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

janosik007 · Post by **janosik007** » 06 Feb 2007 04:33

So Czechoslovakia was not a real nation and Stalin would backstab it in 1938.

I think you are making completelly false assumptions. Had you been more aware of the chronology, you'd know that War between Finland and Soviets was well into the start of WW2. Had you know more about the traits of Russian foreign politics, you'd know that they are paranoia, not expansionism. Russia is not an outgoing, outward looking nation. It is always about status quo and making sure that nothing can break the order of things. It is about not declining as a power rather than increasing. Had you know the principles of rationality that drive "real nations", you'd know that Thermopylae happens only in fairy tales and ancient history. Nations are self-interested establishments, and flee to fight another day always sounds better that fight to the last man.

But this is a 'what if' scenario and so far evidence points to a foreshadowing of winter war.

Carl Schwamberger · Post by **Carl Schwamberger** » 06 Feb 2007 19:06

"the Germans would have gone through them like Paris Hilton through her latest boyfriend's wallet."

The more I learn aboput the development of the Wehrmacht & Luftwaffe the less I find statements like that supportable.

glenn239 · Post by **glenn239** » 06 Feb 2007 19:38

Perhaps the West missed the greatest opportunity since the UFO’s landed at 10 Downing and insisted, without success, on giving away all their secrets. What I’m saying is – don’t be surprised if the “truth” is less damning of Chamberlain and more damning of Stalin. The Czechoslovakian State demonstrated severe domestic problems. Recall that Hitler was able to orchestrate the cessation of the enbitre Slovak half of the country from Prague without firing a shot! Even the old Austro-Hungarian Empire wasn’t that pathetic – they were still putting their enemies in graves four years after the war broke out.

What I am being told is that under severe pressure – ie, military attack – the Czechs would respond in the opposite to how they behaved when faced with the menace of…harsh language. Maybe. But don’t count on it. Rather, I propose that the Czech army would see entire formations (those with few Czechs in them) simply lay down their arms and march into German captivity.

With regards to Stalin – opinion noted. Suffice it to say that, IMO, all of the peoples of Finland, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Rumania and Japan would have been astounded to discover the unprovoked attacks upon them from 1939 to 1945 by the Soviet Union were not the result of an expansionist agenda.

With regard to German troops – I disagree. The Nazi regime of 1938 had serious problems in all aspects of its military, but the core element that drove German martial abilities – the intelligence and adaptability of her officers corps – was not one of them. In the AH scenario being discussed, the key ingredient is the attitude of the Soviet Union. Chamberlain tried to deal with Hitler directly because he suspected that this communist rat would sink the European ship if given the chance. If Stalin sides with Hitler, then the west might actually get sucked into the unthinkable – a declaration of war on the Soviet Union. For in 1938 the crucial difference is that if Stalin wished to attack Poland, then Stalin would have to invade Poland as the aggressor, and not hide behind the Germans.

janosik007 · Post by **janosik007** » 07 Feb 2007 03:05

What domestic problems are you talking about?

Characters such as Jozef Tiso and Andrej Hlinka were not the mainstream of political thought in Slovakia. I have read too much literature to know otherwise. Slovak secession is more of a work of German balancing mixed with Slovak desperate attempt not to become engulfed by Hungary rather than a determined charge for independence. After all, Slovak leaders were nothing more than Nazi puppets.

As I have in detail explained in my first post, Czechoslovak society was much more cohesive than given credit. There were some discontent, no doubt, but comparing the situation to alternative, CS was prosperous and democratic.

Would their reaction be different, had Germans attacked instead of negotiated? Hmm.

First, this 'what if' is about if CS did not recognize the Munich pact and fought Germans. Had Germany simply invaded, The world would be behind CS and there is no need to go further into it.

Second, let's argue along the line established at the beginning, if CS had to go it alone with possible help from Soviets. You propose mass surender. That proposal is laughable. All that I could find about the situation before Germans claimed Sudeten was the mass national mobilization and high spirits accross the land to repel the enemy. Benes' move was seen as backstabbing not as shrewd calculation.

Here is a nice quote for you:

The Czechoslovak capitulation precipitated an outburst of national indignation. In demonstrations and rallies, the Czechoslovaks called for a strong military government to defend the integrity of the state. A new cabinet, under General Jan Syrový, was installed and on September 23 a decree of general mobilization was issued. The Czechoslovak army, modern and possessing an excellent system of frontier fortifications was prepared to fight. The Soviet Union announced its willingness to come to Czechoslovakia's assistance. Beneš, however, refused to go to war without the support of the Western powers. War, he believed, would come soon enough.

And it is further laughable to read your suggestion that attacks against Finland, Poland, Romania, Baltic States, and Japan, were acts of expansion. Perhaps the Baltic states add some merit to your claim. But name just one case in which Soviets have actually expanded their boarders from before 1917? In some of these cases, their aggression was an attempt to reclaim lost territories (Baltic states and Bessarabia). In most, it was a pre-emptivelly check on the expansion of Germans (Poland, Finland). Soviets were dragged into the war with Japan under US insistence. And Japan was the first to attack unprovoked. Keep a better eye on facts. Action by USSR in 45 were the result of allied agreement and it was of no great consequence as Japan woul surrender soon. What territories were in it for Soviets? None.

Pavel Novak · Post by **Pavel Novak** » 07 Feb 2007 13:58

Hallo
I think that Slovak irredentism is much overrated in 1938.
Just look directly at Tiso - his party voted for Benes in presidential elections. Why?
Because Slovaks were always afraid of Hungary. Even after Munich Slovaks didn't seek full independece - this come only with Hitler's threat that Hungary would occupy whole Slovakia if they didn't support Germany (anyway Hungary invaded Slovakia in 1939)

Slovaks weren't happy with Germany as ally. Yes they got back territory from Poland plus some more but that was pathetic against lost territory to Hungary (which wasn't possible without German help) and don't forget that german "ally" occupied western part of Slovakia since March 1939 (not to mention that Germany took part of slovakian Capital and added it to empire - how Germans loved Soviets for division of Berlin?).

glenn239 - you said about slovak formations surrendering to Germany in hypotetical war in 1938 but look at history.
Just look at Slovak Fast division in Soviet Union and problem with desertion.
When the situation went bad for Germany even slovak minister of defence planned to change sides.
And during uprising the most of Slovak army proclaimed its loyality to Czechoslovakia.

I don't see many pro-german feelings in Slovakia in 1938 nor 1939. What could Slovakia take from Germany in 1938 - nothing more than in 1939 - reduced puppet state with some feeling of independence but with less freedom than in that "prison" named Czechoslovakia.

glenn239 · Post by **glenn239** » 07 Feb 2007 21:01

As I have in detail explained in my first post, Czechoslovak society was much more cohesive than given credit. There were some discontent, no doubt, but comparing the situation to alternative, CS was prosperous and democratic.

And as I made clear as well, I do allow the possibility that there could be something to this. I don’t claim to have cornered the market on truth. However, all excuses and apologies aside, “cohesive” countries don’t let out a sigh, lay down their arms, splinter into ethnic entities and march into the history book without firing even a single shot. So I’m saying - don’t be entirely surprised if the alternative were correct – that under pressure the Czech army would have folded their tent.

Second, let's argue along the line established at the beginning, if CS had to go it alone with possible help from Soviets. You propose mass surender. That proposal is laughable

Of course it’s “laughable”. In these AH scenarios, everyone invariably fights like tigers and military power always looks exactly like it does “on paper”. Back here in the real world, things often don’t work out that way. You’ll forgive me if I observe that prior to the invasion of Russia, I’m not exactly bowled over by the durability of European armies in battle. I see no real reason to suppose the Czechs as an exception, save perhaps for a certain nostalgia for what might have been. As I expressed already, the key factor was the decision made by Stalin, and in that I remain comfortable in the opinion Stalin would have cut a deal with Hitler.

And it is further laughable to read your suggestion that attacks against Finland, Poland, Romania, Baltic States, and Japan, were acts of expansion... And Japan was the first to attack unprovoked.

To be clear – I could care less about current interpretations of Soviet motives. What I said was that the peoples of the attacked nations would have been shocked to discover that they weren’t being despoiled by an expansionist aggressor. Trust me – this would have been news to them. With regard to alleged “pre-emptive” checks on German aggression – sure, whatever. If Stalin doesn’t sign the 1939 non-aggression pact with Hitler, then Hitler can’t invade Poland.

With regard to Japan, do be advised that the Japanese-Soviet non-aggression pact, which Stalin most assuredly violated in 1945, was signed and placed into effect after Japan and the Soviet Union had fought several border battles. That is to say, the strife you mention was irrelevant to the question of aggression in the matter. During the time in which this treaty was to run, the Japanese conducted no attacks upon Soviet forces; the treaty was being observed by the Japanese until the day the Russians broke it.

christopher nelson · Post by **christopher nelson** » 08 Feb 2007 15:47

There is a lot of evidence to indicate that the wehrmacht was not prepared to go to war in 1938 and if ordered to do so there might have been a revolt by the generals and a regime change. There were in 1938 quite a few members of the German General staff and the intelligence branch that had serious doubts about a war.

glenn239 · Post by **glenn239** » 08 Feb 2007 18:55

I've long suspected this 'evidence' was mostly post-war spin doctoring of surviving German generals. Germans, and the German military in particular, are not renowned for their love of rebellion.

PanzerKing · Post by **PanzerKing** » 08 Feb 2007 20:21

glenn239 wrote:I've long suspected this 'evidence' was mostly post-war spin doctoring of surviving German generals. Germans, and the German military in particular, are not renowned for their love of rebellion.

Read Willam Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". It explains the pre-war possibilities of over throwing Adolf & Company fairly well.

Tim Smith · Post by **Tim Smith** » 08 Feb 2007 21:51

glenn239 wrote:I've long suspected this 'evidence' was mostly post-war spin doctoring of surviving German generals. Germans, and the German military in particular, are not renowned for their love of rebellion.

I agree.

I suspect the revolt of the generals would only occur in this 1938 scenario under the same conditions as during the OTL - i.e., the revolt would only happen once Germany started losing the war.

However, in a war starting in October 1938, it wouldn't take very long before Germany started losing......even if they managed to beat Czechoslovakia, they'd be a bad way afterwards. Germany would be close to defeat in less than a year IMO.

glenn239 · Post by **glenn239** » 08 Feb 2007 23:37

Actually, that's what I feel was the danger. One of the reasons WW2 turned out so well for the good guys was because the Germans and the Russians fought. But if Hitler starts the war in 1938, I don't see this happening because the preconditions for Barbarossa will not have arisen. If the Franco-German war is extended in length, the victor becomes Russia.

Tim Smith · Post by **Tim Smith** » 09 Feb 2007 00:50

glenn239 wrote:If the Franco-German war is extended in length, the victor becomes Russia.

Yes.

Except for a small problem called 'Poland'.

After suffering heavy losses in the fighting against Czechoslavakia, and with France and Britain in the war and rapidly building up their forces in the West, Hitler won't be in a position to attack Poland in this scenario.

If he tries (and the earliest he could do it is April 1939), the Western Allies will be far more likely to take the offensive and hit the Germans in the rear, since they'll have had 6 months to prepare for battle instead of only 6 days as was the case with Poland in OTL. The Wehrmacht wouldn't be strong enough to destroy Poland and hold off a major Allied offensive at the same time.

Which means if Stalin wants to take advantage of the war in the West and dominate all of Eastern Europe, he'll have to deal with Poland first.

Finland put up a damned good fight against the USSR in 1939 during the Winter War. I'm sure Poland could do just as well against the USSR in 1938-39, if she didn't have to deal with Germany at the same time. (The Red Army was very poorly led at this time because of the Great Purge of 1937-38). The USSR would beat Poland, of course, but would suffer horrendous casualties - which would make Stalin wary of further adventures in Central Europe.

janosik007 · Post by **janosik007** » 09 Feb 2007 02:36

glenn239 wrote:
As I have in detail explained in my first post, Czechoslovak society was much more cohesive than given credit. There were some discontent, no doubt, but comparing the situation to alternative, CS was prosperous and democratic.
And as I made clear as well, I do allow the possibility that there could be something to this. I don’t claim to have cornered the market on truth. However, all excuses and apologies aside, “cohesive” countries don’t let out a sigh, lay down their arms, splinter into ethnic entities and march into the history book without firing even a single shot. So I’m saying - don’t be entirely surprised if the alternative were correct – that under pressure the Czech army would have folded their tent.

Second, let's argue along the line established at the beginning, if CS had to go it alone with possible help from Soviets. You propose mass surender. That proposal is laughable
Of course it’s “laughable”. In these AH scenarios, everyone invariably fights like tigers and military power always looks exactly like it does “on paper”. Back here in the real world, things often don’t work out that way. You’ll forgive me if I observe that prior to the invasion of Russia, I’m not exactly bowled over by the durability of European armies in battle. I see no real reason to suppose the Czechs as an exception, save perhaps for a certain nostalgia for what might have been. As I expressed already, the key factor was the decision made by Stalin, and in that I remain comfortable in the opinion Stalin would have cut a deal with Hitler.

And it is further laughable to read your suggestion that attacks against Finland, Poland, Romania, Baltic States, and Japan, were acts of expansion... And Japan was the first to attack unprovoked.
To be clear – I could care less about current interpretations of Soviet motives. What I said was that the peoples of the attacked nations would have been shocked to discover that they weren’t being despoiled by an expansionist aggressor. Trust me – this would have been news to them. With regard to alleged “pre-emptive” checks on German aggression – sure, whatever. If Stalin doesn’t sign the 1939 non-aggression pact with Hitler, then Hitler can’t invade Poland.

With regard to Japan, do be advised that the Japanese-Soviet non-aggression pact, which Stalin most assuredly violated in 1945, was signed and placed into effect after Japan and the Soviet Union had fought several border battles. That is to say, the strife you mention was irrelevant to the question of aggression in the matter. During the time in which this treaty was to run, the Japanese conducted no attacks upon Soviet forces; the treaty was being observed by the Japanese until the day the Russians broke it.

glenn, glenn, glenn, this is not let's predict on wrong assumptions and information "what if". It is really easy to expose how little you know about the actual situation and the discussion going on when you write something other than your opinion, when you actually try to defend your opinion. Facts just ain't your thing. And that's fine, but don't try to go that route.

First, "cohesive". Czechoslovakia was cohesive. You saying that Slovaks wanted to create a separate nation before Munich, is an instance of your lack of info on the period and region. You can't make up facts to support and argument. Benes did acknowledge the Munich pact eventually, but the nation did not and there were protests because of this. You also said that cohesiive nations don't fold. Wrong again. Denmark, Austria, and Holland are just the three prime examples.

Second, you base your opinion that Soviets would strike a deal with Hitler ignoring that the only relevant fact to this opinion still remains that Soviets promised intervention on behalf of CS. Where do you get your opinion? Remember, only facts count. Leave gut feeling and defending pride out of it.

Third, you take scholarly researched arguments and blur it with fog of war. According to you, we judge motives based on what people getting attacked felt. With such rationing all that we could get from WW2 is: bunch of guys in uniform shooting each other and invading us!" There is a tremendous difference in labelling USSR an expansionist aggressor or a paranoid security maximizer. Tremendously different policy comes out of the two different profiles. Had experts like you advised Truman, we would have world war 3 with nuclear bombs and the sky of a turqouise glaze, we would not have Truman Doctrine of contaiment. And it's not current interpretation, as Truman was president while battle was still going on.

With regards to Japan, you should be advised that it was the cause of agression. It started the war in 39 (I believe) losing it and agreeing to a pact. Japan was the agressor and certainly with territorial ambitions. You completelly turned things on its head. You call the territorially ambitious agressor a victim, and the one on the receiving end the opposite. Breaking the Non-Agression pact had nothing to do with adding territories to USSR. Attacking USSR did.

seppalar · Post by **seppalar** » 09 Feb 2007 04:17

I'm looking at a map right now - and I don't see Czechoslovakia on it!

They must really get along great!

janosik007 · Post by **janosik007** » 09 Feb 2007 15:31

Czech Republic and Slovakia have the best relations than any other two countries on the planet. The first visit of presidents, premiers, and other statesmen after elections (or their last), the opennes of travel, tolerance, and friendship is above standard in IR.

They do get along great. The split was initiated by a handful of elites. There was no referendum on the issue and if there was it would fail in 1992. Any average joe from C-S would tell you that.