The Czech crisis

Wrong argument as it was not Germany that claimed the Sudeten,but the inhabitants of the Sudeten who wanted to be a part of Germany .

Self determination applied for the Alsace, for Ireland, for Ulster,for the Saar,for the north of schleswig-Holstein, for Silesia, for Dantzig : Britain,France and US refused the incorporation of Dantzig to Poland because the population of Dantzig refused this incorporation and because self determination had more value than strategic interests .

Once self determination was given to white people, it took not long before it had to be given to coloured people : India, Egypt, Iraq,...

 

Right, so, your #5(War or peace did not depend on France ,but on CZ) is wrong then. War and Peace did depend on France.

Thank you for clarifying your mistake.

So...After 1933, the Liberals & Labour agreed that the SD Germans were being rightly treated by CZ?
You making sense would be nice.

Saat? If you mean the Saar, France had little say in the matter as the Saar was under League of Nations administration. All France controlled in the Saar was their coal mines. Thus, France was in no position to deny anything. Perhaps you have confused "after WW1" with "after WW2" when the Saar was a French protectorate between 1947-56.

Have you even read the 1924 Treaty? I don't think so...

Let's see...

The French violated this by not acting in concert with Czechoslovakia at Munich.

Again, violated by the French at Munich.

Again, violated by the French at Munich.

Now, LJAd, you can view the text of the Treaty here: http://www.forost.ungarisches-institut.de/pdf/19240125-1.pdf
Please point out to me where the Treaty states that the French will go to war for the Czechs. As all I see that is required of the French is meetings and consultations.

Then again...If the French are willing to violate several of the Articles of the Treaty...Then, why should the Czechs expect them to honor this mythical "France declares war" article?

Even if the Czechs had started a war, there would have been no guaranteed French DoW...Only meetings and consultations. And Benes knew he would not even get that after Munich.

 

Totally right, because there is a connection between Munich and the start of WWII/the fall of France.

Not that I expect you to admit it, because that would mean that you are wrong.

"And LJAd is never wrong"...Snigger.
Sorry, but I just cannot say that and keep a straight face.

 

Wrong argument as it was not Germany that claimed the Sudeten,but the inhabitants of the Sudeten who wanted to be a part of Germany .

Self determination applied for the Alsace, for Ireland, for Ulster,for the Saar,for the north of schleswig-Holstein, for Silesia, for Dantzig : Britain,France and US refused the incorporation of Dantzig to Poland because the population of Dantzig refused this incorporation and because self determination had more value than strategic interests .

Once self determination was given to white people, it took not long before it had to be given to coloured people : India, Egypt, Iraq,...


Well, they are a part of Germany now, but rather not thanks to that principle.

Without the powerful German Army on the other side of the border they could have demanded till the kingdom come - nobody would pay attention.

Alsace is not a good example, although they actually declared independence there, the French Army made short work of their Republic of Alsace-Lorraine.

The Irish regained independence thanks to their bombs and guns, and generally being a nuisance. Silesia the same.

Schleswig-Holstein is a good example, they actually asked the people there for their opinions, but without Germany's defeat in 1918 nobody would ask them ever, and they all would be good Germans by now.

And although India regained independence the various ethnic groups of India didn't, or they had/have to fight for their independence.

 

I would add that Danzig is a poor example where, despite Poland being given generous rights, Danzig remained a protectorate of the League of Nations. Same goes for the Saar.

 

Mahatma Gandhi, Ho Chi Minh and Hussein bin Ali (Sharif of Mecca) might have found this attitude from the Anglo-French refreshing.....if they actually saw such a mythical creature.

 

The Czechs had an army of 42 divisions and two brigades- over 600,000 men. They had the 38t tank that the Germans took over, that was superior to the Panzer I or II. They had four air regiments, and the highest amount of automatic weapons per soldier. 1938 Germany would have had their hands full IMO.

 

In 1938 the Czech's had the LT 35 in service, a less mechanically reliable model than the improved 38 of which only prototypes were available. On their own ground, near their factories and operating on a semi-modern road net it would not have been as great a problem. They would have still outgunned the majority of German armor and outnumbered by a factor of 2 or 3 the number of superior Pzkw III's in service.

 

The Panzer III wasn't produced until 1939. The Panzer I had a machine gun and Mark II had a tiny gun.

 

The Panzer III pre-production designs had been produced, including some 68 armed Panzer IIIs of the ausf. A, B, C, and D variants that were ready. The Panzer III Ausf E entered production in December, 1938.

 

You are likely thinking of the Pzkw IV.

 

It wouldn't have been ready to fight the Czech army in September of 1938

 

Proof ?

 

Wrong :If all that was required from the French were meetings and consultations, the treaty was not violated by the French .

The treaty was irrelevant for a French decision to declare war,it was the same for Poland :the French would not remain idle if Germany invaded an other country,even a country with which France had no treaty : the French had mobilised,as did the British and they said (as did Chamberlain) that if Germany invaded Cz , they would declare war .All the Czechs had to do was to say : NO to Hitler .They did not (which was a wise attitude ) .

As the Treaty did not require the French to declare war, the French did not violate the Treaty .Which is something that you still refuse to understand, because you like to blame the French .

 

I said that it was given to the white man and later it was extended to coloured people .

In the 19th century, the German colonies would have been given to the victors,at Versailles they were given to the League who selected some countries to govern them .British India was a member of the League ,which meant that it would become a Dominion,and Dominions were de facto independent states .

 

You need to buy urgently new glasses : French did not violate any article of the 1924 treaty, this treaty did not oblige French to take any real measures .Besides, id France declared war, it would not because of a treaty .
France did more than it had to do : it mobilised and warned Hitler not to invade CZ .,although the treaty did NOT oblige France to mobilize and to warn Hitler .

 

As long there was peace between Germany and CZ,there was no reason for France to declare war on Germany .If there was such a war, France would be compelled to declare war,although there was no legal obligation .

What you still fail to understand is that nations do not declare war because of treaties,what may say teachers of high schools as Princeton . Treaties are as electoral promises:their function is to be read and to be forgotten,,they always include an escape clause .

US did not intervene when the SU invaded Afghanistan, but they intervened when Argentine invaded the Falklands and they intervened when Iraq invaded Kuweit, although in all three cases there was no treaty obliging US to do anything .

It was the same when in 1960 India invaded Goa . And there are a lot of other exemples .

Nato members joined the US in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,although there was no legal obligation to do this .

Britain declared war on Germany in 1914 and in 1939 although there was no treaty obliging Britain to do this .

 

Please provide proof that the French consulted with the Czechs at Munich. If none is forthcoming, then the French violated several articles of the 1924 Treaty that required them to do so.

The French only ordered a partial mobilization, not a full one. They were posturing, not going to war. If the French were truly intent on going to go to war with Germany, the would have ordered a full mobilization.

All the British did was to begin to mobilize their fleet on September 27th.

The Treaty required consultation with Czechoslovakia on such matters. This did not happen at Munich, hence the French did violate the Treaty... Which is something that you still refuse to understand.

Yes, I agree you urgently need new glasses...The French most certainly did not act in concert with, nor consult Czechoslovakia at Munich. Thus they did violate the 1924 Treaty.

Did the 1924 Treaty require France to throw the Czechs under the German bus? Because that is what the French did.

 

The treaty did NOT require France to act in concert with CZ, nor consult CZ : the treaty mentioned that BOTH countries would act in concert with each other and consult each other .Unless you can prove that CZ wanted to act in concert with France, that it wanted to consult France,but that France refused, you have no point .

As there was a problem between Germany and CZ, it was on CZ to act in concert with France, not the opposite .

 

On 20/21 may 1938, CZ started a partial mobilisation,without consulting France,without concerting with France .

Thus why should France consult CZ ?

Besides, in most cases, no one is consulting,acting in concert with his ally .

Consulting and concerting are meaningless words ,used by diplomats and politicians to decorate treaties .

Russia did not consult France when it started a partial mobilisation in august 1914,neither did France and Britain with relation to the US in november 1956, neither did US when they invaded Grenada,etc,etc....