Without the Fall of France in 1940, would Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union still be united today?

[Futurist]

Without the Fall of France in 1940, would Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union still be united (as in, avoid breakup and collapse) today?

[maltesefalcon]

Do you put any thought into these posts before you put them on this forum?
How did you link one event with the others to make even the slightest bit of sense?

For the record, Czechoslovakia was dismembered once before the war even started. Fall of France had nothing to do with it.

Yugoslavia was united under a king until the Germans undermined their government and invaded. Not likely to occur if Germany is still fighting in France 1941. So a lack of French defeat actually stabilizes their nation, not the opposite.

Same for Soviets. They survived a brutal war and came back stronger than before. If France does not fall I cannot see any scenario that would cause their breakup much sooner. Quite the opposite in fact As Barbarrossa would not likely have occurred.

The Fall of France occurred about 40 and 50 years before the demise of Yugoslavia and USSR respectively. It's pretty hard to link any causal analysis to France 1940. You might as well link it to Little Bighorn. Makes about as much sense frankly.

[Futurist]

Do you put any thought into these posts before you put them on this forum?
How did you link one event with the others to make even the slightest bit of sense?

For the record, Czechoslovakia was dismembered once before the war even started. Fall of France had nothing to do with it.

True, but if France survives in 1940 and the Anglo-French subsequently win the war, then Czechoslovakia could be put back together.

Yugoslavia was united under a king until the Germans undermined their government and invaded. Not likely to occur if Germany is still fighting in France 1941. So a lack of French defeat actually stabilizes their nation, not the opposite.

It would certainly stabilize their nation in the short-run, but what about in the long-run?

Same for Soviets. They survived a brutal war and came back stronger than before. If France does not fall I cannot see any scenario that would cause their breakup much sooner. Quite the opposite in fact As Barbarrossa would not likely have occurred.

Do you think that the Soviet Union survives up to the present-day in such a scenario, albeit perhaps in a reformed form?

The Fall of France occurred about 40 and 50 years before the demise of Yugoslavia and USSR respectively. It's pretty hard to link any causal analysis to France 1940. You might as well link it to Little Bighorn. Makes about as much sense frankly.

The Fall of France was much more important for European geopolitics than the Battle of Little Bighorn was, though.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think Yugoslavia would have come apart one way or the other. The ethnic and religious tensions in the Balkans long predated WWII, and I think would have long outlasted the war, too. Indeed, by giving rise to Tito as a focus of resistance and then governance, WWII may have prolonged that nation's existence.

I doubt France withstanding German invasion would have changed the USSR much, simply because Stalin would've stayed at helm. The USSR too came apart under internal pressures. Had France withstood Germany, no Barbarossa, and GULag running along nicely.

This does seem like a historical non sequitur.

[Futurist]

What about Czechoslovakia had it been recreated after the end of WWII in this scenario just like it was in real life?

[maltesefalcon]

I will not requote Futurist's reply for brevity.
Not disputing that all the nations mentioned eventually broke up. However linking those events to the fall(or not) of France in 1940 is ridiculous.


As I mentioned earlier you might as well link them to Little Bighorn....

[lahoda]

True, but if France survives in 1940 and the Anglo-French subsequently win the war, then Czechoslovakia could be put back together.

That was already too late. A cerntain man with umbrella, happily returning home with a worthless piece of paper, not only made the WW II inevitable but also let out forces that did irreversible damage both in October 1938 and March 1939. After that, relations of Czechs and Slovaks were never the same.
Had he stayed in London in 1938, there most likely would be some sort of war, which would not only crippled Hitler as he was not ready for war, saved France in 1940 and bond the Czechs and Slovaks together in a fight so the people such as Tiso or Beran would be completely irrelevant.

[Futurist]

True, but if France survives in 1940 and the Anglo-French subsequently win the war, then Czechoslovakia could be put back together.

That was already too late. A cerntain man with umbrella, happily returning home with a worthless piece of paper, not only made the WW II inevitable but also let out forces that did irreversible damage both in October 1938 and March 1939. After that, relations of Czechs and Slovaks were never the same.
Had he stayed in London in 1938, there most likely would be some sort of war, which would not only crippled Hitler as he was not ready for war, saved France in 1940 and bond the Czechs and Slovaks together in a fight so the people such as Tiso or Beran would be completely irrelevant.

You think that if war would have broken out in 1938 Czechoslovakia would have remained united and intact up to the present-day?

[lahoda]

You think that if war would have broken out in 1938 Czechoslovakia would have remained united and intact up to the present-day?

Yes, if there was a war with Germany in 1938, where both Czechs and Slovaks would fight together (and they would, it is just a natural reaction when you are being attacked) they would amalgamated into a true singular nation. Damages in the Czech part of the country would be much bigger, which would help to even out the disparity in industrial base and living standards.

Events of October 1938 raised some rather obsure forces (mostly in Slovakia) and Hitler abused them masterfully in the nazi-orchestrated split of the country in March 1939. Without this to happen, Czechoslovakia would be much more stable.

[Futurist]

You think that if war would have broken out in 1938 Czechoslovakia would have remained united and intact up to the present-day?

Yes, if there was a war with Germany in 1938, where both Czechs and Slovaks would fight together (and they would, it is just a natural reaction when you are being attacked) they would amalgamated into a true singular nation. Damages in the Czech part of the country would be much bigger, which would help to even out the disparity in industrial base and living standards.

Events of October 1938 raised some rather obsure forces (mostly in Slovakia) and Hitler abused them masterfully in the nazi-orchestrated split of the country in March 1939. Without this to happen, Czechoslovakia would be much more stable.

Interestingly enough, though, having a common history of fighting together against a common enemy (specifically during the Seven Years' War, Napoleonic Wars, Crimean War, World War I, World War II, et cetera) didn't prevent a lot of Scots from wanting to leave the UK later on.

[lahoda]

Interestingly enough, though, having a common history of fighting together against a common enemy (specifically during the Seven Years' War, Napoleonic Wars, Crimean War, World War I, World War II, et cetera) didn't prevent a lot of Scots from wanting to leave the UK later on.

Sure. There would be some tension, but the influence of such people would be weak. See the difference, Scots might want out of UK and let's see if the whole Brexit situation eventually accelerates this, but they are still part of UK, while Czechoslovakia exists no more. Quite visible difference, one would say.

[Futurist]

Interestingly enough, though, having a common history of fighting together against a common enemy (specifically during the Seven Years' War, Napoleonic Wars, Crimean War, World War I, World War II, et cetera) didn't prevent a lot of Scots from wanting to leave the UK later on.

Sure. There would be some tension, but the influence of such people would be weak. See the difference, Scots might want out of UK and let's see if the whole Brexit situation eventually accelerates this, but they are still part of UK, while Czechoslovakia exists no more. Quite visible difference, one would say.

Yes, the UK's shelf life was longer than that of Czechoslovakia. That I won't dispute. However, I will say that AFAIK the Czechoslovak people didn't actually want their country to break up in the early 1990s--or at least a majority of them didn't. Rather, this breakup occurred because the Czechs and Slovaks couldn't actually reach a power-sharing agreement between the two of them within Czechoslovakia and thus their politicians felt that it was best for these two ethnic groups to go their own separate ways.

[lahoda]

Yes, the UK's shelf life was longer than that of Czechoslovakia. That I won't dispute. However, I will say that AFAIK the Czechoslovak people didn't actually want their country to break up in the early 1990s--or at least a majority of them didn't. Rather, this breakup occurred because the Czechs and Slovaks couldn't actually reach a power-sharing agreement between the two of them within Czechoslovakia and thus their politicians felt that it was best for these two ethnic groups to go their own separate ways.

Yep your observation is probably correct, however it was rather complex situation and it is very difficult to say which was the most important aspect that lead directly to a breakup. I'd say the elections which brought two very different parties/personalities in Klaus and Mečiar to power were the final straw.
But having common history of fighting against Hitler's aggression within single state would be a very different to what happened in Slovaks getting glimpse of their own state during WWII bringing nationalist into prominence wouldn't hurt, don't you think? It would definitely improve the chances in 1990's, same as eventual ability to avoid 40 years of communism where the seeds of nationalism, planted in Slovak WWII State were just hibernated without actual problems being discussed and solved.

[Futurist]

Yes, the UK's shelf life was longer than that of Czechoslovakia. That I won't dispute. However, I will say that AFAIK the Czechoslovak people didn't actually want their country to break up in the early 1990s--or at least a majority of them didn't. Rather, this breakup occurred because the Czechs and Slovaks couldn't actually reach a power-sharing agreement between the two of them within Czechoslovakia and thus their politicians felt that it was best for these two ethnic groups to go their own separate ways.

Yep your observation is probably correct, however it was rather complex situation and it is very difficult to say which was the most important aspect that lead directly to a breakup. I'd say the elections which brought two very different parties/personalities in Klaus and Mečiar to power were the final straw.
But having common history of fighting against Hitler's aggression within single state would be a very different to what happened in Slovaks getting glimpse of their own state during WWII bringing nationalist into prominence wouldn't hurt, don't you think? It would definitely improve the chances in 1990's, same as eventual ability to avoid 40 years of communism where the seeds of nationalism, planted in Slovak WWII State were just hibernated without actual problems being discussed and solved.

Yes, having a common enemy to fight against in the form of Nazi Germany in 1938 would have certainly helped the Czechs and the Slovaks. However, as the example of the UK shows, this might not be enough to maintain unity indefinitely. Also, the various Soviet peoples fought together against a common Nazi German enemy during World War II but this likewise didn't prevent the Soviet Union from eventually collapsing later on--though even post-collapse, a lot of ex-USSR countries still celebrate the Soviet Union's victory over Nazism in World War II during Victory Day in May.

[lahoda]

Yes, having a common enemy to fight against in the form of Nazi Germany in 1938 would have certainly helped the Czechs and the Slovaks. However, as the example of the UK shows, this might not be enough to maintain unity indefinitely. Also, the various Soviet peoples fought together against a common Nazi German enemy during World War II but this likewise didn't prevent the Soviet Union from eventually collapsing later on--though even post-collapse, a lot of ex-USSR countries still celebrate the Soviet Union's victory over Nazism in World War II during Victory Day in May.

OK so we've agreed that war in 1938 (and non existence of Slovak state, orchestrated by Nazis during WWII) would help. Sure no one can say if it would be enough or not. It is a long chain of actions. I guess another result of the above mentioned would be less chance of falling into Stalin's empire, which would be another important precondition. With truly free elections and no strong nationalist party, emphasised by the Slovak WWII state, I believe many problems that hindered the relationships between Czech and Slovaks could be solved. Czech part of the country would be more damaged during war with Germany, naturally helping to even out the industrial base. More educated people in Slovakia would end the "all offices are manned by Czechs only" problem. Reasonable federation could be found, in a way Switzerland has it.
Sure this was far far from certain and there was always a chance that some strong, dark politician would emerge and make the nations to split, but my guess that it would be more likely for Czechoslovakia to stay together, than not.