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

[lahoda]

So the Czechs were going to create an equivalent of the 1945 German Alpine Fortress.
I have no means to establish the practicality of that, but Germany, in economic terms, was almost eight times more powerful than Czechoslovakia. The Germans spent more on their army than the entire Czechoslovak GDP.

Oh, yes, noticed the Germany is bigger than Czechoslovakia. What would matter in October 1938 is how was the actual condition and strength of both armies. The Wehrmacht was on the rise, but what would mattered was the situation at the moment of the hypothetical war. It was not Germany in 1939 in Poland neither Germany in 1940 in France nor Germany in 1941 in USSR.

The Sudeten Germans actually liberated and were able to defend several towns in the last week before Munich.
For the German Army, they would deliver intelligence and would serve as guides.

Can you name the towns? The German uprising was somewhat successful against the police/SOS troops (especially when supported by regular troops from Germany) but once the Czechoslovak army arrived to the area, the order was quickly restored (except some areas which were considered strategically unimportant and were not defended). The entire zone where fortifications were placed were guarded even before the mobilization, and thus German plans acquired by this "intelligence" were not accurate on multiple occasions and Wehrmacht would pay a bloody price for that, and once the regular Czechoslovak army was there, this area was completely hermetic to civilians. Any guides would get shot on the spot and most of the Freikorps already fleeced to Germany anyways.

France was able to weasel out of the (undefined in absence of a military agreement) commitments because the alliance intentionally allowed them to do it. France wanted to reduce their commitments in Eastern Europe from day one.
The France-Polish alliance was only marginally better in this regard.
France, reasonably, didn't want to die for other's people Danzigs and Sudetenlands.

Yep, that is true and they even bullied Czechoslovakia to accept the handover of border areas, otherwise they would be marked as aggressors who initiated the conflict. Very short-sighted policy, for which France paid a substantial price in 1940 and they lost their status of super power for good as the result. Not a very smart decision in the long run.

[wm]

I think it was that the Czechs would be responsible for the conflict, not marked as aggressors. According to international law, there was no doubt that Germany would be the aggressor.

I don't think France made a mistake; only a time machine could have warned them that the war in 1940 would be so disastrous. They simply gave peace the last chance.

Can you name the towns? The German uprising was somewhat successful against the police/SOS troops (especially when supported by regular troops from Germany) but once the Czechoslovak army arrived to the area, the order was quickly restored (except some areas which were considered strategically unimportant and were not defended).

I thought it was from a (large) article in the IKC (the largest Polish daily). But it must have been from a nationalistic newspaper, and there were too many of them. It was written by the reporters who visited the places.

In the IKC (22 September), I found this one, written by their own reporter - "In the Free Nation of Schwaderbach."

in the free nation of Schwaderbach.jpg

Thinking about I suppose they were more like left alone than defended themselves but there were several clashes with many casualties.

[lahoda]

I think it was that the Czechs would be responsible for the conflict, not marked as aggressors. According to international law, there was no doubt that Germany would be the aggressor.

Not really. Read the Munich treaty it is an interesting text. France and UK actively bullied Czechoslovakia into accepting these terms. Czechoslovakia was not afraid of war, they were afraid to be marked as aggressors (or "be responsible for the conflict" as you say) forced to cede these territories anyway if they fought an isolated conflict with Germany - they too overestimated the power of German army in 1938, but there is no doubt the Germany would prevail eventually (in 1939). Germany would be too weak to wage further war and the split or non-existing Czechoslovakia would stay for long time.

I don't think France made a mistake; only a time machine could have warned them that the war in 1940 would be so disastrous. They simply gave peace the last chance.

They did and paid the price for it. There were quite a few people at that time who pointed out this is not the smartest policy. Czechoslovakia arms industry was quite capable at that time, it was against France's interest to hand it over to Germany, it was a matter of simple math. It was foolish to think that this was last demand of Hitler, but it was more convenient for them to do this mistake. Czechoslovak president Benešov knew this is not the last Hitler's move, which was another reason to submit to the France and UK request - they sensed, the war is coming anyway. It was very naive to think any other way, even without the time machine.

Can you name the towns? The German uprising was somewhat successful against the police/SOS troops (especially when supported by regular troops from Germany) but once the Czechoslovak army arrived to the area, the order was quickly restored (except some areas which were considered strategically unimportant and were not defended).

I thought it was from a (large) article in the IKC (the largest Polish daily). But it must have been from a nationalistic newspaper, and there were too many of them. It was written by the reporters who visited the places.

In the IKC (22 September), I found this one, written by their own reporter - "In the Free Nation of Schwaderbach."

in the free nation of Schwaderbach.jpg

Thinking about I suppose they were more like left alone than defended themselves but there were several clashes with many casualties.

What is your point? Bublava (Schwaderbach) is one of these places I was referring to - it was directly on the border and strategically unimportant. Freikorps killed a bunch of local policemen and captured the rest, plus killed a couple more in a botched attempt to liberate their colleagues. In two days there were regular army troops that would smash the Freikorps, but they already fleeced to Germany (and they took the policemen with them) so the Bublava was pretty much empty ghost town till the end of September. All of this happened before the mobilization, when the area was filled with lots of soldiers who manned the fortifications.
As this township is directly on the border, it was in front of the first line of fortifications, so it is unclear to me how the locals can help and "guide" the German army - after a couple of kilometers of march inlands they'd know they reach the fortifications line, as they would be subject the cross-fire towards the approaching Wehrmacht units.
Update: To make it clear, your original point was "The Sudeten Germans actually liberated and were able to defend several towns in the last week before Munich." The events in Bublava/Schwaderbach happened September 13th, by September 15th the army was there but never attacked the township as there was no one left, on September 23rd the mobilization happened (more than week later) and Munich conference was September 30th (another week later). Therefore, your claim is false.

[wm]

They did and paid the price for it. There were quite a few people at that time who pointed out this is not the smartest policy.

The smartest policy? It seems to you war is a computer game populated by NPCs. So the French were to send millions of their young men to death (after the bloodbath of ww1) because the Czechs were cute? Please explain.
Yes, it was possible that 1938 ww2 had some advantages over 1939 ww2, but still, it would be (and would be seen as) a pointless bloodbath (of an uncertain end) not that much different from ww1 - fought because some prince got killed.

Czechoslovakia arms industry was quite capable at that time, it was against France's interest to hand it over to Germany, it was a matter of simple math.

The simple math says Germany versus Czechoslovakia's GDP was 262 versus 42 billion.

To make it clear, your original point was "The Sudeten Germans actually liberated and were able to defend several towns in the last week before Munich."

The point is the Sudeten Germans would play the role of the Soviet partisans during the ww2. And there would be more of them, and they would be highly motivated.

[lahoda]

The smartest policy? It seems to you war is a computer game populated by NPCs. So the French were to send millions of their young men to death (after the bloodbath of ww1) because the Czechs were cute? Please explain.
Yes, it was possible that 1938 ww2 had some advantages over 1939 ww2, but still, it would be (and would be seen as) a pointless bloodbath (of an uncertain end) not that much different from ww1 - fought because some prince got killed.

My point was that there were people back in 1938 who saw that policy of hiding head into sand and hope to save a bloodbath was only going to end in even bigger bloodbath, which is exactly what happened.

Using your logic - what was the reason the UK and France entered the war in 1939? Because Poles were cute (and obviously more cute than Czechoslovaks in 1938)? Nope - it was evident that Hitler needs to be stopped, but very little changed in his policy, and this was evident even in 1935, but UK and France just turned a blind eye to the problem.

UK and France won the WW I and defined the terms of post-war relations with Germany and were responsible to enforce them and failed to do so for extended period of time, and in France's case, it was too late when they changed the course, and paid the price. Sooner they enforced the rules they created, be it in 1935 when Germany publicly broke limits on their army, or 1936 during reoccupation of Rheinland, or in 1938 both in Austria or Czechoslovakia cases the lesser the casualties would be, and my opinion was that fall 1938 was the last moment when WW II could be avoided.

[lahoda]

The simple math says Germany versus Czechoslovakia's GDP was 262 versus 42 billion.

Concerning the arms industry, it was there and was handed over to Germany on silver plate, immediately making its industrial and military base bigger - that's why it is quite simple math there.
In case of the impact of the size of GDP on result of the potential conflict, it is not as simple as you suggest. There are multiple factors, such as Germany not having large army for a while, having limited pool of soldiers that went through conscription training, the equipment was not there and many other factors. If the was was simply a matter of comparing the GDP and handling the victory over, the Finns would stood no chance against Russia in 1939, yet they managed to cause enough casualties to Russians that they managed to keep their country independent.

[lahoda]

The point is the Sudeten Germans would play the role of the Soviet partisans during the ww2. And there would be more of them, and they would be highly motivated.

This is just your opinion which has no backing in reality. These people living in the area were speaking German, but they were never part of German state. While majority of the population voted for SdP, they were far from actually actively support German state in the war with guns in their hands. That pool existed, but was definitely smaller, pretty much all these men were in Freikorps and fleeced to Germany when the mobilization started. They would most likely form a small unit that would fight alongside wehrmacht, but the idea that three millions of German speaking citizens of their own state would turn into partizans is just not true.

[wm]

Assuming 50 percent of the Sudeten Germans were pro-German (after all, blood is thicker than water) and the usual 15 percent was ready to sacrifice everything for the cause, there should have been 200,000 people ready to fight for their freedom.

Using your logic - what was the reason the UK and France entered the war in 1939? Because Poles were cute (and obviously more cute than Czechoslovaks in 1938)?

The reason was that Hitler attacked the French-British-Polish alliance. There was no such alliance in 1938.
And no:

Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with [Germany] in consequence of aggression ..., the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power.

The alliance existed because, in 1939, the British and the French people grimly supported war with Germany; they didn't in 1938.

[lahoda]

Assuming 50 percent of the Sudeten Germans were pro-German (after all, blood is thicker than water) and the usual 15 percent was ready to sacrifice everything for the cause, there should have been 200,000 people ready to fight for their freedom.

Haha, you are counting 15% of entire German population, so there were 15% of infants and elder ready to "fight", correct?

The real numbers (taken from book by historian P. Šrámek) were that Czechoslovak army expected to gain 1 253 000 soldiers through mobilization and there were some 126 000 men who avoided entering the army after 23.9 (of which roughly 100 000 were germans), total expected number of German speaking soldiers in the Czechoslovak army were 315 000.
Lots of these Germans who reported to the army at the mobilization were members of the social democrats and other parties not sympathetic with Hitler, so there definitely were German soldiers who would fight plus majority of the German soldiers were dislocated in Slovakia and in non first line of combat roles, thus their ability to participate actively as the "fifth colon" was quite limited. I am not saying this was not a problem, but you are greatly exaggerate the importance of this factor.
The estimated size of Suddetendeutsche Freikorps were 40 000 people (so those were ready to "sacrifice everything for the cause", and most of them fleeced to Germany after 23.9 so the Gruene Freikorps (the real force operating underground from the Czechoslovak territory behind the army) was much smaller. Sure there would be some disruptions, but nothing that would have any important role.

The reason was that Hitler attacked the French-British-Polish alliance. There was no such alliance in 1938.
The alliance existed because, in 1939, the British and the French people grimly supported war with Germany; they didn't in 1938.

There was a French-Czechoslovak alliance in 1938.

So the French were to send millions of their young men to death (after the bloodbath of ww1) because the Czechs were cute? Please explain.
Yes, it was possible that 1938 ww2 had some advantages over 1939 ww2, but still, it would be (and would be seen as) a pointless bloodbath (of an uncertain end) not that much different from ww1 - fought because some prince got killed.

There was still not much of the support, they declared war on Germany, but did very little and Poland got defeated. France got defeated a year later and lost its status of superpower. I think it is safe to state that their approach turned out to be a mistake.

There was a huge difference between situation of 1938 and 1939, as Germany was in much better shape and had France and UK actively attacked in 1939, Germany would still most likely defeat Poland before being overrun from the west. While Germany in 1938 would have a difficult time against Czechoslovakia (just compare the sizes of the armies on both sides of the potential conflict in 1938 and 1939) and had France intervened there would be no blood bath - Germany would simply collapse, they had no troops left to defend, and their western line was much weaker in 1938 (wehrmacht gained more than 1 000 000 soldiers in that span, almost 40% of its size and got much better training and equipment). Also Hitler's position in regards of Wehrmacht was totally different in 1938, pulling off the Munich treaty did wonders for strengthening his position among the generals. France (and UK) made a mistake in 1938, and my point is that this was the last point where Hitler could be stopped without another world war.

This can be tracked even further back, had France intervened during re-occupation of Rhineland in 1936, Hitler regime might collapse right there, even without single shot being fired. Or even as early as 1935 when he announced the rearmament which was blatant violation of the Versailles treaty. Or perhaps all the way to 1925 (Locarno) and 1919 (Versailles), this was a biggest mistake, France and UK set the terms for the Germany and were not willing to enforce them.

[wm]

France in 1936, when the socialists with communists in tow gained power, barely existed, and many feared civil war there.
Britain and France didn't intervene during the heroic battle of Shanghai, although the Chinese naively expected that, so why should they have intervened against Hitler and his quite limited demands?
It was known and expected that Germany would finally regain lost rights, including the right to raise the army. The Germans couldn't be kept on their knees forever.

And it's a fact that in 1938 Hitler badly wanted war and later said many times he was cheated out of it. So it would be playing into his hands.

Yes, there was the French-Czechoslovak alliance, but intentionally a weak one where assistance was promised but not specified, and even the unspecified assistance depended on League of Nations bureaucratic procedures.

[lahoda]

France in 1936, when the socialists with communists in tow gained power, barely existed, and many feared civil war there.
Britain and France didn't intervene during the heroic battle of Shanghai, although the Chinese naively expected that, so why should they have intervened against Hitler and his quite limited demands?
It was known and expected that Germany would finally regain lost rights, including the right to raise the army. The Germans couldn't be kept on their knees forever.

Yes, there was the French-Czechoslovak alliance, but intentionally a weak one where assistance was promised but not specified, and even the unspecified assistance depended on League of Nations bureaucratic procedures.

There was not just French-Czechoslovak alliance, but France and UK were also signees of both Versailles and St. Germain treaty thus they were obliged to enforce what was agreed there.
Yep, both France and to some extend even UK was weak, and their leaders were incompetent and they both grossly overestimated German strength, but this doesn't mean what happened IRL was the only possible reaction. They could have information they needed to make a better decisions, they could make better decisions, but made a mistake and paid (together with whole world) a huge price for it: France lost its superpower status for good, and UK empire started to disintegrate. But there were alternatives which were doable. Marching into Rheinland to expel Hitler and enforce the Versailles treaty would certainly wouldn't marked the end of France, quite contrary it would most likely enhanced the stability of the government.

And it's a fact that in 1938 Hitler badly wanted war and later said many times he was cheated out of it. So it would be playing into his hands.

The only FACT is that he publicly talked how he wanted the war. (A) Would he really do so, had not UK and France forced Czechoslovakia to fold down, (B) Would he be allowed by his general staff to do so (his position was not nearly as strong as year later, and even than, General staff managed to postpone the start of the campaign against France till May 1940), (C) Would Germany be strong enough to succeed in such a war is a completely different matter.

I have some reservations about (A), but that might be possible, but (B) is unlikely and might result in the coup against Hitler and (C) is also unlikely given the comparative strengths of the armies on both sides - Germany had edge, but not enough to complete successful attack in fortified, mostly mountainous terrain.

[ljadw]

France in 1936, when the socialists with communists in tow gained power, barely existed, and many feared civil war there.
Britain and France didn't intervene during the heroic battle of Shanghai, although the Chinese naively expected that, so why should they have intervened against Hitler and his quite limited demands?
It was known and expected that Germany would finally regain lost rights, including the right to raise the army. The Germans couldn't be kept on their knees forever.

Yes, there was the French-Czechoslovak alliance, but intentionally a weak one where assistance was promised but not specified, and even the unspecified assistance depended on League of Nations bureaucratic procedures.

There was not just French-Czechoslovak alliance, but France and UK were also signees of both Versailles and St. Germain treaty thus they were obliged to enforce what was agreed there.
Yep, both France and to some extend even UK was weak, and their leaders were incompetent and they both grossly overestimated German strength, but this doesn't mean what happened IRL was the only possible reaction. They could have information they needed to make a better decisions, they could make better decisions, but made a mistake and paid (together with whole world) a huge price for it: France lost its superpower status for good, and UK empire started to disintegrate. But there were alternatives which were doable. Marching into Rheinland to expel Hitler and enforce the Versailles treaty would certainly wouldn't marked the end of France, quite contrary it would most likely enhanced the stability of the government.

And it's a fact that in 1938 Hitler badly wanted war and later said many times he was cheated out of it. So it would be playing into his hands.

The only FACT is that he publicly talked how he wanted the war. (A) Would he really do so, had not UK and France forced Czechoslovakia to fold down, (B) Would he be allowed by his general staff to do so (his position was not nearly as strong as year later, and even than, General staff managed to postpone the start of the campaign against France till May 1940), (C) Would Germany be strong enough to succeed in such a war is a completely different matter.

I have some reservations about (A), but that might be possible, but (B) is unlikely and might result in the coup against Hitler and (C) is also unlikely given the comparative strengths of the armies on both sides - Germany had edge, but not enough to complete successful attack in fortified, mostly mountainous terrain.

No one would fight for Versailles and ST Germain :the Czechs also did nothing when Hitler violated Versailles and Locarno .
And the French alliance with CZ had only one aim for France ,which was that CZ would help France if France was attacked by Germany ,the aim of the alliance was not that France would fight for CZ .
And, if the Czechs fought when Germany attacked them , France and Britain would have declared war on Germany, but this would not help CZ.That was the reason why the Czechs gave up Sudetenland and why they did not fight when Hitler occupied Czechia in 1939 .
Besides : already before 1930 France had abandoned Versailles and CZ .At the end of the 1920s France did not /no longer need CZ and abandoned Eastern Europe to Germany .
The British did the same .It was Austen Chamberlain who said that no British government could or would risk the life of a British Grenadier for Eastern Europe .

[PODS96]

The only FACT is that he publicly talked how he wanted the war. (A) Would he really do so, had not UK and France forced Czechoslovakia to fold down, (B) Would he be allowed by his general staff to do so (his position was not nearly as strong as year later, and even than, General staff managed to postpone the start of the campaign against France till May 1940), (C) Would Germany be strong enough to succeed in such a war is a completely different matter.

I have some reservations about (A), but that might be possible, but (B) is unlikely and might result in the coup against Hitler and (C) is also unlikely given the comparative strengths of the armies on both sides - Germany had edge, but not enough to complete successful attack in fortified, mostly mountainous terrain.

Really the idea of the military staging a coup against Hitler seems more like a postwar construction. The military did not strike a coup after Hitler's first failure in Austria and did not lift a finger after the disasters of Stalingrad, Kursk and Bagration.

Regarding the possibilities that Czechoslovakia had, it is really unlikely that they would resist more than Poland with half the population and much less territory to withdraw.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Re: Military Coup

[... and did not lift a finger after the disasters of Stalingrad, Kursk and Bagration.

Thats odd, I'd been reading about the military officers plots since I was in high school in 1970. Were all the plans, plots, conspiracies, and assassination attempts I read about 'fake' history?

[lahoda]

No one would fight for Versailles and ST Germain :the Czechs also did nothing when Hitler violated Versailles and Locarno .
Besides : already before 1930 France had abandoned Versailles and CZ .At the end of the 1920s France did not /no longer need CZ and abandoned Eastern Europe to Germany .
The British did the same .It was Austen Chamberlain who said that no British government could or would risk the life of a British Grenadier for Eastern Europe .

That is pretty much what I said. There were international treaties and both France and UK as a signees were expected to enforce them. The fact that they "abandoned them" as you said, was one of the key problems of the international relations development after the WW I which led to the WW II. This was a mistake that led to another war. These treaties should have been enforced and it is absurd to think that appeasement was right policy, because Germans had "rights" to unite Germany with Czechoslovak regions with German-speaking citizens. Czechoslovakia was formed based on the Versailles and St. German treaties and there were multiple clauses that were violated by Germany.

And the French alliance with CZ had only one aim for France ,which was that CZ would help France if France was attacked by Germany ,the aim of the alliance was not that France would fight for CZ .
And, if the Czechs fought when Germany attacked them , France and Britain would have declared war on Germany, but this would not help CZ.That was the reason why the Czechs gave up Sudetenland and why they did not fight when Hitler occupied Czechia in 1939 .

While it is true that Czechoslovak-French alliance lacked many details, the intention that it is bi-directional and France was expected to aid Czechoslovakia if it was attacked was clearly part of the agreement. France just decided not to honor another contract they signed and paid a huge price of losing the status of world superpower because of that.