https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact

Recently got banned in a community when I brought it up, when they talked about the latter.

I’m Indian, didn’t really have to read too much(on such treaties and other stuff. We do learn about the dates, major groups involved and our own people) about WW1 and WW2 before getting on the internet forums.
But how is it in Western countries?

Also, is the Bengal famine of 1943 taught?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
I only got the gravity of the situation after reading about it and seeing pictures on the net.

Are there any other events that should be more known by others, in your opinion?

I hope this is not too political. If it is, do forgive me, I’ll delete this.

Edit:
Recently read about the Travancore famine of 1943, that killed around 90,000 people. It happened in my state, Kerala. But I never really knew about it.

  • wewbullEnglish
    2·
    2 months ago

    I’ll prefice this by saying that I’m speaking about people, in Britain, who have a general common knowledge of WW2. There is a group that knows nothing. Even which countries were involved.

    I would say that the Munich agreement is known about, but not by name. It’s the defining moment of Neville Chamberlain’s prime-ministership, He is remembered as a fool and a coward because of it. The man who tried to make a naive deal with evil. If you say “I hold in my hand a piece of paper…” there’s a good chance people will know the reference.

    Molotov-Ribbentropp isn’t well remembered. It’s known that the Soviets fought against Germany in the end, but not how things began. I remember learning about the battles of the eastern front in high school history, but if I ever learnt about this pact I never remembered it. Maybe that there was a non-agression agreement which Germany broke leading to Operation Barbarossa, but nothing more.

    The Bengal Famine is becoming more well known recently. It comes out when Churchill is discussed. Due to his role as WW2 leader he’s held in very high esteem by a lot of people. The Bengal famine is brought up to highlight the man’s darker, utilitarian and some would say sociopathic aspects in order to achieve war goals. I think this ignores all the events leading up to the situation though and the wider causes. Those are not discussed.

    Hope that gives some perspective.