Just deliver Donbas/Sudetenland to this guy if he wants it so much...
Romania did have another reason to join the Axis - they shared their intense anti-Semitism. It was the only non-German country during WW2 to run their own, independent, Holocaust. Unprompted by Germany.
"First: two Eastern European countries were on the wrong side of World War Two"
I think this is a typo: it obviously relates to World War I.
"Neville Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier, Adolf Hitler and Hermann Goering"
No, it's not Hermann Goering, it's Benito Mussolini.
From today's perspective, polish actions in 1938/39 were really stupid. Besides Zaolzie, we were busy with helping Hungary to take Carpathian Ruthenia (Zakarpacie) with diversions and military actions. Polish government was acting like there was no threat from Nazi Germany or USSR and Czechoslovakia was our biggest enemy.
The Maginot Line was started in 1929, so before Hitler came to power.
Majewski, writing about the diplomatic game around Munich in 1938, writes that Poland, if France had entered the war with Germany in defense of Czechoslovakia, would have joined the war on the side of France and Czechoslovakia. So Zaolzie was Zaolzie, but somehow these alliances could play out. Rather, the problem was that many of the actors in this game considered themselves weak -- they were waiting for some strong policeman to bring order, but were themselves afraid of the local donkey. Poland looked to France, France looked to Britain, and Britain did not feel ready to fight.
And all in all, rightly so. As true as such a "myth of betrayal" is, betrayal is only a myth here, at least in the case of 1939. Britain and France were not ready for war before 1941 -- so they showed as much help as they could.
Historical analogies aside, the point is that previous invasions - Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq etc - were also started with lofty ideals in mind whereas we now know the American public was lied to a lot of the time (the US involvement in Vietnam ramping up after a false flag operation, for example). Couple this with the incredible political influence of the Big 5 defense contractors, who all happen to be American, and there is a lot of basis for being sceptical in engaging US dollars in yet another overseas conflict. Additionally, Ukraine having a history of corruption does not help in allaying the fears that a lot of US taxpayer money will end up being stolen by oligarchs and corrupt politicians.
Grouchy Smurf mode:
'Europe as emerged from the Paris Peace Conferences' map is not a Paris Conference related map, but rather 1921 result of two Polish invasions on Lithuania, and Peace of Riga after Polish-Soviet war. Second Polish invasion being a nice model for 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
There's an official map annex to Treaty of Versailles, but my google-fu was too weak to find it. Though I'd assume it's a crude drawing rather than full blown map. Personally I'd rather use this one: https://images.natgeomaps.com/PROD_LG_1000px/HM19210200_1_LG.jpg
No wonder Lithuanians chopped down Piłsudski's oak in Druskininkai, his favourite summer resort, which was part of illegally annexed Lithuanian territory.
Got it, textbook history lesson taken and we knowappeasement didn’t work. But isn’t it a bit of a misleading, heavy-handed historical analogy? Donbas is not Czechoslovakia. The world is no more just about Europe’s internal dealings. Where is China, India, African continent in your analysis? You say the U.S. has no business in supporting Ukraine against Russia from the far? Just pure export of democracy as embodied by NATO? Come on.
I meant business as in: struggle over resources, money, access, present and future contracts, boost for arms industry and all related industries etc. It’s of course possible, and the system in question does exactly this, to legitimize this expansion for expansion’s sake as practicing solidarity, strengthening of democracy etc. The Empire must explain itself, creating a parallel reality as constantly morphing image of injustice as justice.