The Czech crisis

There was no Czechoslovakian nation in 1914,besides the Czechs were a part of Austria, the Slovaks of Hungary .

And if Hitler attacked, of course France and Britain would declare war (Chamberlain told it publicly) but that would not help CZ,because France would not attack Germany.

 

There was a big difference between the Czechs in 1914 and the SD Germans in 1938:

In 1914 most of the Czechs wanted autonomy ,some independence, but no one wanted the annexation to Russia .

In 1938, all SD Germans wanted the Anschluss with Germany, autonomy was over . No SD German would shoot on a German soldier .

 

Deeply flawed argument.

Yugoslavia collapsed quickly for multiple reasons not relevant to the Czech's in 1938. First and foremost she faced a Wehrmacht with two years combat experience under their belt. Blitzkrieg was a perfected tactic, operating upon ground in northern Yugoslavia that was perfect for its use. Germany had two willing allies (Hungary and Italy) willing to commit forces and Yugoslavia had neither a defense belt or much of a native military industrial complex.

The Czech's yielded in 1938 due to weak leadership who took council of their fear's, they Surrendered in 1939 because the same weak leadership yielded their only viable defense in 1938.

You seem to utter discount the actual Czech's in their army, they would be in those fortifications and yes they would indeed fight if ordered to do so, unless it is your contention that every male Czech in 1938 was a coward. You also discount anyone not German or Slovak in the civilian population, again are they all cowards?

Passive and active resistance can make life difficult for a armed force, given enough time, but the history of the war clearly indicates that they can not prevent a trained military force from operating where it wishes to unless at the extreme end of a very long line of communication. In the Sudetenland those Czech's loyal to the state were a considerable number and would have the full support of the state. It might easily be the Sudeten Germans who came off the worse for wear.

The logic of problem solving is that you tackle them one at a time. First stop Hitler, then deal with any disloyal Sudeten's then find a solution with the Slovak's

The remainder of your post is simply too incoherent to be worth responding.

 

Well spotted! Then again I did not say they were a nation in 1914. I did say that for the length of the Great war they fought for the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Perhaps not well all that period, but they did fight and had better reason to fight in 1938. In the case of a Anglo-French declaration of war Hitler could not discount the possibility of a attack from the west or that Poland who had a closer relationship to the west, would not side with the 'Allies'.

 

According to the divided logic, France should have fell into civil war because of the deep division between left and right. You also ignore the reality that the German economy would have collapsed because it was not ready for a sustained fight

 

The Czech's (and the Poles) knew they stood no chance against Germany. War is as much about economics, production and manpower as it is about weapons and skill. The Finns eventually, inevitablly, had to do a deal with the Russians because they ran out of ammunition. Admitedly they got a better deal they if they had just rolled over.

The purpose of the attacks on the Czech's and Anschluss was to provoke a war with the UK and France. The British war economy had been mobilzing from 1936 onwards, but at the time of the Munich agreement the British only had 93 Spitfires and Hurricanes to oppose 1200 fast German bombers, and 100's of Me 109's.

Germany had to 'bounce' Western europe early in 1937 - 38 before the French and UK war economies came on stream. It's was too late by 1940. So reality is Czechoslovakia and Poland were deliberately sacrificed to buy time - and it was absolutely the correct decision.

 

This is not correct : you will not find ONE proof for your claim .Cz was not sacrificed:CZ chose not to fight and F+B (not B +F ) did not abandon Poland : they declared war on Germany, without this DOW, Poland would have disappeared .

 

1) How? And Why ?

2 ) How ? Besides : they were not disloyal, they had been forcibly incorporated in CZ in 1918

3 ) How ? And Why ?

No state can survive if 50 % of its population felt persecuted by the other 50 % .

If the Irish had the right to secede, why not the SD Germans and why not the Slovaks ?

 

The Czechs took the justified decision not to fight ,in 1938 and in 1939 .

Why ? They were on their own, without allies . If they would fight, France also would fight, but this would not help the Czechs .

The Czechs wanted two things : peace and the continuation of the existence of CZ as it was founded in 1918 = a state of nationalities,dominated by 50 % of the population . If there was a war, this state would disappear, what would be the outcome of the war .

WWI resulted in the end of the multicultural states of Russia and AH .

WWII would reult in the end of the multicultural Polish and CZ states .

That's why CZ refused to fight : it would have refused to fight even if it could expect a very quick French offensive .

 

Your real agenda presents itself and helps to explain your largely nonsensical and often incoherent post's in this thread.

You fret that this thread is about the Anglo-French actions at Munich. Your position is that they didn't stab the Czech's in the back, but if they did it was France's fault "and F+B (not B+F)". This is not the subject of this thread, the subject is what might happen if the Czech's had decided to fight a 'hopeless' fight as Poland, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Yugoslavia and Greece did.

The second half of your post returns to the largely nonsensical and often incoherent.

Did not Czechoslovakia return AFTER the war as a Warsaw Pact puppet of the Soviet Union as Poland did, or do you have access to maps of a alternate universe?

 

As usual you saw a left turn sign and turned right.

When faced with a complex problem, or one you cannot solve in a single go, you triage the situation as they do when a hospital is overwhelmed by patients. Select those who are not critical, set them aside and concentrate on those that cannot. The Slovak's could wait, the Sudeten's are largely manageable without German agitation. German Aggression is the pressing problem.

1) A tyrant bent on conquest can not be appeased, only resisted. Some,perhaps many, will fall before the Tyrant is stopped, but until confronted a Tyrant can never be stopped. That's why.

2) If Germany is defeated The Czech's could do as they historically did after the war, forcibly relocate them or they could ask for international help to peaceably relocate them either within Germany or Austria with subsidies to ease the move or they could try to find a middle ground that made them feel welcome. The Czech's didn't take their land by conquest, the Victorious Great War allies redrew the map of Europe. If there is blame, it lies there.

3) Why first. Because together they are greater than the sum of their part's. How. Find common ground, allow greater autonomy in each 'state' while keeping a central 'Federated' government for national and international affairs. Is that easy, no, but multi cultural, multi lingual Countries have done it before.

As for your last, perhaps you should touch up on British Imperial history. Never has so many been denied their freedom by so few. In the case of Ireland they were forced to endure English rule, at the behest of English rulers, for 800 years. A outside force did not draw up their borders.

 

Back to largely nonsensical and often incoherent.

They allowed the dismemberment of their country because they wanted to keep it intact.

The Mad Hatter would be proud of that logic.

 

1) Hindsight is a bad argument

About Ireland : the fact remains that Britain gave the Irish their independence in 1921 and that NI was allowed to remain in the UK .The period between the 2 WW's was dominated by the principle of self determination :if the Irish had their self determination, why not the SD Germans and the Slovaks ?

3) After WWI the epoch of the multicultural states was over : multicultural AH was gone, and its multicultural successors would go .Nationalism was ruling .

And there is an other point : a war where Germany would be defeated would open the gates for the SU, and no country in eastern Europe was enthusiastic about the arrival of the SU . War in 1938 would mean the end of CZ as an independent state as it was created in 1918;a year later there was such a war and it resulted for CZ in an occupation of 40 years by the SU .And when the SU disappeared, CZ disappeared : the Slovaks left .

 

Assassment of the British Chiefs of Staff (14 september 1938)

"Appreciation of the situation in the event of war against Germany"

The Germans could achieve "the occupation of the whole of western Cz including Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia" easily" without any appreciable delay"....


I think that with this everything has been said .

 

Hitler was hardly the first tyrant or conqueror in history and, as with all of them, they were never stopped until confronted.

Gee, it only took the altruistic British 800 years to see the light, can't you give the Czech's a wee bit more time than a single generation, especially since they did not go out to conquer the Sudeten's out of greed for land and resources? Of course Britain's sudden interest in self determination at the aftermath of the Great War did not extend to the remainder of the Empire did it? Actually they found a whole host of new lands from which the Sun would never set in Africa, Middle East and Asia.

The era of Multi-Cultural Empire's were indeed coming to a close, but as Britain, France and the Soviet Union proved, they could stagger on as long as your were willing to assume the cost and spill the blood. Multi-Cultural nations do exist. Canada has Native American and French subsets, with a growing Asian community. The US is even more diverse. Belgium has three official languages and many semi official ones.

To finish, your last again is nonsensical and incoherent. Munich also ended the Czechoslovak state for all intents and purposes. It also laid the foundation for the Soviet Union moving from a nation who wanted to see Nazi Germany contained into one that embraced them in word and deed. Germany confronted in 1938 might have seen a world where the Soviet Union never strayed far from her borders.

 

From the same source that thought that Norway would welcome seizure of her northern ports, that Sweden would gratefully permit the Anglo-French to tromp over their country to fight along side the noble Finn's against Hitler's ally, The Soviet Union? That thought they would contain Germany until 1941-42 where upon they would then march across the German Border and end the war?

Indeed that does say much, but not what you think it does.

 

1 ) No : it has not

2 ) Irrelevant : A war would also have ended the CZ state

3 ) NO : the SU did not want Germany contained :that's only Soviet propaganda

4 ) The SU did not embrace Germany in word and deed

5 ) As the SU had no common border with CZ, the fall of CZ was of no importance to the SU :the role of the SU in the SD crisis was minimal .

 

The British chiefs of staff knew more than you and had more expertise . ,besides the Czechs agreed with them : in case of a German invasion, the Czechs would abandon their fortifications and retreat to hostile Slowakia . This debunks the theory that the German attack would fail .

The Czechs were realistic and knew that they had no chance at all . They could not expect any help .

 

Hindsight and wrong : a restoration of the German domination of central Europe (between the Rhine and the SU ) was not endangering France :it is the opposite : it would give France more safety.

 

??? 3 hardly looks like Soviet propaganda to me. Perhaps you could explain with sources.

4 they most certainly did. Observe the partition of Poland and the business relations between the two in the aftermath of "CA"

5 You'll have to make a stronger case than stating your opinion. It wasn't the proximity it was how the West reacted from what I can see.