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

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
Oversaltmountain
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 23 May 2023, 17:41
Location: Italy

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

#166

Post by Oversaltmountain » 23 May 2023, 18:08

The problem with the CSR was that they were basically surrounded from the start. Just because of the geography. Their airforce was obsolete, more than the Polish one, if that is even possible. I don't see how Germany would have suffered any significant losses. France & the UK weren't ready at all, Poland also wanted a piece of the CSR, so Poland might have even become an ally of Germany. If the French and the British would have dared to attack Germany in 38, they probably would have suffered an even worse defeat than 1940. Look up their aircraft. The only competetive models were either just coming out of the factory, or they were still in development.

Hawker Hurricane (UK): first squadron in february 1938
MS406 (FRA): first flight january 1939

Everything else would have had no chance against the Luftwaffe in 1938.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

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

#167

Post by ljadw » 23 May 2023, 19:47

In September 1939 Britain had 2 divisions available and these 2 divisions arrived in France at the end of September 1939, thus France was on her own in 1938, Britain could offer only blabla .


lahoda
Member
Posts: 90
Joined: 29 May 2020, 15:31
Location: Hradec Králové, Czech Republic

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

#168

Post by lahoda » 25 May 2023, 13:39

Oversaltmountain wrote:
23 May 2023, 18:08
The problem with the CSR was that they were basically surrounded from the start. Just because of the geography.
There were long borders with hostile countries, but Czechoslovakia was not surrounded. The plan how to cope was to establish military alliance. They had one with France (had not France shamefully backed out of it) which would cause a two-front war for Germany. If they had to split their forces, the numbers won't work for them. There was also Little Entente, which would very probably keep Hungary in check. Relations with Poland weren't great, and there is Beneš and Beck to blame, and while there was a unsettled dispute over Zaolzie, it is far-fetched to assume Poland to take active role in 1938 - there was also an Czechoslovak alliance with USSR and while it is questionable if Stalin wanted to provide any real help to Czechoslovakia, he would most likely threaten Poland out of it. So it was basically Germany vs. Czechoslovakia, with a prospect of Germany waging two front war....not exactly surrounding scenario you are trying to paint.
Oversaltmountain wrote:
23 May 2023, 18:08
Their airforce was obsolete, more than the Polish one, if that is even possible. I don't see how Germany would have suffered any significant losses.
Can you back your assumption by some arguments? Polish planes (PZL P-11c was the main type used but there were only 152 planes of this type available in 9/1939) looked more modern as they were monoplanes, but that doesn't make your argument to be valid. They were powered by a weak engine (Mercury V.S2 with 600 hp) giving them top speed of 367 km/h. Avia B-534, while being a biplane, had 850 hp Hispano-Suiza engine, with top speed 380-400 km/h and superb 15 m/s climb rate. Bf-109 was faster (max speed around 460 km/h depending on variant) but the engine was also relatively weak (Jumo 210 with 600-700 hp depending on variant) and also being heavier with less wing area, thus climb rate was significantly lower than B-534, at about 10 m/s, and B-534 was also more maneuverable. Some bf-109 only had 2 machine guns, B-534 had double of that.
There were about 500 Bf-109 in B,C,D variants in 1938 and it is safe to assume that many of them were needed in the defense of Germany, especially if France (and its somewhat obsolete aircraft entered the war), the substantial part of first line fighters in Luftwaffe were still equipped with Arado Ar-68 and Heinkel He-51 (the later more in a ground attack role, famous ace gen. Galland flew He-51 in 1938). German pilots had one less year of training and many pilots were still engaged in Spain. The more powerful Bf-109 E were only introduced in December 1938, and for Polish campaign there were no biplanes in front-line Luftwaffe (230 Bf-109 D and rest were Bf-109 E models) - yet Polish Air Force was able to put a decent fight against superior opponents. It would be on much more equal terms in 1938 against Czechoslovak Air Force and it is far from given that Germany would get immediate air superiority and contrary your claim, their casualties would be probably rather high. Plus the weather was super ugly in October.
Oversaltmountain wrote:
23 May 2023, 18:08
France & the UK weren't ready at all, Poland also wanted a piece of the CSR, so Poland might have even become an ally of Germany. If the French and the British would have dared to attack Germany in 38, they probably would have suffered an even worse defeat than 1940.
If Germany attacked Czechoslovakia, they needed all air force they could get to cope with Czechoslovak Air Force which was not that small, and the remaining aircraft would be in defensive mode only on other fronts. Luftwaffe was not capable of waging war against Czechoslovakia and France in the air at the same time, they didn't have enough planes, and more importantly, not enough trained crews. There was zero chance France would get defeated in 1938 had Germany simultaneously engaged Czechoslovakia. UK was totally safe, even with Gladiators.
Oversaltmountain wrote:
23 May 2023, 18:08
Look up their aircraft. The only competetive models were either just coming out of the factory, or they were still in development.
Hawker Hurricane (UK): first squadron in february 1938
MS406 (FRA): first flight january 1939
Everything else would have had no chance against the Luftwaffe in 1938.
Same was true for Germany. The air war would be much different in 1938, compared to 1939 and 1940. Each year made a huge difference. Germany was very good at bluffing their strength, using tricks, smoke and mirrors (quite literally, see what they did with He-112 unit during gen. Gamelin inspection tour in Germany) and ultimately were successful with that tactic. But in real air battle in 1938, their effectiveness would be far less to what happened in Poland.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

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

#169

Post by ljadw » 25 May 2023, 21:38

lahoda wrote:
25 May 2023, 13:39
Oversaltmountain wrote:
23 May 2023, 18:08
The problem with the CSR was that they were basically surrounded from the start. Just because of the geography.
There were long borders with hostile countries, but Czechoslovakia was not surrounded. The plan how to cope was to establish military alliance. They had one with France (had not France shamefully backed out of it) which would cause a two-front war for Germany. If they had to split their forces, the numbers won't work for them. There was also Little Entente, which would very probably keep Hungary in check. Relations with Poland weren't great, and there is Beneš and Beck to blame, and while there was a unsettled dispute over Zaolzie, it is far-fetched to assume Poland to take active role in 1938 - there was also an Czechoslovak alliance with USSR and while it is questionable if Stalin wanted to provide any real help to Czechoslovakia, he would most likely threaten Poland out of it. So it was basically Germany vs. Czechoslovakia, with a prospect of Germany waging two front war....not exactly surrounding scenario you are trying to paint.
Oversaltmountain wrote:
23 May 2023, 18:08
Their airforce was obsolete, more than the Polish one, if that is even possible. I don't see how Germany would have suffered any significant losses.
Can you back your assumption by some arguments? Polish planes (PZL P-11c was the main type used but there were only 152 planes of this type available in 9/1939) looked more modern as they were monoplanes, but that doesn't make your argument to be valid. They were powered by a weak engine (Mercury V.S2 with 600 hp) giving them top speed of 367 km/h. Avia B-534, while being a biplane, had 850 hp Hispano-Suiza engine, with top speed 380-400 km/h and superb 15 m/s climb rate. Bf-109 was faster (max speed around 460 km/h depending on variant) but the engine was also relatively weak (Jumo 210 with 600-700 hp depending on variant) and also being heavier with less wing area, thus climb rate was significantly lower than B-534, at about 10 m/s, and B-534 was also more maneuverable. Some bf-109 only had 2 machine guns, B-534 had double of that.
There were about 500 Bf-109 in B,C,D variants in 1938 and it is safe to assume that many of them were needed in the defense of Germany, especially if France (and its somewhat obsolete aircraft entered the war), the substantial part of first line fighters in Luftwaffe were still equipped with Arado Ar-68 and Heinkel He-51 (the later more in a ground attack role, famous ace gen. Galland flew He-51 in 1938). German pilots had one less year of training and many pilots were still engaged in Spain. The more powerful Bf-109 E were only introduced in December 1938, and for Polish campaign there were no biplanes in front-line Luftwaffe (230 Bf-109 D and rest were Bf-109 E models) - yet Polish Air Force was able to put a decent fight against superior opponents. It would be on much more equal terms in 1938 against Czechoslovak Air Force and it is far from given that Germany would get immediate air superiority and contrary your claim, their casualties would be probably rather high. Plus the weather was super ugly in October.
Oversaltmountain wrote:
23 May 2023, 18:08
France & the UK weren't ready at all, Poland also wanted a piece of the CSR, so Poland might have even become an ally of Germany. If the French and the British would have dared to attack Germany in 38, they probably would have suffered an even worse defeat than 1940.
If Germany attacked Czechoslovakia, they needed all air force they could get to cope with Czechoslovak Air Force which was not that small, and the remaining aircraft would be in defensive mode only on other fronts. Luftwaffe was not capable of waging war against Czechoslovakia and France in the air at the same time, they didn't have enough planes, and more importantly, not enough trained crews. There was zero chance France would get defeated in 1938 had Germany simultaneously engaged Czechoslovakia. UK was totally safe, even with Gladiators.
Oversaltmountain wrote:
23 May 2023, 18:08
Look up their aircraft. The only competetive models were either just coming out of the factory, or they were still in development.
Hawker Hurricane (UK): first squadron in february 1938
MS406 (FRA): first flight january 1939
Everything else would have had no chance against the Luftwaffe in 1938.
Same was true for Germany. The air war would be much different in 1938, compared to 1939 and 1940. Each year made a huge difference. Germany was very good at bluffing their strength, using tricks, smoke and mirrors (quite literally, see what they did with He-112 unit during gen. Gamelin inspection tour in Germany) and ultimately were successful with that tactic. But in real air battle in 1938, their effectiveness would be far less to what happened in Poland.
I see that you don't know that CZ had no common border with the USSR and that Stalin could not help CZ, not that he had any intention to do it .Stalin could not do anything against Poland, as France had a treaty with Poland and Romania against the USSR :these two countries were the Cordon Sanitaire to prtevent ant Soviret advance in Europe .
Gamelin did not inspect the LW in 1938 ( he could even not distinguish a Heinkel from a Dornier ) ,Vuillemain, chief of the French air force visited ( NOT :inspected ) the LW .
And Vuillemain admitted that the French air force could do nothing to help CZ.The Bef-109 was not needed at the German western border,as the french air force could do nothing against Germany .

Oversaltmountain
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 23 May 2023, 17:41
Location: Italy

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

#170

Post by Oversaltmountain » 26 May 2023, 09:24

lahoda wrote:
25 May 2023, 13:39

There were long borders with hostile countries, but Czechoslovakia was not surrounded.
How were they supposed to prevent getting cut in pieces, and themselves outmanouver the Germans (&Hungarians/Poles)? The Polish tried the "no step back"-approach and got smashed for it. When I say that the CSR was surrounded just because of their geography, I presuppose that they would have lost the Sudetenland, because there you had a German, hence hostile population. From this position the CSR-army would have had all the cards stacked against them.
There was zero chance France would get defeated in 1938 had Germany simultaneously engaged Czechoslovakia.
The chance was bigger than in 1940. The Germans had superior tactics, made possible by their radio equipment, something that the french didn't have. The french still relied on flags for the communication between tanks. There was no way how they would not get outmanouvered and encircled like in 1940.

The idea that Stalin would have honored contracts or rushed to anybody's defense is very far from reality. There was also no realistic scenario of Yugoslavia and Romania engaging in a war against Hungary and Germany. Besides the fact that both countries had no military to fight a modern war with (yes, they had men & rifles, but that alone doesn't constitute a strong military), the Romanians were far too concerned of getting swallowed up by the USSR. Yugoslavia was a country with way too many internal problems. They knew their weaknesses very well.

Can you back your assumption by some arguments? Polish planes (PZL P-11c was the main type used but there were only 152 planes of this type available in 9/1939) looked more modern as they were monoplanes, but that doesn't make your argument to be valid. They were powered by a weak engine (Mercury V.S2 with 600 hp) giving them top speed of 367 km/h. Avia B-534, while being a biplane, had 850 hp Hispano-Suiza engine, with top speed 380-400 km/h and superb 15 m/s climb rate. Bf-109 was faster (max speed around 460 km/h depending on variant) but the engine was also relatively weak (Jumo 210 with 600-700 hp depending on variant) and also being heavier with less wing area, thus climb rate was significantly lower than B-534, at about 10 m/s, and B-534 was also more maneuverable. Some bf-109 only had 2 machine guns, B-534 had double of that.
There were about 500 Bf-109 in B,C,D variants in 1938 and it is safe to assume that many of them were needed in the defense of Germany, especially if France (and its somewhat obsolete aircraft entered the war), the substantial part of first line fighters in Luftwaffe were still equipped with Arado Ar-68 and Heinkel He-51 (the later more in a ground attack role, famous ace gen. Galland flew He-51 in 1938). German pilots had one less year of training and many pilots were still engaged in Spain. The more powerful Bf-109 E were only introduced in December 1938, and for Polish campaign there were no biplanes in front-line Luftwaffe (230 Bf-109 D and rest were Bf-109 E models) - yet Polish Air Force was able to put a decent fight against superior opponents. It would be on much more equal terms in 1938 against Czechoslovak Air Force and it is far from given that Germany would get immediate air superiority and contrary your claim, their casualties would be probably rather high. Plus the weather was super ugly in October.
You make it look like the Avia B534 was ever equal to the Bf109. I have a problem with the numbers you use. Where are the numbers for the B534 from? I assume they are from tests. In July or August 1938 the Bf109 broke the world speed record with 611 kmh. Neither the older models of Bf109, nor the E were every able to archive this speed in combat situation. So where are the top speed-numbers for the B534 from, and are they even credible? "Climb rate" is not a unchangable constant, it depends on many factors. In the end, you have to look at the combat experience of both aircraft. We know about the track record of the Bf109. The Avia B534 though never fared well anywhere. It was used in Spain and did in fact have an encounter with Bf109-prototypes. If I remember it correctly, it was just 3 vs 3, but one B534 was shot down and the other two quickly peeled off and retreated. The B534 was also used very unsuccessfully in the Slovak-Hungarian war. Afterwards all operators, including the Greeks, Slovaks and Bulgarians, never seriously considered using this aircraft as a front line fighter, so the operators themselves had no confidence in the B534 - even though some biplanes were used in frontline service up until around 1943, in some cases like the Hs123 longer. I think this is more important than "Climb rate" or "top speed". Even more important are tactics and tactical capabilities.With the latter I mean things like radio equipment. Did the Avia B534 even have radio? What would the tactics of the CSR-air force have been? If they thought air warfare in WW2 would have been winning dog fights like in WW1, they would have been on the wrong path.
yet Polish Air Force was able to put a decent fight against superior opponents.
Their airforce was pretty much smashed in 6 days. The Germans lost 67 Bf109's in Poland, most of them in accidents and after the 6th day to anti-aircraft fire, when they used the Bf109 as a ground attack aircraft

Huszar666
Member
Posts: 255
Joined: 18 Dec 2021, 15:02
Location: Budakeszi

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

#171

Post by Huszar666 » 26 May 2023, 22:05

The B534 was also used very unsuccessfully in the Slovak-Hungarian war.
That was against CR 32s, which were theoretically worse in every way.

Even if we assume, neither Poland, nor Hungary enters the war, the CSR still would have to keep enough troops on those borders (about half the borders were facing Germany, and half Poland and Hungary, with only a minuscule part to Romania) in case of "surprises".

It is quite clear, any Germans (and Hungarians) in the Army, assuming, there were any, would change flags as soon as the shooting starts (plus an uprising in the Sudetenland), and I'm not certain, the Slovaks would fight that hard either. With a Pater Tiso in the pocket, it is possible, they would just go home, and declare a country of their own.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

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

#172

Post by ljadw » 27 May 2023, 08:32

lahoda wrote:
25 May 2023, 13:39
Oversaltmountain wrote:
23 May 2023, 18:08
The problem with the CSR was that they were basically surrounded from the start. Just because of the geography.
There were long borders with hostile countries, but Czechoslovakia was not surrounded. The plan how to cope was to establish military alliance. They had one with France (had not France shamefully backed out of it) which would cause a two-front war for Germany. If they had to split their forces, the numbers won't work for them. There was also Little Entente, which would very probably keep Hungary in check. Relations with Poland weren't great, and there is Beneš and Beck to blame, and while there was a unsettled dispute over Zaolzie, it is far-fetched to assume Poland to take active role in 1938 - there was also an Czechoslovak alliance with USSR and while it is questionable if Stalin wanted to provide any real help to Czechoslovakia, he would most likely threaten Poland out of it. So it was basically Germany vs. Czechoslovakia, with a prospect of Germany waging two front war....not exactly surrounding scenario you are trying to paint.
Oversaltmountain wrote:
23 May 2023, 18:08
Their airforce was obsolete, more than the Polish one, if that is even possible. I don't see how Germany would have suffered any significant losses.
Can you back your assumption by some arguments? Polish planes (PZL P-11c was the main type used but there were only 152 planes of this type available in 9/1939) looked more modern as they were monoplanes, but that doesn't make your argument to be valid. They were powered by a weak engine (Mercury V.S2 with 600 hp) giving them top speed of 367 km/h. Avia B-534, while being a biplane, had 850 hp Hispano-Suiza engine, with top speed 380-400 km/h and superb 15 m/s climb rate. Bf-109 was faster (max speed around 460 km/h depending on variant) but the engine was also relatively weak (Jumo 210 with 600-700 hp depending on variant) and also being heavier with less wing area, thus climb rate was significantly lower than B-534, at about 10 m/s, and B-534 was also more maneuverable. Some bf-109 only had 2 machine guns, B-534 had double of that.
There were about 500 Bf-109 in B,C,D variants in 1938 and it is safe to assume that many of them were needed in the defense of Germany, especially if France (and its somewhat obsolete aircraft entered the war), the substantial part of first line fighters in Luftwaffe were still equipped with Arado Ar-68 and Heinkel He-51 (the later more in a ground attack role, famous ace gen. Galland flew He-51 in 1938). German pilots had one less year of training and many pilots were still engaged in Spain. The more powerful Bf-109 E were only introduced in December 1938, and for Polish campaign there were no biplanes in front-line Luftwaffe (230 Bf-109 D and rest were Bf-109 E models) - yet Polish Air Force was able to put a decent fight against superior opponents. It would be on much more equal terms in 1938 against Czechoslovak Air Force and it is far from given that Germany would get immediate air superiority and contrary your claim, their casualties would be probably rather high. Plus the weather was super ugly in October.
Oversaltmountain wrote:
23 May 2023, 18:08
France & the UK weren't ready at all, Poland also wanted a piece of the CSR, so Poland might have even become an ally of Germany. If the French and the British would have dared to attack Germany in 38, they probably would have suffered an even worse defeat than 1940.
If Germany attacked Czechoslovakia, they needed all air force they could get to cope with Czechoslovak Air Force which was not that small, and the remaining aircraft would be in defensive mode only on other fronts. Luftwaffe was not capable of waging war against Czechoslovakia and France in the air at the same time, they didn't have enough planes, and more importantly, not enough trained crews. There was zero chance France would get defeated in 1938 had Germany simultaneously engaged Czechoslovakia. UK was totally safe, even with Gladiators.
Oversaltmountain wrote:
23 May 2023, 18:08
Look up their aircraft. The only competetive models were either just coming out of the factory, or they were still in development.
Hawker Hurricane (UK): first squadron in february 1938
MS406 (FRA): first flight january 1939
Everything else would have had no chance against the Luftwaffe in 1938.
Same was true for Germany. The air war would be much different in 1938, compared to 1939 and 1940. Each year made a huge difference. Germany was very good at bluffing their strength, using tricks, smoke and mirrors (quite literally, see what they did with He-112 unit during gen. Gamelin inspection tour in Germany) and ultimately were successful with that tactic. But in real air battle in 1938, their effectiveness would be far less to what happened in Poland.
France did not shamefully backed out of it,as there was no French promise to invade Germany if this attacked Czechoslovakia , unless you can produce the text of such military treaty .Besides, it was easy for CZ to have France as an ally : they had only to refuse the German demands and Germany would attack her,this would force France to declare ,unwillingly, war on Germany .
CZ did not do this, because it knew that a French DOW would not help her , but that UK and France would wage, after the fall of CZ, a war of revenge that would not solve the problem of the Sudeten Germans and would deliver CZ to the USSR .

antwony
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 30 Jun 2016, 10:14
Location: Not at that place

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

#173

Post by antwony » 27 May 2023, 11:51

Oversaltmountain wrote:
26 May 2023, 09:24
lahoda wrote:
25 May 2023, 13:39
There was zero chance France would get defeated in 1938 had Germany simultaneously engaged Czechoslovakia.
The chance was bigger than in 1940. The Germans had superior tactics, made possible by their radio equipment, something that the french didn't have. The french still relied on flags for the communication between tanks. There was no way how they would not get outmanouvered and encircled like in 1940.
The German military massively developed, year on year, in the lead up to the war. France made some improvements, but in comparison to the German's they didn't do much.

Saying the German army of 1938 is much better than the 1940 version is kind of silly.

Also, did Panzer 2's have radios? I know the early Panzer 1's didn't.

Oversaltmountain wrote:
26 May 2023, 09:24
It was used in Spain and did in fact have an encounter with Bf109-prototypes
Interesting claim, do you have a source for that?

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10054
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

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

#174

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 27 May 2023, 19:20

Now I'm looking over the relevant war-game descriptions & trying to identify some that might adequately test some of the assorted arguments here.

Oversaltmountain
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 23 May 2023, 17:41
Location: Italy

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

#175

Post by Oversaltmountain » 30 May 2023, 18:42

antwony wrote:
27 May 2023, 11:51
Oversaltmountain wrote:
26 May 2023, 09:24
lahoda wrote:
25 May 2023, 13:39
There was zero chance France would get defeated in 1938 had Germany simultaneously engaged Czechoslovakia.
The chance was bigger than in 1940. The Germans had superior tactics, made possible by their radio equipment, something that the french didn't have. The french still relied on flags for the communication between tanks. There was no way how they would not get outmanouvered and encircled like in 1940.
The German military massively developed, year on year, in the lead up to the war. France made some improvements, but in comparison to the German's they didn't do much.

Saying the German army of 1938 is much better than the 1940 version is kind of silly.

Also, did Panzer 2's have radios? I know the early Panzer 1's didn't.

Oversaltmountain wrote:
26 May 2023, 09:24
It was used in Spain and did in fact have an encounter with Bf109-prototypes
Interesting claim, do you have a source for that?
I didn't say the German army was better, i said the french and british militaries were worse, and the geopolitical situation could have shifted more in Germany's favor.
I would be very surprised if there is a Panzer II-version without radio equipment.

And on the subject Avia B534 vs Bf109-prototype in Spain: German night fighter-ace Guenter Radusch tells the story in the book "Messerschmitt Bf109 in Action Part 1" by John R.Beaman jr & Jerry L. Campbell. You can find it on archive.org

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: 25 Feb 2013, 21:23

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

#176

Post by gebhk » 03 Jun 2023, 14:58

Hi Oversaltmountain
The Polish tried the "no step back"-approach and got smashed for it.
I'm afraid this is a back-to front view of the situation. Polish strategy was from the outset a mobile fighting retreat. That is why it was smashed so quickly - because in this type of warfare it was woefully outclassed by German numerical superiority, mobility, communications and mobile artillery firepower. It has certainly been argued that a 'no step back' would have been a better option. Indeed, the proponents if this approach can point to the fact that in virtually all cases of more effective Polish defence, this was done where prepared positions were defended 'to the last man and bullet' (Westerplatte, the coast, Warsaw, Modlin, Mlawa, etc). Whether these very localised relative successes could have been translated into a nation-wide strategy, personally, I am sceptical. Be that as it may, that is not what happened.
Poland also wanted a piece of the CSR, so Poland might have even become an ally of Germany.
Poland had already got, in principle, the main piece of Chechoslovakia it wanted as a gift from the Czechoslovak Republic by the time of Munich so it was not in the slightest in Poland's interest to get involved in a German conflict with Czechoslovakia which threatened this gain and even more so Polands delicate understanding with France. Benes had offered, the offer had been accepted, a timetable was being discussed and the last thing Poland needed was some Great Power shenanigans which would upset this delicate process. Hence the violent reaction to the Munich Agreement. However there was next to no chance of Poland becoming an ally of Germany while the government of the day remained in power - there is ample documentary evidence of this.

Hi Iahoda
Look at the real numbers. The ratio of the casualties of the elites and the overall casualties were different for Czechoslovakia. If there was a war and the casualty rate would be say 10%, and there is 10 officers per 1000 soldiers, there would be 1 officer killed and 100 soldiers (per thousand). The ratio of officers was much higher in the real case. General Alois Eliáš was the ONLY prime minister of the country in German satellites who got executed. Had there been a war, he would still be with the army, and in case of the defeat the army would most likely move out (via Rumania) and keep on fighting in exile, so the chance of survival for the elites in the army (such as gen. Eliáš or Bílý and many others) would be much higher.
Yes I am looking at the real numbers which is why I find your argument impossible to accept. They are simply this: Poland's wartime losses were approximately 5.9-6 million, those of Czechoslovakia 340-355 K. Even if we stick to the military losses you are, I'm afraid, wrong in your estimations. Combat loses among officers are always, per capita, substantially higher among officers than other ranks. For example British 8th Army reported for the period 2 July 1942 to 14 May 1943, the average loss rate for officers varying from 1 to 11 percent, for OR it was 0.4 to 6.4 percent. And, it may be surprising, that Polish military losses from all causes at 240K are not a world apart from the Czechoslovak ones at 35-46K when the relative sizes of the populations are taken into acount. In short, suffering a defeat on the scale of Poland might have cost Czechoslovakia around 3x the military casualty rate that it ended up having in reality.

However this is almost a sideshow. The point is that in war it is the civilian casualties that nearly always make up the vast bulk of the numbers and, clearly as the numbers above indicate, this was the case here.
In the case of Poland, an enraged Hitler, personally ordered the elimination of the Polish intelligentsia. In the enactment of this will the Intelligenzaction consumed the lives of 60-100K people, the AB action up 7K and those are just the 'lowlights'. I am not aware of any such policy enacted against Chechoslovakia (I may well be wrong about this and would welcome correction). In the course of the war, Poland lost nearly 40% of its doctors, a third of its teachers and academics and a quarter of its priests. I was unable to find comparative figures for Chechoslovakia, but given given the overall fugures, I highly doubt anything of the sort occurred there.

lahoda
Member
Posts: 90
Joined: 29 May 2020, 15:31
Location: Hradec Králové, Czech Republic

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

#177

Post by lahoda » 06 Jun 2023, 11:47

gebhk wrote:
03 Jun 2023, 14:58
Yes I am looking at the real numbers which is why I find your argument impossible to accept. They are simply this: Poland's wartime losses were approximately 5.9-6 million, those of Czechoslovakia 340-355 K. Even if we stick to the military losses you are, I'm afraid, wrong in your estimations. Combat loses among officers are always, per capita, substantially higher among officers than other ranks. For example British 8th Army reported for the period 2 July 1942 to 14 May 1943, the average loss rate for officers varying from 1 to 11 percent, for OR it was 0.4 to 6.4 percent. And, it may be surprising, that Polish military losses from all causes at 240K are not a world apart from the Czechoslovak ones at 35-46K when the relative sizes of the populations are taken into acount. In short, suffering a defeat on the scale of Poland might have cost Czechoslovakia around 3x the military casualty rate that it ended up having in reality.

However this is almost a sideshow. The point is that in war it is the civilian casualties that nearly always make up the vast bulk of the numbers and, clearly as the numbers above indicate, this was the case here.
In the case of Poland, an enraged Hitler, personally ordered the elimination of the Polish intelligentsia. In the enactment of this will the Intelligenzaction consumed the lives of 60-100K people, the AB action up 7K and those are just the 'lowlights'. I am not aware of any such policy enacted against Chechoslovakia (I may well be wrong about this and would welcome correction). In the course of the war, Poland lost nearly 40% of its doctors, a third of its teachers and academics and a quarter of its priests. I was unable to find comparative figures for Chechoslovakia, but given given the overall fugures, I highly doubt anything of the sort occurred there.
If I got you right, you argue that the actual casualty rate is higher among officers. I used 1 of 10 just as an example, you argue it should be 2 of 10, ok I give you that.

Let's look at some hard data

There was 144 generals in 1938 in the Czechoslovak Army (according the source: https://armada.vojenstvi.cz/predvalecna ... e-1938.htm)
According the same source (https://armada.vojenstvi.cz/predvalecna ... z-1945.htm), 29 generals were killed or executed during 1939-1945, or more than 20%. Out of these, just gen. Čihák died really on consequence of the actual fight, but you can add gen. Fisher, gen. Mejstřík, gen. Untermüller (first died during air raid in Protectorate, and the later two were shot during Prague uprising). as such things happen, so that is 4, or 2,8%

That means that 2,8% of them killed during war was pretty much in line with what you assume (2%) but in reality it was 20%, or TEN TIMES more.

Similar ratio was among Colonels, according to official source (https://armada.vojenstvi.cz/predvalecna ... z-1945.htm) out of 64 colonels killed in 1939-45, just 5 were not executed by Germans, which is 92%.

This is huge difference and that is what I was talking about. I don't have numbers for other professions, but Germans targeted other intelligentsia besides military personal, so I think it is safe to bet the number of say, academics would be also higher per 1000 soldiers killed.

Concerning the second issue, where you point to the level of casualties happening in Poland after a defeat and that Czechoslovakia made a wise choice - your point is made on assumption Czechoslovakia would be quickly overrun and defeated (like Poland), yet I provided a lots of arguments why the outcome of the conflict with Czechoslovakia would be different, I don't buy the logic Germans would prevail on the size of GDP and number of inhabitants, it is military strength and economic situation which matters in a war, and Germany was not in a good shape in either in 1938. That makes the comparison with casualties of Finland in 1939 quite appropriate (Germans would most likely damage/kill more people in air raids, but as it was proven elsewhere, this had limited impact on nation's capability and willingness to resistance)

Even in the case Czechoslovakia would get defeated it is unclear what would happen..it might be quite similar to what happened in real timeline, as Germans needed the industrial output of Czech economy for their war machine. Sure, Hitler could possibly destroy most of the country, and kill millions, but he would had not enough resources as a result to continue the war and defeat France in 1940 or even Poland in 1939.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

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

#178

Post by ljadw » 06 Jun 2023, 12:00

gebhk wrote:
03 Jun 2023, 14:58
Hi Oversaltmountain
The Polish tried the "no step back"-approach and got smashed for it.
I'm afraid this is a back-to front view of the situation. Polish strategy was from the outset a mobile fighting retreat. That is why it was smashed so quickly - because in this type of warfare it was woefully outclassed by German numerical superiority, mobility, communications and mobile artillery firepower. It has certainly been argued that a 'no step back' would have been a better option. Indeed, the proponents if this approach can point to the fact that in virtually all cases of more effective Polish defence, this was done where prepared positions were defended 'to the last man and bullet' (Westerplatte, the coast, Warsaw, Modlin, Mlawa, etc). Whether these very localised relative successes could have been translated into a nation-wide strategy, personally, I am sceptical. Be that as it may, that is not what happened.
Poland also wanted a piece of the CSR, so Poland might have even become an ally of Germany.
Poland had already got, in principle, the main piece of Chechoslovakia it wanted as a gift from the Czechoslovak Republic by the time of Munich so it was not in the slightest in Poland's interest to get involved in a German conflict with Czechoslovakia which threatened this gain and even more so Polands delicate understanding with France. Benes had offered, the offer had been accepted, a timetable was being discussed and the last thing Poland needed was some Great Power shenanigans which would upset this delicate process. Hence the violent reaction to the Munich Agreement. However there was next to no chance of Poland becoming an ally of Germany while the government of the day remained in power - there is ample documentary evidence of this.

Hi Iahoda
Look at the real numbers. The ratio of the casualties of the elites and the overall casualties were different for Czechoslovakia. If there was a war and the casualty rate would be say 10%, and there is 10 officers per 1000 soldiers, there would be 1 officer killed and 100 soldiers (per thousand). The ratio of officers was much higher in the real case. General Alois Eliáš was the ONLY prime minister of the country in German satellites who got executed. Had there been a war, he would still be with the army, and in case of the defeat the army would most likely move out (via Rumania) and keep on fighting in exile, so the chance of survival for the elites in the army (such as gen. Eliáš or Bílý and many others) would be much higher.
Yes I am looking at the real numbers which is why I find your argument impossible to accept. They are simply this: Poland's wartime losses were approximately 5.9-6 million, those of Czechoslovakia 340-355 K. Even if we stick to the military losses you are, I'm afraid, wrong in your estimations. Combat loses among officers are always, per capita, substantially higher among officers than other ranks. For example British 8th Army reported for the period 2 July 1942 to 14 May 1943, the average loss rate for officers varying from 1 to 11 percent, for OR it was 0.4 to 6.4 percent. And, it may be surprising, that Polish military losses from all causes at 240K are not a world apart from the Czechoslovak ones at 35-46K when the relative sizes of the populations are taken into acount. In short, suffering a defeat on the scale of Poland might have cost Czechoslovakia around 3x the military casualty rate that it ended up having in reality.

However this is almost a sideshow. The point is that in war it is the civilian casualties that nearly always make up the vast bulk of the numbers and, clearly as the numbers above indicate, this was the case here.
In the case of Poland, an enraged Hitler, personally ordered the elimination of the Polish intelligentsia. In the enactment of this will the Intelligenzaction consumed the lives of 60-100K people, the AB action up 7K and those are just the 'lowlights'. I am not aware of any such policy enacted against Chechoslovakia (I may well be wrong about this and would welcome correction). In the course of the war, Poland lost nearly 40% of its doctors, a third of its teachers and academics and a quarter of its priests. I was unable to find comparative figures for Chechoslovakia, but given given the overall fugures, I highly doubt anything of the sort occurred there.
There is no proof that Hitler was enraged when he ordered the elimination of the Polish intelligentsia .
This order could be expected from the Nazi regime who considered the Polish intelligentsia as an irreducible enemy .

lahoda
Member
Posts: 90
Joined: 29 May 2020, 15:31
Location: Hradec Králové, Czech Republic

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

#179

Post by lahoda » 06 Jun 2023, 12:04

ljadw wrote:
27 May 2023, 08:32
France did not shamefully backed out of it,as there was no French promise to invade Germany if this attacked Czechoslovakia , unless you can produce the text of such military treaty .Besides, it was easy for CZ to have France as an ally : they had only to refuse the German demands and Germany would attack her,this would force France to declare ,unwillingly, war on Germany .
CZ did not do this, because it knew that a French DOW would not help her , but that UK and France would wage, after the fall of CZ, a war of revenge that would not solve the problem of the Sudeten Germans and would deliver CZ to the USSR .
They did. You can read the text of the treaty here: http://www.forost.ungarisches-institut. ... 0125-1.pdf
There also was a very busy military cooperation and there was a clear will on France's side to protect its ally in case of German aggression. About the cooperation in the Air Force and the very concrete measures that were taken, details can be found there "La coopération aéronautique tchécoslovaque", Revue historique des armées, 1993 (https://ebsees.staatsbibliothek-berlin. ... embre-1938).
Only after the new minister Georges Bonnet the policies changed and eventually prevailed the opinion that France should not take any actions which are not coordinated with the UK, so they effectively resigned to have own foreign policy. Those changes were dramatic and only happened in 1938, leading to the Munich dictate.

But your claim that France never felt obligated by the treaty they had is simply a lie.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

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

#180

Post by ljadw » 06 Jun 2023, 12:18

lahoda wrote:
06 Jun 2023, 11:47
gebhk wrote:
03 Jun 2023, 14:58
Yes I am looking at the real numbers which is why I find your argument impossible to accept. They are simply this: Poland's wartime losses were approximately 5.9-6 million, those of Czechoslovakia 340-355 K. Even if we stick to the military losses you are, I'm afraid, wrong in your estimations. Combat loses among officers are always, per capita, substantially higher among officers than other ranks. For example British 8th Army reported for the period 2 July 1942 to 14 May 1943, the average loss rate for officers varying from 1 to 11 percent, for OR it was 0.4 to 6.4 percent. And, it may be surprising, that Polish military losses from all causes at 240K are not a world apart from the Czechoslovak ones at 35-46K when the relative sizes of the populations are taken into acount. In short, suffering a defeat on the scale of Poland might have cost Czechoslovakia around 3x the military casualty rate that it ended up having in reality.

However this is almost a sideshow. The point is that in war it is the civilian casualties that nearly always make up the vast bulk of the numbers and, clearly as the numbers above indicate, this was the case here.
In the case of Poland, an enraged Hitler, personally ordered the elimination of the Polish intelligentsia. In the enactment of this will the Intelligenzaction consumed the lives of 60-100K people, the AB action up 7K and those are just the 'lowlights'. I am not aware of any such policy enacted against Chechoslovakia (I may well be wrong about this and would welcome correction). In the course of the war, Poland lost nearly 40% of its doctors, a third of its teachers and academics and a quarter of its priests. I was unable to find comparative figures for Chechoslovakia, but given given the overall fugures, I highly doubt anything of the sort occurred there.
If I got you right, you argue that the actual casualty rate is higher among officers. I used 1 of 10 just as an example, you argue it should be 2 of 10, ok I give you that.

Let's look at some hard data

There was 144 generals in 1938 in the Czechoslovak Army (according the source: https://armada.vojenstvi.cz/predvalecna ... e-1938.htm)
According the same source (https://armada.vojenstvi.cz/predvalecna ... z-1945.htm), 29 generals were killed or executed during 1939-1945, or more than 20%. Out of these, just gen. Čihák died really on consequence of the actual fight, but you can add gen. Fisher, gen. Mejstřík, gen. Untermüller (first died during air raid in Protectorate, and the later two were shot during Prague uprising). as such things happen, so that is 4, or 2,8%

That means that 2,8% of them killed during war was pretty much in line with what you assume (2%) but in reality it was 20%, or TEN TIMES more.

Similar ratio was among Colonels, according to official source (https://armada.vojenstvi.cz/predvalecna ... z-1945.htm) out of 64 colonels killed in 1939-45, just 5 were not executed by Germans, which is 92%.

This is huge difference and that is what I was talking about. I don't have numbers for other professions, but Germans targeted other intelligentsia besides military personal, so I think it is safe to bet the number of say, academics would be also higher per 1000 soldiers killed.

Concerning the second issue, where you point to the level of casualties happening in Poland after a defeat and that Czechoslovakia made a wise choice - your point is made on assumption Czechoslovakia would be quickly overrun and defeated (like Poland), yet I provided a lots of arguments why the outcome of the conflict with Czechoslovakia would be different, I don't buy the logic Germans would prevail on the size of GDP and number of inhabitants, it is military strength and economic situation which matters in a war, and Germany was not in a good shape in either in 1938. That makes the comparison with casualties of Finland in 1939 quite appropriate (Germans would most likely damage/kill more people in air raids, but as it was proven elsewhere, this had limited impact on nation's capability and willingness to resistance)

Even in the case Czechoslovakia would get defeated it is unclear what would happen..it might be quite similar to what happened in real timeline, as Germans needed the industrial output of Czech economy for their war machine. Sure, Hitler could possibly destroy most of the country, and kill millions, but he would had not enough resources as a result to continue the war and defeat France in 1940 or even Poland in 1939.
There is no proof that if there was a German-Czech war in October 1938 which was won by Germany,there would be a German-Polish war in September 1939 .
There is also no proof that a French DOW in October 1938 would be followed by a German attack in May 1940 and that the Germans would remain idle in 1939 .

Post Reply

Return to “What if”