Class Discussion 09/06 (Christine Porcaro, Week 4, Reflective)

In class today we discussed the 1938 Munich Affair when Hitler wanted to take over the Sudetenland. In the end the Sudetenland was given to Hitler so that conflict could be avoided. I know we talked about how this shows that alliances and treaties are not always full proof and that states should not rely on them (this all according to realist theory). This specific part of history showed that states for the most part will only help if they personally benefit. I understand this when thinking about the realist theory but I what I was wondering and what I was not sure that was clearly covered in class is how realists explain why Czechoslovakia gave up part of their land so easily? If according to realist theory Physical Survival is one of the key tenets, how do they explain the handing over of land? I feel that giving over land is just a sign of weakness that other states would take advantage of…which I guess could go on to explain World War II. I don’t know if this is a really fundamental and obvious answer but if states are supposed to be checking their balance against other states why would a country allow land to be taken away unless they felt that they were going to gain something more in the end? For me and I am not sure if I am knowledgeable enough on the subject but it seems to me that Czechoslovakia acted in a way that goes against realist thinking and I guess shows an anomaly in the realist construction of the international system. This also relates to our discussion in class on how different theories under different conditions and different assumptions can make total sense or seem totally misplaced and wrong. When talking about different theories each one has points that I can agree with but I can see that each theory that we have touched upon so far has used assumptions, specific situations and events to make a certain theory more plausible.