Disinfo: The Munich Agreement triggered WWII and the USSR was completely ignored


The Munich Agreement triggered WWII and the USSR was completely ignored. 81 years ago, the Wehrmacht invaded Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia as a result of the Munich Agreement signed the previous evening. If the reasons for the Second World War are to be commemorated in the EU today, it would be better to delete the reference to it, as in the controversial resolution of the EU Parliament – unlike the Hitler-Stalin Pact. Such a policy had unfortunately been pursued so far and threatened to trigger the fourth great war, despite the written offers of the Soviet Union to France and Czechoslovakia. The Soviet proposals were practically ignored. They had been accepted indifferently, if not contemptuously […] The events took place as if there had been no Soviet Russia. Then we had to pay dearly for it.  


Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about WWII. 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 criticised 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 Germany attacked Poland, Hitler and Stalin signed a non-aggression pact, also known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (23 August 1939). The deal was accompanied by a secret supplementary protocol on the delimitation of areas of mutual interest in Eastern Europe. In particular, Hitler and Stalin agreed to divide Poland. The agreement also indicated that the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, as well as Bessarabia and Finland, belonged to the respective areas of interest of Germany and the USSR. The Soviet Union attacked Poland on September 17, forcing the Polish army to fight on two fronts. Poland was divided according to the agreements of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The USSR later attacked Finland and annexed the Baltic states, all along the agreements with Nazi Germany. For more similar cases see here, here and here.


  • Reported in: Issue 167
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 01/10/2019
  • Language/target audience: German
  • Country: UK, USSR, Germany, France
  • Keywords: Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, European Union, Historical revisionism, WWII, Nazi/Fascist


Cases in the EUvsDisinfo database focus on messages in the international information space that are identified as providing a partial, distorted, or false depiction of reality and spread key pro-Kremlin messages. This does not necessarily imply, however, that a given outlet is linked to the Kremlin or editorially pro-Kremlin, or that it has intentionally sought to disinform. EUvsDisinfo publications do not represent an official EU position, as the information and opinions expressed are based on media reporting and analysis of the East Stratcom Task Force.

see more

JIT is not independent, but under the full control of Western security services

JIT is not an independent investigative commission, but under the full control of Western security services. The fear that the official investigators might try to cover something up is justified.


Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the downing of flight MH17. This Sputnik-article takes and presents only one comment of a reader to the topic of MH17 downing. This comment does not give any evidence on why JIT is dependent on Western security services and repeats pro-Kremlin narrative about 'anti-Russian position of JIT' in MH17 investigation. The Joint Investigation Team (JIT) is an independent investigative commission that was established to conduct criminal investigation concerning the downing of flight MH17. The JIT comprises officials from the Dutch Public Prosecution Service and the Dutch police, along with police and criminal justice authorities from Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine, where the crash took place. When in a criminal investigation two or more countries are cooperating, there are rules to be followed so that the results of the criminal investigation of the one country can be used in the criminal investigation(s) of the other country or countries. The purpose of the criminal investigation is to establish the facts of the case; determine the truth of what happened; identify those responsible for downing flight MH17 and gather criminal evidence for prosecution. The JIT conclusions were further corroborated by Bellingcat. For a summary of disinformation narratives on the case of MH17 see here.

2014 Kyiv coup led to Crimea referendum and Donbas war

Crimea carried out a referendum in 2014 after clashes in the Ukrainian capital which resulted in a violent coup d’état. The people of the peninsula voted to leave Ukraine and subsequently rejoined Russia. Later that spring, Donetsk and Lugansk declared their independence and refused to obey the illegal interim government in Kyiv.


Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the Euromaidan, the illegal annexation of Crimea, and the war in Ukraine. There was no coup d'état in Ukraine. The spontaneous onset of the Euromaidan protests was an organic reaction by numerous parts of the Ukrainian population to former President Yanukovych’s sudden departure from the promised Association Agreement with the European Union in November 2013. See the full debunk of this disinformation claim here. No international body has recognised the so-called Crimea referendum, announced on 27 February 2014, and held on 16 March 2014. Thirteen members of the United Nations Security Council voted in favour of a resolution declaring the referendum invalid. On the 27th of March 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution which stated that the referendum in Crimea was not valid and could not serve as a basis for any change in the status of the peninsula. On December 17, 2018, the UN General Assembly confirmed its non-recognition of the illegal annexation of Crimea . On the fifth anniversary of Crimea's annexation, the EU reiterated its position of non-recognition of the landgrab and continues to stand in full solidarity with Ukraine, supporting its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The international community, including the European Union recognizes and condemns clear violations of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity by acts of aggression by the Russian armed forces since February 2014.

Ukraine has been ruled by a US-funded client regime since 1991

Since Ukraine declared independence in 1991, Washington has invested billions of dollars in creating and propping up a client regime in Kiev simply because it saw the country as a bulwark against Russia.


The story advances a recurring pro-Kremlin narrative painting Ukraine as a crumbling, artificial country, too weak and divided to make its own strategic choices and thus forced to accept external governance. As a large and politically diverse country, independent Ukraine has elected six presidents since 1991, each with his own set of domestic and geopolitical priorities. Thus, the tenure of both Leonid Kravchuk (1991-1994) and his successor Leonid Kuchma (1994-2005) were periods of "multi-vector" balancing between Russia and the West; the pro-Western Viktor Yushchenko (2005-2010) was succeeded by pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych (2010-2014) who, upon his flight in disgrace from Ukrainian politics (and from Ukraine), was replaced by Petro Poroshenko. The latter was elected on a firm pro-EU platform and anti-Kremlin rhetoric during a period of large-scale military aggression by Russia. Since May 2019 the 6th President of Ukraine is Volodymyr Zelensky. There is nothing indicating that Ukraine's irregular foreign-policy record since 1991 constitutes an uninterrupted US effort to transform Ukraine into a "bulwark" against Russia. Consequently, there is nothing to support the claim that Ukraine is a client regime. See here for more cases on Ukraine being under external control.