on WWII in order to boost its legitimacy and deny the USSR’s responsibility in the outbreak of WWII. According to Kremlin's policy, the official Russian historiography is the only “true” way of interpreting the historical events about WWII. The European Parliament called the war the bloodiest tragedy of the century, which resulted in millions of victims of authoritarian regimes both of fascist Germany and the USSR. The European Parliament adopted a resolution, describing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 23 August 1939 as a key element causing World War II. The European Parliament also paid tribute to the victims of Stalinism, Nazism and other totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. The Western historians acknowledge the role played by the USSR in defeating Nazism and do not question the Soviet contribution to the victory in WWII and the status of the USSR as a country which had won in WWII. See other examples of Russian disinformation narratives on WWII in our database, such as bogus claims that Western countries revise history to avoid responsibility for allowing Hitler to attack the USSR; that the Soviet Union tried to create an anti-Nazi alliance but the West didn’t respond; that the USSR had no role in the outbreak of the war; that Western democracies are primarily responsible for this conflict; or that by defeating Nazism, Stalin atoned for crimes against his own people, European countries try to rewrite history of the WWII – Russia preserves the truth,,

Despite promises to the contrary, NATO has been expanding further eastwards

The Cold War is over, the enemy image of the Soviet threat has disappeared and communism has been driven out of Europe. NATO for its part, despite promises to the contrary, has been expanding ever further eastwards and today stands on the Russian border from the Baltic to the Black Sea.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about NATO and encircled Russia. The NATO enlargement was not "contrary to promises". NATO Allies take decisions by consensus and these are recorded. There is no record of any such decision having been taken by NATO. Even if there was a personal assurance from an individual leader, it could not replace Alliance consensus and does not constitute a formal NATO agreement. This promise was never made, as confirmed by Mikhail Gorbachev, then-president of the Soviet Union:

"The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up either".

Central and Eastern European countries began seeking NATO membership in the early 1990s. NATO actively sought to create a cooperative environment that was conducive to enlargement while simultaneously building special relations with Russia. Furthermore, NATO does not "expand" in the imperialistic sense as described by pro-Kremlin media. Rather, it considers the applications of candidate countries who want to join the alliance based on their own national will. As such, NATO enlargement is not directed against Russia. NATO's "Open Door Policy" is based on Article 10 of the Alliance's founding document, the North Atlantic Treaty (1949). The Treaty states that NATO membership is open to any "European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area". Every sovereign nation has the right to choose its own security arrangements. This is a fundamental principle of European security and one to which Russia has also subscribed. For similar cases on this topic, see, here, here and here.

MH17: Evidence collected by JIT could have been fabricated

Evidence from the MH17 crash, including that collected at the scene of the incident, could have been fabricated.

Disproof

Recurrent pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative on the downing of flight MH17 over Ukraine, aiming to discredit the criminal trial and the Joint Investigation Team (JIT). There is no proof that any of the evidence has been manipulated or falsified by the JIT. In order to find out the cause of the crash, the Joint Investigation Team investigated all human remains, personal belongings and wreckage of the aircraft found in the vicinity of the disaster site. The traces were secured and investigated and compared by experts. In addition, the JIT sought and heard witnesses and experts, analysed radar and satellite images, assessed large amounts of telecom data such as intercepted telephone conversations and analysed big data. Read more about the investigation here. The results of the investigation of the Joint Investigation Team are clear: flight MH17 was shot down by a missile from the 9M38 series, which was launched by the BUK TELAR system. The system was transported from the Russian Federation to an agricultural field near the city of Pervomaiskiy in Eastern Ukraine, from where the rocket was launched. After firing, the system, with one missing missile, returned to the Russian Federation. On May 24 2018, JIT announced in its conclusion that the Buk belongs to the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, a unit of the Russian armed forces in Kursk, Russian Federation. The public hearing on the incident started on 9 March 2020 in the Netherlands. You can see other examples of pro-Kremlin disinformation on the MH17 case in our database, such as claims that JIT tampered with the evidence; that the plane was not downed by a BUK missile, but rather by a Ukrainian fighter; that the plane crash was triggered by an explosion on board; that the trial in The Hague is not justice but information warfare; that Moscow-supplied radar data was rejected; or that the MH17 crash was planned by Ukrainian, American, and Dutch intelligence agencies.