"Czechoslovakia '38-What If They'd Fought?"

[glenn239]

Finland put up a damned good fight against the USSR in 1939 during the Winter War. I'm sure Poland could do just as well against the USSR in 1938-39, if she didn't have to deal with Germany at the same time.

If Stalin masses troops on the Polish border, then the Polish army will not move against Germany, for there will be nothing to spare for such an effort. The offensive impetus to assist the Czechs then can come only from France.

You saying that Slovaks wanted to create a separate nation before Munich, is an instance of your lack of info on the period and region.

I said Czechoslovakia splintered into component ethnic entities without a shot being fired. Real countries don’t do that (sure Denmark was occupied without resistance, but it was still Denmark two years later). If Prague wasn’t at the head of a strong country, then chances are the army wasn’t going to fight very well because too many of the formations weren't predominantly Czech. You're thinking they'd fight like Poland. I'm wondering whether it might have been more like Yugoslavia than Poland.

Second, you base your opinion that Soviets would strike a deal with Hitler ignoring that the only relevant fact to this opinion still remains that Soviets promised intervention on behalf of CS. Where do you get your opinion?

I get my opinion from the history book. Stalin supported Hitler by signing a pact that Soviet security did not require in August 1939. Stalin did so to destabilize Europe to the purpose of furthering his own European ambitions. IMO, if the matter had come to a head in 1938, Stalin, with the same motive, would have followed the identical path because at both points in time Germany was percieved to be the weaker.

Third, you take scholarly researched arguments and blur it with fog of war. According to you, we judge motives based on what people getting attacked felt.

The Soviet Union invaded numerous countries in acts aggression. You may wish to spin doctor that with apologisms, but many will decline the offering.

With regards to Japan, you should be advised that it was the cause of aggression. It started the war in 39 (I believe) losing it and agreeing to a pact

Border clashes occurred in 1938 and 1939. The Japanese-Soviet neutrality pact was signed in April of 1941, and was to last until 1946. Stalin violated the agreement and attacked Japan in August of 1945. You may argue that Stalin made the deal under fear of German attack, but you cannot dispute two points

1) That Japan adhered to the terms of the agreement from the date upon which it was signed to the date when Stalin attacked.
2) That Stalin broke the treaty.

They do get along great. The split was initiated by a handful of elites. There was no referendum on the issue and if there was it would fail in 1992. Any average joe from C-S would tell you that.

My brother's wife is Slovak. Her family came from the old country before the fall of the Berlin Wall and still goes back there every few years. From what I gather they don't mind the Czechs, or the Germans, or the Poles, or the Hungarians, or, for that matter, any other country on their border that isn't their country.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Interesting views of the Cezchoslovakian condition in 1938. Anyone have knowledge of the German view then? The Wehrmacht & Luftwaffe intellegnce evaluations? Also the German view of the French threat? I'm a bit curious what they thought of the situation.

[janosik007]

I get my opinion from the history book.

All I need to quote is this to show exactly what I have been saying. That's all I need to discredit you. Thanks.

I suggest that you read "Eastern Europe since 1945" because anyone who calls scholarship spindoctoring really ought not to waste our time with silly arguments. Arguing solely on the basis of 'the' history book makes your opinion look absurd when it is propped up by pathetically thin pea stalks, and perhaps none.

BTW, Germany does not border Slovakia. I don't just gather, I know because that's where I am from. And we hate Czechs only when we play against them in football or hockey. Otherwise you wouldn't even know that we split up.

[Plavá bestie]

[glenn239]

All I need to quote is this to show exactly what I have been saying. That's all I need to discredit you.

You are denying that the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany in August of 1939?

[janosik007]

All I need to quote is this to show exactly what I have been saying. That's all I need to discredit you.

You are denying that the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany in August of 1939?

That's exactly right! In 1939. Not in 1938.

Are you denying that Soviets pledged CS support against Germany? Or anti-agression pact in 1939 and then the bloodiest conflict between two nations ever in history 41-45 tells you something other than Soviet support of CS?

[glenn239]

Are you denying that Soviets pledged CS support against Germany?

No, I'm merely pointing out what should have been obvious - that the support pledged was couched in a way that it would never be delivered. Stalin was a murderous slimeball don't forget. Further, that Stalin, when given the chance in 1939, chose to cooperate with Hitler to start a world war. You can imagine this guy a hero, but my money's on this ass-clown backing Hitler in 1938, because Stalin wants a war between the western powers.

[Tim Smith]

My view is that Stalin wanted to take advantage of the Czech crisis to settle an old score with Poland - namely the Russo-Polish war of 1920.

I believe that if Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Stalin was going to promise help to the Czechs, demand that the Polish government let the Red Army cross Polish territory to reach Czechoslovakia, and when the Poles refused (as they almost certainly would!) then Stalin would denounce Poland's 'treachery' and invade Poland.

(Remember that from 1920 to 1938, Poland has been the barrier to Soviet ambitions in Eastern Europe - not Germany.)

[janosik007]

Are you denying that Soviets pledged CS support against Germany?

No, I'm merely pointing out what should have been obvious - that the support pledged was couched in a way that it would never be delivered. Stalin was a murderous slimeball don't forget. Further, that Stalin, when given the chance in 1939, chose to cooperate with Hitler to start a world war. You can imagine this guy a hero, but my money's on this ass-clown backing Hitler in 1938, because Stalin wants a war between the western powers.

I don't view Stalin as a hero. It's you who views him as a villain. What I see is states acting rationally as security maximizing agents. There are no good guys or bad guys in the arena of international politics. There is just us and them and interwar period was a perfect playground for realist theorists.

As far as how would Stalin react, I could imagine crossing Poland, but Romania (because of its entente with CS) more so. But territorial squables between Romania and Poland would serve as deterrent for allowing right of passage. I can see how Soviets could use this to their advantage against the two states. But in any case, Soviets would have to declare war on Germany first and an act like this does not go away with non-agression pacts, when agression have started in earnest.

[Baltasar]

But in any case, Soviets would have to declare war on Germany first and an act like this does not go away with non-agression pacts, when agression have started in earnest.

Soviets entered Poland in '39 to "protect" the eastern part of Poland from the invading Wehrmacht.

[glenn239]

Soviets entered Poland in '39 to "protect" the eastern part of Poland from the invading Wehrmacht.

Stalin entered Poland to claim his half. He did not, however, have to sign the Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler prior to the German declaration of war on Poland. Given that this move was premature, the motive appears to be whereby Stalin was looking to encourage Hitler to start the war.

[Delwin]

About Stalin's intentions w 1938: check what Benes said about it. CS politics had no illusions about SU help. On Polish forums we discuss very often WI CS-Poland alliance before IIWW as the only possibility for both countries to survive. One of the questions is always: what AH would do in September 1938 when facing (imagine sudden change in the politic of both countries) such alliance, backed-up by France ? Of course he attacks, but first he would look for possibility of "disabling" the alliance. Using the same way as in 1939 - asking SU for "help" - SU would wait for few days (the same as in the reality) checking whether France and, possibly UK are going to to anything about attack on CS and/or Poland. If no actual response occurs, SU would attack Poland - telling to the world the same lie as in 1939...

[Kurt_Steiner]

There was a vague notion floating around in mid-1938 amongst some of the top generals such as Beck that they might launch a coup in the event of hostilities with Czechoslovakia, but this never attained any real shape or particularly vigourous support amongst those who advocated it. It was probably the most likely point at which Hitler might have been internally displaced before the war, but that still doesn't particularly distinguish it from any of the other such attempets voiced by similar people at different times.

The Soviets were probably the most receptive to the idea of intervention against any potential German attack on Czechoslovakia, but the big problem here was that for Soviet aid to be anything other than token, the Soviets would have had to likely march over both Poland and Czechoslovakia herself, which the Czechs were rightly highly wary of, and the Poles utterly opposed to. Nor would the Soviets have been willing to act without Britain and France, which Britain and France would certainly have not been willing to do.

If the Czechs had fought over the the Sudetenland, then I don't see that much changing in the short-term. Assuming that Czechoslovakia is conquered by the Germans in fairly swift order, and that the top brass doesn't act, then the big difference would have been - and this is perhaps the one thing we can be totally sure about - in public perception in Britain and France - appeasement would have probably been destroyed or seriously weakened as a credible policy. (Hitler's aims would have been fairly obviously revealed as neither peaceful nor limited to pan-German revisionism, but for what they were - the desire for imperial conquest of vast swathes of Eastern and Central Europe; the equivalent for this in OTL was the 1939 march on Prague, which was a relatively low-key annexation a la Austria, at least compared to the full-out war which is envisaged here.) That would almost certainly have resulted in the clamour for a firmer response over whatever Hitler does next, probably Poland in the spring of 1939, and may even have alerted the British and the French to the need for engagement with the Soviets, thus aborting the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before it's conception, and perhaps more besides...

[janosik007]

Whatever support Soviets would muster for CS, that alone would serve as a counter meassure against any other power's flanking attack. This would allow CS to focus on repeling Germans from behind their mountain fortress line and await direct Soviet assistance.

Poland was not reliable in mutual protection. Just look at their action when Germany attacked.

If the Germans fought CS over Sudet, assuming that they would win, they would be far too weakened to even pursue appeasement, which was already discredited by the time Chamberlain returned home from Munich (witness public protest and outcry against the PM's selling out CS).

[Mitoko]

- we must remember about facts from 1919-20 which Glynwed falsified

Well, what I falsified? As you can se, under my very shord and mostly only summarizing article, there is a link to detail history of this problem / situation or what you like to call it: http://www.kc-cieszyn.pl/zaolzie1938/zaolzie.htm

What ? Glynwed ... please
I repeat

At 1920 was sized by Czech Army and from 28.7. 1920 it was part of Czechoslovakia

But You lost that the Czech Army broke agreegment (between : Polish Rada Narodowa Ksiestwa Cieszynskiego and Czechs Cesky Narodní Vybor pro Slezsko).
You lost too that Benesz escaped from oficial agreegment about making plebiscite.

Of course Poland on this time heavy fought with Russian - the Czech only use this situation when Poland have to agree because they need transports with weapons during the Czech teritory.
And of course Czech broke this agreegment too and blocked transport (maybe they want to Polish stay communist country).

About persecutions polish nations by Czech You forgot too.

Glynwed - You have to understand.

It's clear for me that what Poland make in 1938 it wasn't good.

But if You wrote that

Teschin area were part of Poland in 1918. At 1920 was sized by Czech Army and from 28.7. 1920 it was part of Czechoslovakia. This area (865 km2, 231.784 people) were occupy by Polish army from 1.-11.10. 1938.

why You don't have courage to wrote that in 1919-20 most of this territory was conquest by Czech using treason and breaking agreegments, when we fight with Soviets.

Czech took Zaolzie when they thought that Soviets will conquest Poland, we made the same when we thought that Germany took all Czech (specially that Czech didn't want to fight).

It's only two differences - Poland didn't broke agreegments and didn't help agrresors (Czech help both - first for Soviets when they blocked Polish transports with weapons, later for Germany when they "give" him all weapons from Czech "Army").