Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

The Czech crisis

Discussion in 'Prelude to War & Poland 1939' started by GunSlinger86, Apr 26, 2016.

  1. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    There is no proof that Hitler would attack France: he heavily criticised Imperial Germany because it had attacked France which resulted in a war with Britain and German defeat ..

    France did not declare war because they realized that Hitler would not stop : they declared war,because there WAS a German invasion of Poland and they would have declared war if there was a German invasion of CZ .France had given up and CZ and Poland ,it would not fight to conserve these countries,but for a moral principle : it could not remain idle if Germany attacked an other country .The same for Britain .

    Two times,the Czechs had the opportunity to force France and Britain to intervene :in september 1938 and march 1939:they only had to say NO to Hitler;they chose to say YES .If they did not fight, why should France and Britain fight .

    About the SU : Munich did not cause the pact of august 1939 .The SU signed a pact with Hitler because it had n other choice : without the pact Hitler would have occupied the whole of Poland and the SU could not help Poland,as Poland (not injustifiedly) refused the entry of Soviet forces in Poland .
     
  2. wm.

    wm. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    172
    Location:
    Poland
    Of course the USSR had a choice. The Soviets could always do nothing, especially didn't have to invade.

    And to be quite correct, the Soviets never asked Poland for any anti-German agreement/alliance - Poland couldn't refuse something she wasn't even asked.

    Although they mentioned to the French and British negotiators that their Army would have to be moved into Poland - it was obviously a delaying tactic - at the same time Ribbentrop was flying to Moscow to sign his pact.

    But the British relayed the Soviet demands to the Poles, and the result was:
    The same day the Nazi–Soviet Pact was signed.
     
  3. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    SO LJAD, if the French would have attacked Germany if they invaded, why did they agree to give the Sudetenland to Germany to avoid war, its not like the Czechs just said sure you can have the land, plus the Germans still invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia despite more guarantees to protect and they still did nothing.
     
  4. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    This would have been bad for Poland and very bad for the SU .
     
  5. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    1)The French did not agree to give the Sudetenland to Germany : the Czechs agreed to give the Sudetenland to Germany

    2) The French tried to avoid war

    3) As long as there was no war, the French could do nothing : they could not start a war to prevent war

    4) Morally right was on the German side, unless one would say that the SD Germans had no right on self-determination, something which did say Churchill,but he was totally discredited

    5) War or peace did not depend on France ,but on CZ

    6) There was no war in march 1939,because the Czechs chose not to fight

    7 ) If Benesj did not fight,why should Daladier fight ? In march 1938,Schussnig did not fight, thus Benesj also did not fight .In march 1939,Lithuania did not fight, thus Poland also did not fight . If the victim is not resisting to the agressor, no one will help him

    8) Morally the French had no argument and strategically the SD were not worth the bones of a poilu ;thus why should the French start a war ?
     
  6. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    You should try to study history, its clear you do not know what you are talking about. http://spartacus-educational.com/2WWmunich.htp try reading the quotes by Neville Henderson. The humiliation of the Czechs was a tragedy, but it was solely thanks to Chamberlains courage and pertinacity that a futile and useless war was averted. Robert Boothby conservative member of Parliament. Hitler did not even have to send the Czechs an ultimatum, Chamberlin did that for him. also try reading http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/worldwarii/p/World-War-li-Munich-Agreement.htm
     
  7. wm.

    wm. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    172
    Location:
    Poland
    It was a random and unexpected for Stalin outcome - he didn't plan for this.
    His original plan was to partition Poland - for ever, and weaken major European powers by embroiling them in a long and devastating war.
     
  8. wm.

    wm. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    172
    Location:
    Poland
    As a universal code of ethics doesn't exist, and different cultures, groups and individuals have different moral standards it really means nothing. It could only mean the German propaganda efforts were more successful.
    Certainly international law (including the Kellogg–Briand Pact and the Covenant of the League of Nations) was on the Czech side.
    The right of self-determination wasn't recognized as a valid international rule, and anyway the principle of territorial integrity (of an existing country) had/has precedence over self-determination.
     
  9. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    NO : that was not his PLAN .
     
  10. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    NO : after WWI,the right of self-determination had precedence,this(the right of self-determination) was for the public opinion in Britain and France, that what they had fought for . It was this principle that had caused the disbandment of the multicultural state of Austria-Hungary..It was this principle that Poland used to claim the return of Tecsin /Teschen . It was this principle that was used in 1921to solve the problem of Silesia, to solve the problem of Dantzig and Wilna;self-determination had precedence on territorial integrity for Ireland,for the Alsace,territorial integrity was a 19th century principle and was abandoned after Versailles .

    Besides the Kellogg-Briand Pact (which outlawed aggressive war) was irrelevant for the Sudeten question : there was no war in 1938 ..
     
  11. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    Spartacus is not a serious source .And Boothby was a supporter of Churchill .
     
  12. wm.

    wm. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    172
    Location:
    Poland
    Additionally the pact mandated that all disputes or conflicts should be resolved by pacific means.
    Hitler threatened to invade Czechoslovakia and bomb Prague to smithereens. These weren't "pacific means" by any stretch of imagination.


    Although strangely they were told that at the end of the war, so they fought and died by millions unaware of the true reason for the war.
    Originally the British people were told that the territorial integrity of Belgium was at stake.


    It was used against the defeated Central Powers: Hungary, Austria, Germany and nowhere else. Certainly the people living in the British/French colonial empires weren't granted the right to self-determination. Or the people of Russia - so called prison of nations.
    And it wasn't even mentioned by the Covenant of the League of Nations.

    A rule used selectively a few times and generally disregarded by everyone if inconvenient can't be regarded as a valid international rule.
    In that case it was simply the right of conquest - the right of the victorious party to dictate peace terms.
     
  13. wm.

    wm. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    172
    Location:
    Poland
    Stalin claimed "it was about the domination of the world" at that time, although as usual he and his henchmen did a Orwellian revision of history later.
    According to the notes of Georgi Dimitrov, who was there, and wrote this on 7 September 1939:
    later an official communique was issued:
     
  14. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    Hitler certainly didn't believe in self determination for non Germans so its just a bunch of hooey that he used it. Even Germans had no right of self determination because that belonged to Hitler alone
     
  15. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    Which is not relevant : Hitler used the principles of Versailles against the Allies, who had no answer : they could not say : the Germans have no right on seld determination .
     
  16. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    I believe that the Germans lost their right to self determination when they lost the war and signed Versailles. Otherwise they would not have lost their territories as was set fourth in the Versailles Treaty.
     
  17. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    The text of the Munich Pact says differently...

    Agreement concluded at Munich, September 29, 1938, between Germany, Great Britain, France and Italy
    GERMANY, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, taking into consideration the agreement, which has been already reached in principle for the cession to Germany of the Sudeten German territory, have agreed on the following terms and conditions governing the said cession and the measures consequent thereon, and by this agreement they each hold themselves responsible for the steps necessary to secure its fulfilment:...
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/munich1.asp

    The Czechs were not consulted in this Pact...I wonder why?


    Unfortunately for LJAD, only one can be true.

    If the French are trying to avoid war, then war or peace does depend on them. If War or Peace does not depend on France, then they cannot avoid war.

    Still, the French did try to avoid war...and threw Czechoslovakia under the German bus...Hence, no more Czechoslovakia. No more threat of war. We have peace. Ergo, war or peace was dependent on France.


    Actually, France could have done something...Not thrown Czechoslovakia under the German bus.


    Morally, Germany lost that right when they lost the First World War.


    Even if the Czechs had chosen to fight, no help would have been forthcoming. Any war would have been over in a matter of days, if not hours. Britain and France had already washed their hands on Czechoslovakia.


    Regretfully, you have this reversed...

    If Daladier did not fight, why should Beneš. Beneš saw that the French had thrown them under the bus, so he also knew that foreign support, which was key to a successful Czech resistance, was not there. Thus, there was no point in Beneš fighting a war already lost.


    The French did find out that the SD was worth far more than the bones of one poilu in 1940. Far far more.
     
  18. wm.

    wm. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    172
    Location:
    Poland
    The Versailles Treaty defined the pre-Munich German border with Czechoslovakia [SIZE=14.1558px]without using the principle of [/SIZE] of self determination - as t[SIZE=14.1558px]he 1914 frontier between Germany and Austria[/SIZE].
    So it would be strange to claim the treaty or its principles gave the Germans any rights to Sudetenland when in fact the treaty explicitly said otherwise - that they had no right whatsoever to these territories.
    By signing the treaty Germany renounced all rights to them (this is explicitly written there). You can't demand something you gave away.

    It should be mentioned that the Versailles Treaty didn't actually established the principle of self-determination as a precedent, it isn't even mentioned there.
     
  19. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    1) Wrong : the French knew that if CZ would fight, they would be obliged to fight, that's why they tried to prevent a war

    2 ) Wrong : this is nonsense and no one in 1938 not even Churchill agreed to your claim : in Britain liberals and labour agreed til 1933 that the SD Germans were wrongly treated by CZ ;it was the same in France : in 1935 the inhabitants of the Saat had shown their desire for Heim ins Reich and France agreed;why should France deny the same right to the SD Germans ?

    3 ) There was a conflict between CZ and Germany: France never had promised to fight to prevent the cession of SD Land : in the treaty of 1924, France had promised to help CZ ,but never to start a war .

    4)As long as there was no war of agression started by Germany, France would not declare war on Germany : if Benesj wanted a French DOW,all he had to do was t provoke a German war of agression .He did not take the risk .
     
  20. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    This is totally wrong,because it implies a connection between Munich and the start of WWII/the fall of France .

    In 1938 the SD had no stratgical value for France , because ,without a French DOW, there would be no war between France and Germany .
     

Share This Page