Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Czech defences 1938


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 yan taylor

yan taylor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 523 posts

Posted 15 March 2011 - 03:21 PM

Hi, I have just been sifting through a book called Fortress Europe and in the chapter about Czechoslovakia its says that the Czechs built a line of defences around its borders with its neighbours because of its formation after WW1, the Germans and Austrians complained over the Czechs having too much of its territory the Polish and Hungarians also had an axe to grind over land, but were talk down by France, but the Germans and Austrians were not so easily subdued, Because of this threat the Czechs built a belt of defences along the border with the later and it was known as the Benes line (the Czech Maginot line) and it was pretty formidable, knowing what we do about how green the German army was before the invasion of Poland (when it learned valuable lessons in Blitzkrieg tactics) could the Czech army had put up some form of defence and given the Germans a bloody nose in 1938, the Czech weapons were equal it not superior to Germanys given that the main battle tanks like the PZ IIIs & PZ IVs were not that numerous and going on what the Danes did in 1940 and halted the German advance with only 20mm and 37mm guns and the way German armour was treated by the Poles, they could have made the Germans think twice and maybe history could have been different.

#2 LRusso216

LRusso216

    Graybeard

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 10,350 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 15 March 2011 - 04:55 PM

IIRC, one of the reasons Hitler was willing to negotiate over the Sudetenland was because of the terrain, defenses, and military strength of Czechoslovakia. His generals convinced him (maybe he should have listened more), that Germany would have a difficult time militarily there, especially if France, Britain or the Soviet Union pitched in.

image001.png

Lou


#3 brndirt1

brndirt1

    Saddle Tramp

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,709 posts

Posted 17 March 2011 - 08:27 PM

I believe Lou has this completely correct, until the Czechs were removed from the defenses of the Sudetenland in Oct. (?) of 1938 the Germans would have had a "tough row to hoe" to invade. The mountain passes, fortifications, and terrain would have made the later applied "Blitzkrieg" armored warfare of no import. The co-ordinated Luftwaffe and Infantry might have created a bit of problem for the Czechs northern defenses, but not so much that the Germans couldn't have been halted.

Wasn't that what General Beck was hoping for? That Hitler would try and fail in the Sudetenland occupation by military force and his failure would lead to the removal of the Nazis from power? Just a vague memory for some reason, but the strongest defenses into Czechoslovakia's industrial center was from the German borders, and were through those extensively protected mountain passes.

Without the Munich "Agreement", the Czechs might have possibly stopped the Nazis from ever turning into what they became. But that doesn't mean everything would have spiraled into peace either, Chamberlain saw (or I think he did), that Britain wasn't ready for any type of land war in this time-period (1938), and bought his nation a year to build up and re-focus on military production and training. France believed it was already "prepared" with its Maginot Line and extensive reserve army. Britain was certain it was NOT ready for war in 1938!

Every nation has its own well being at the forefront of its decisions and actions, whether or not they help or hinder other nation's wishes is why; "War is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means." (Carl von Clausewitz)

Sad but true.

Edited by brndirt1, 17 March 2011 - 08:31 PM.
spacing

  • yan taylor likes this
Happy Trails,
Clint.

#4 Kai-Petri

Kai-Petri

    Kenraali

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 20,310 posts

User's Awards

2   

Posted 17 March 2011 - 09:08 PM

If Germany had attacked in 1938 it would have been pretty close that a coup to kill Hitler would have been started:

Review | The Oster Conspiracy of 1938 by Terry Parssinen

Maybe, maybe not.... At least there were plans..
Posted Image

#5 belasar

belasar

    Court Jester

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 5,960 posts

Posted 17 March 2011 - 10:39 PM

A few years back I read an account from a German General who was part of the occupation forces for the take over of the rump of Czechoslovakia in 1938/39 who commented that a disturbing number of German Panzers fell out of a simple road march to Prauge for the victory parade. He speculated that to move and fight overland would have been very hard indeed, granted it was in winter though.
Wars are rarely fought in black and white, but in infinite shades of grey

(Poppy is occasionaly correct, or so I hear)

#6 Kai-Petri

Kai-Petri

    Kenraali

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 20,310 posts

User's Awards

2   

Posted 18 March 2011 - 10:42 AM

I once found this on Guderian and tanks and Anschluss:

On March 12th of 1938, Anschluss took place. The only panzer unit taking part was 2nd Panzer Division under command of General Guderian. In preparation for the operation, SS Regiment "Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler" commanded by Sepp Dietrich was attached to 2nd Panzer Division. The division covered some 700 kilometers in 48 hours, while losing 30% of its tanks due to breakdowns.


German Panzer Divisions 1935-1939
  • belasar likes this
Posted Image

#7 belasar

belasar

    Court Jester

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 5,960 posts

Posted 24 March 2011 - 03:52 PM

I had thought was the final takeover, thanks for the correction.
Wars are rarely fought in black and white, but in infinite shades of grey

(Poppy is occasionaly correct, or so I hear)

#8 baupionier419

baupionier419

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 01 April 2011 - 09:48 AM

Interesting topic. I have a statement from the 94. Infanterie Division, the 194.A.R. (artillerie Regiment) which was equipped until 1941 with czech artillerie pieces. the quality ot the czech weaponary was really poor and during the french campaign the german rear echolon support troops denied or refused to support the batteries with ammounition. And even more interesting the 194.A.R. wear czech uniform pieces. So it looks like when it comes the Question 1938 german Artillerie versus czech Artillerie the czech would have lost this !

My Grand uncle served in the 12. Batterie 194. A.R. ! I have all Material from the 94. ID Veteran Association.
And you forget another important strategic point:
the sudetendeutsche Legion included of about 40.000 men. poorly trained and equipped but efficent in terror attacks.

here is what the 194.A.R used for Artillerie

I / Abt.
Batteriechef Major Schmid
Batterie 1 - 3
8 cm Kan. möglicherweise 8 cm Feldkanone 30(t)

II / Abt.
Batteriechef Hauptmann Haendschke
Batterie 4 - 6
l.F.H. (leichte Feldhaubitze) 10cm leichte Feldhaubitze 30(t)

III / Abt.
Batteriechef Major v. Waldow
Batterie 7 - 9
l.F.H. (leichte Feldhaubitze) 10cm leichte Feldhaubitze 30(t)

IV / Abt.
Batteriechef Oberstleutnant Matzke
Batterie 10 - 12
s.F.H. (schwere Feldhaubitze) 15 cm sFH 25(t) oder auch genannt Skoda VZ-25


Ab 1941 wurde die Bewaffnung durchgehend auf deutsche Waffen umgestellt
I - III / Abt.
l.F.H 18

IV / Abt.
S.F.H 18


Posted Image








  • ColHessler likes this

#9 yan taylor

yan taylor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 523 posts

Posted 04 April 2011 - 09:32 AM

Wow that is a surprise the Artillery listed above was the most modern of all the Czech Artillery,

8cm kanon Vz.30
Design: Skoda
Type: Light Field Gun
Amount: 204
Year: 1930
Calibre: 76.5mm L/40
Weight: 1.816 kg
Elevation: -8° to +80°
Traverse: 8°
Shell Weight: 8 kg
Muzzle Velocity: 600 m/s
Rate of Fire: 10 r.p.m.
Maximum Range: 13.500m
Crew: 10
Traction: Horse Drawn & Motorised
Notes: Used by Artillery Regiments at Army level only.
10cm lehká houfnice Vz.30
Design: Skoda
Type: Light Field Howitzer
Amount: 160
Year: 1930
Calibre: 100mm L/25
Weight: 1.798 kg
Elevation: -8° to +80°
Traverse: 7.5°
Shell Weight: 16 kg
Muzzle Velocity: 430 m/s
Rate of Fire: 6 r.p.m.
Maximum Range: 10.600m
Crew: 10
Traction: Horse Drawn (six Horses) & Motorised.
Notes: Used by Artillery Regiments at Army level only.
15cm hrubá houfnice Vz.25
Design: Skoda
Type: Medium Howitzer
Amount: 230
Year: 1925
Calibre: 149mm L/18
Weight: 3.800 kg
Elevation: -5° to +70°
Traverse: 7°
Shell Weight: 42 kg
Muzzle Velocity: 450 m/s
Rate of Fire: 2 r.p.m.
Maximum Range: 11.800m
Crew: 10
Traction: Horse Drawn (two loads, six horses each)
Notes: ?

Regards Yan.
  • ColHessler likes this

#10 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,898 posts

Posted 04 April 2011 - 07:55 PM

see my post on
"the Sudetengermans,why did they support Hitler?"

#11 mille125

mille125

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12 posts

Posted 05 April 2011 - 12:08 AM

There is no question that Germany would have had considerable trouble as the Czechs had very formidable defenses. Why fight when Neville is going to just give it away? Probably one of Hitler's smarter moves...

#12 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,898 posts

Posted 05 April 2011 - 07:44 AM

Neville was not giving anything away
1)Neville had no obligations to the Czechs
2)From a moral POV ,the Czechs had no argument
3)Neville had nothing with which he could fight
4)If there was a war,and Hitler lost,the problem would still be there :what would the Czechs do with more than 3 million hostile Germans ?

#13 FrankH

FrankH

    recruit

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 04 September 2011 - 08:03 PM

Hello, I just came across this thread and thought I'd comment on a few of the posts.

Firstly regarding Chamberlain; It can't be said he gave nothing away. Unless he truly believed it would end with Munich, he gave away the entire Czechoslovak arsenal and the Skoda works. Which contrary to some earlier comments was equal to or better than the German equipment of the time. This is especially so for the tanks and not so for aircraft. The Czech werefieldingLT35s and had near production LT38s, in 1938 both of these tanks outclassed the PZKW I and IIs in all areas, except numbers, indeed some 30%+ of PZKWs broke down just driving to Vienna in March 1938 let alone advancing into a fortified mountainous bunker line with integrated interlocking fire zones. In 1940 approximately a 1/4 of the Panzer Forces were Czech built with LT35 becoming PZKW 35T and PZKW 38T. The Skoda works, as it had been the industrial heart of Austria-Hungary, was 2nd in size only to Krupp in production capacity. The allies gained a year of prep time until 1939 but what they were able to produce in this year was greatly exceeded by the Germans gaining Czech weapons and production. It was not until after the gain of Czech resources that Germany reached superpower status. Returning to weapons quality, even after the 35s and 38s were obsolete circa 1942 their chassis were of such high mechanical quality that over 2,500 Jagdpanzer 38Ts were produced on them through May 1945. To be fair though as the war progressed Czech workers did sabotage weapons systems during production which lead to issues, issues though that would not exist had they Czech been arming themselves.

From a moral POV the Czechs had no Argument? Bohemia and Moravia have been mostly Slavic since the 7th century and a Kingdom with clearly know historical borders since the 12th century, were do they lose the argument? Can Belgium be claimed by the Dutch and French? And Switzerland, can it exist at all?


Yes, Neville had nothing to fight with, but the Czech's weren't asking him to fight, they were asking France to honor their mutual defense treaty. It would have taken the entire German army to maybe defeat the Czechs. The German western border due to simple numbers would have been wide open for a French army with more men (5.9 million including reserves) tanks, guns and planes, but alas no willpower to invade. As others in this forum have mentioned, this was known to the German high command some of whom had planned a coup should Hitler engage the Czechs. It has been said that Britain wasn't ready to fight in 1938 but Czech, France (and Maybe Britain) in 1938 were in a far more favorable position to engage Germany than France and Britain were after having ceded the Czechs without a shot.


The German speaking inhabitants of Bohemia and Moravia had never been hostile until the rise of Hitler. Should they have remained hostile perhaps the Czech would have done with them what they did in 1945, send them to Germany proper. I am not condoning this just saying what happened post war. Thanks Frank

#14 scipio

scipio

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts

Posted 04 September 2011 - 08:50 PM

Neville had nothing to fight with


True and he did have much more in 1939 - Only two Divisions sent to France in Sept 1939 and those could have been sent in 1938. Even by May 1940 there were only 5 British Divisions in the Front Line compared with 99 French Divisions and (by then 120 German Divisions). So all the waiting resulted in just three extra Fighting Divisions.

The Czechs were better equipped than the Poles and had better, easier defendable borders.

The question is what would Chamberlain have done if France had honoured its treaty with the Czechs and come out fighting?

#15 baupionier419

baupionier419

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 07:22 PM

Hello, I just came across this thread and thought I'd comment on a few of the posts.


From a moral POV the Czechs had no Argument? Bohemia and Moravia have been mostly Slavic since the 7th century and a Kingdom with clearly know historical borders since the 12th century, were do they lose the argument? Can Belgium be claimed by the Dutch and French? And Switzerland, can it exist at all?

The German speaking inhabitants of Bohemia and Moravia had never been hostile until the rise of Hitler. Should they have remained hostile perhaps the Czech would have done with them what they did in 1945, send them to Germany proper. I am not condoning this just saying what happened post war. Thanks Frank


Hallo Frank

Interesting point of view from yours but you are totally wrong. The Germans were hostile towards the chzech state. They forced the germans into a state with terror and suppression. You can read this in hundreds of protesting notes from the germans in the chzech council 1918 til 1938.. The austrian germans, the sudetengermans were not allowed to choose for what it was for all other peoples right according to the false and lying 14 Points Wilson Plan. And yes there was a Sudetengerman State it stated only a couple of days after the first world war, when the chzech army backed up by the french, occupied Reichenberg and the other german Sudeten areas. Itś a well known fact that til 1938 when the freedom for the sudeten germans came, both sides hated each other. This hatred was already before the first world war in the austrian monarchy. For Instant the "deutsche Nordmährenbund" a nationalist german movement was established in the 1880's and started to "fight" against the slavics with Newspapers , Propaganda, Demonstrations, attacks and so on. So the hatred between the czechs and the Sudetengermans are not only a result of the first world war and the time after, it is a hundred of year hatred. And another point, the german colonized areas in the sudeten were german and not czech ! this is your second wrong point. In my lost Homecity, the germans setteled and developed the city til 1945 and not the czechs, And the czech did not "send" them to german proper , they unlawfully did a human genozid ! I am Sudetengerman, I know what happened in my ancestors homeland, I know what happened to my familiy during the so called ODSUN !

Martin

#16 brndirt1

brndirt1

    Saddle Tramp

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,709 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 07:55 PM

The austrian germans, the sudetengermans were not allowed to choose for what it was for all other peoples right according to the false and lying 14 Points Wilson Plan.

Martin


I, as an American must take exception to your portrayal of the 14 Points of Wilson as "lies". They weren't adopted, but proposed by Wilson before the armistice was even agreed to, and rejected (much to his dismay) by the Versailles Treaty commissions. He (Wilson) was placated by them with the implementation/inclusion of his proposed League of Nations, at a much more watered down version than he hoped for. Then, in a partisan political fight in the US Senate the following year (needed to ratify treaties), the treaty and American participitation in the League were both rejected. A separate peace treaty with Germany had to be signed years later, and we never joined the League.

Perhaps you are unaware of the actual 14 Points as proposed in America in 1918, if so here they are:

The Fourteen Points were first outlined in a speech Wilson gave to the American Congress in January 1918. Wilson's Fourteen Points became the basis for a peace program, and it was on the back of the Fourteen Points stated by Wilson that Germany and her allies agreed to an armistice in November 1918. The fact that these were unilateral desires by Wilson did, in no way promise the Central Powers anything as per the final Peace Treaty. Was Wilson lying? No he was proposing a plan of his own which would never be accepted by the French, British, or Italians in the final treaty. He was a bit of a "Utopian" as the son of a Methodist pastor, and always hoped for and worked toward what he saw as "the best of humanity".

1. No more secret agreements ("Open covenants openly arrived at").
2. Free navigation of all seas.
3. An end to all economic barriers between countries.
4. Countries to reduce weapon numbers.
5. All decisions regarding the colonies should be impartial
6. The German Army is to be removed from Russia. Russia should be left to develop
her own political set-up.
7. Belgium should be independent like before the war.
8. France should be fully liberated and allowed to recover Alsace-Lorraine
9. All Italians are to be allowed to live in Italy. Italy's borders are to "along
clearly recognisable lines of nationality."
10. Self-determination should be allowed for all those living in Austria-Hungary.
11. Self-determination and guarantees of independence should be allowed for
the Balkan states.
12. The Turkish people should be governed by the Turkish government. Non-Turks in
the old Turkish Empire should govern themselves.
13. An independent Poland should be created which should have access to the sea.
14. A League of Nations should be set up to guarantee the political and territorial
independence of all states.

Edited by brndirt1, 24 September 2011 - 08:10 PM.

Happy Trails,
Clint.

#17 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,898 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 08:21 PM

Going of topic,but,again, Chamberlain did not give away anything:
1)Britain had no obligations at all to Czechoslovakia
2)From a moral POV,the Czechs had no point:why should they have the right (in opposition to the ideals for which millions had fought and were killed) to forbid the Anschluss of 3 million SudetenGermans with Germany ?In 1921,3 millions of Irish had seceded from Britain,why not the Sudeten ? In 1918,the AH Empire was splitted up because of the selfdetermination of the peoples,the Baltic States seceded from the Russian Empire,Finland did the same,the inhabitants of the Alsace returned to France .
Of course,there were people (as Churchill) who claimed that the demands of the SD,of the Irish,etc had to give way to political and strategical interests,but such people were not looked on favorably,because they were considered as crypto fascists and militarists.
There also was a pratical point:how long could 7.5 million Czechs dominate 3 million SD,Slowaks,etc.

#18 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,898 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 08:26 PM

Following points 10 and 11 of the 14 points of Wilson,it was impossible to deny the SD the right of secession, unless ..one would make a distinction between people for whom the 14 points were applying, and, second rang people who were denied this right .

#19 brndirt1

brndirt1

    Saddle Tramp

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,709 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 08:40 PM

Following points 10 and 11 of the 14 points of Wilson,it was impossible to deny the SD the right of secession, unless ..one would make a distinction between people for whom the 14 points were applying, and, second rang people who were denied this right .


And the "famous/infamous" 14 Points did that exactly. They certainly made distinctions between peoples, only those specificity mentioned in the speech should, or would be included. One must remember that Wilson, as a southerner, was a racist; But in benign terms. Denying the rights of the "other" was not only NOT foreign to his mindset, it was part and parcel of it.
Happy Trails,
Clint.

#20 Domen121

Domen121

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 66 posts

Posted 08 October 2011 - 08:52 PM

It seems that Germans did not value the defensive plan of the Czechs too much:

Von Rundstedt in May of 1939 tried to predict what defensive actions would the Poles undertake:

While doing so, he took into consideration several variants of Polish actions, and he wrote:

1. Variant most favourable for the Germans according to von Rundstedt:

"If the Poles are to make the same mistake as the Czechs made in the Autumn of 1938, namely if they since the very beginning want to defend all of their borders (...) it will be easy to pierce such defence with concentrated forces in over a dozen points."

2. Variant most reasonable and thus most probable according to him:

"This is why it should be presumed, that the Poles will seek to defend their vast borders only with weaker forces, while maintaining the main part of their army as mobile reserve force. In the region of Poznan Polish forces shall not be too strong.
Behind the Warthe line, the resistance will grow stronger. Polish mobile units will be located probably (a) in the region of Jaroslaw & Przemysl (B) in the region of Deblin © in the region of Warsaw and (d) at the Narew."


3. Variant most unfavourable for the Germans in his opinion:

"If the Poles could count on fast and sure help of other powers, they would put up resistance with the main bulk of their forces to the east of Vistula, defending fiercely and withdrawing behind the line San - Vistula - Narew. (...) For us this means a problem of concentrating all units on the western and southern banks of these rivers, without dispersing forces in the eastern direction."

#21 Domen121

Domen121

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 66 posts

Posted 08 October 2011 - 09:00 PM

and going on what the Danes did in 1940 and halted the German advance with only 20mm and 37mm guns


Sorry? What?! :eek::

Axis History Forum • View topic - German invasion of Denmark

In the link above you can find for example descriptions of several "battles" in which the Danes "halted" the German advance:

Lundtoftebjerg:

At 4:50 AM positions near Lundtoftebjerg were occupied by Danish soldiers from motorcycle and AT platoons equipped with 20mm guns. They opened fire to the approaching Germans damaging 2 armoured cars. Danish motorcycles were fired from light machine guns. Soon after 5:00 AM German forces started attack supported by some unrecognized vehicles. In this situation Danish forces retreated towards Aabenraa. Motorcycle platoon occupied the railway bridge while the AT platoon 1,5 km to the north. Germans soon approached the bridge, firing at Danish positions with machine gun fire from armoured cars. Also German aircrafts carried out an attack from low altitude. As the result one Danish section was captured, but commander of the platoon and other sections managed to retreat. It total Danish casualties were 1 killed and 1 wounded.

Bredebro and Sølsted:

Both platoons from the Fodfolkspionerkommandoet NCO school were retreating towards the Bredebro town. During their retreat they were building road obstacles to delay the German advance. The first obstacle was built in Abild and occupied by 1 gun 20mm and section of cyclists. However, after German armoured cars and motorcycles appeared, Danish soldiers retreated. During their withdrawal they were attacked by German fighters from low altitude. Another blockade was set near Sølsted, defended by the second 20mm gun. When German armoured cars appeared, one of them was hit and pulled over. Another vehicle was also hit, but was able to continue fire from its machine gun. In this situation Danish unit once again carried out a retreat, towards Bredebro, where they built several more road obstacles. However, soon after that a large German motorized column drove into the town and Danish soldiers surrendered.

Bredevad:

Bredevad unit occupied defensive positions at 6:30, several minutes after German units crossed the border in this area. 20mm gun opened fire to a group of German armoured cars and motorcycles approaching from the south, causing damage to 1 armoured car. German infantry developed into an attack, supported by the remaining 3 armoured cars. A fire fight took place, as the result of which both sides had some wounded and killed (Danish forces lost 2 killed and 5 wounded) and Danish unit damaged further 2 armoured cars. At 7:15 a large German motorized column arrived from Tinglev to Bredevad, which caused the surrender of Danish infantry. It was immediately disarmed.

Hokkerup:

In Hokkerup Danish soldiers built a road obstacle and then organized defences around it. Their forces consisted of 2 cyclist sections from the 3rd platoon, one section of 20mm gun and one LMG section from the 2nd platoon (in total ca. 30 men) under command of lieutenant H. J. Højerslev. At 5:30 they were attacked by a German armoured car with platoon of motorcyclists. In response the Danish 20mm gun opened fire and hit the armoured car. Germans once again attacked with support of 37mm gun but it was immobilized by 2 shots of the Danish gun [this would be the 2nd of the two guns that Germans lost in Denmark]. Danish positions were also attacked by enemy aircrafts from low altitude. At 6:15 the Hokkerup unit surrendered and was disarmed. Danish casualties were 2 killed and 3 wounded, the remaining soldiers surrendered.


Edited by Domen121, 08 October 2011 - 09:11 PM.


#22 TiredOldSoldier

TiredOldSoldier

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,832 posts

Posted 09 October 2011 - 07:31 AM

IMO Wilson's 14 points are the typycal "piece of paper". It all dependended on implementation, the devil is, as usual, in the details, and implementation was not good enough to prevent war starting again twenty years later (but of course this is 20/20 hindsight ;)).

The Czech dilemma was a choice between ethnic cleansing, an indefensible border, or the historical choice.

In practice the post 1918 final borders put just too many germans inside "versailles creations" or inside the winner's borders, allowed for the creation of Baltic states that had no hope of keeping their independance as soon as Russia stabilized, for a Finnish border that was practically on the outskirts of Russia's second largest city, did little to define a defensible Polish border, the actual ones were finally decided by force of arms but the "Danzig corridor" must be one of the most indefensible positions in history, and left the Balkans the usual mess.

Yougoslavia, was an attempt to create a multi-ethnic state, so clearly against the principles, for fear that smaller ones would be unable to protect themselves.

The "plan" was also used to invalidate the London agreements with Italy, and that created resentment and mistrust in Italy and a golden opportunity for Mussolini.

The problem is there in no such thing as "clearly recognisable lines of nationality", defensible borders are a much better guarantee for peace, but if you gor for "defensible borders", and that means either the sea, a major river or the breakwater line on a mountain range, you will get a lot of people on the wrong side of the line. The one point where he was right, and ahead of his times, is point 3, strong trade relationships are the next best guarantee for peace after defensible borders.
Truth is the first victim of conflict

#23 Domen121

Domen121

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 66 posts

Posted 16 October 2011 - 01:29 AM

I wonder why German minority in Czech Republic did not emigrate to Germany after 1918 - like most of German minority in Western Poland did.

For example in Poznan in 1914 Germans were nearly 40% of inhabitants (Poles were over 60%) and 10 years later Poles were 95%, Germans 5%.

They voluntarily emigrated from Poland to Germany. Why German minority within the new borders of independent Czech state didn't?

#24 scipio

scipio

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts

Posted 16 October 2011 - 01:45 PM

I think the main point is being missed here.

On their own the Czech defences would not be adequate to stem a German attack - hence the reason why the Czech Government put up no resistance once the the Allies failed to support her.

However, France and Russia had a treaty with Czechoslovakia, admittedly this was not a strong one since the original concept had been watered down by a certain Pierre Laval. However there is evidence that not only France but Soviet Russia wanted to present a united armed front again Hitler. Litvinov had proposed to the French and British that a joint meeting of their respective Staffs should be arranged - he got no answer. And Russia was not invited to the negotiations with Hitler.

The French were prepared to honour the treaty provided the British backed them up. This was not forthcoming and as we know Chamberlain dominated the disastrous negotiations. A strong British response would have resulted in a joint declaration from all three Countries against German aggression against Czechoslovakia.


If there had been a united front of Britain, France and Russia, then even an opportunist like Hitler would have had to think twice and there was a very good chance that the Generals faced with a two front War (which Hitler promised would never happen) would have seriously opposed his scheme. At this point Hitler had had some foreign policy successes, Austria and the Rhineland, but had not established the overpowering reputation gained after Munich.

#25 baupionier419

baupionier419

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 16 October 2011 - 08:52 PM

to Domen121.
Do you own a house or a flat ? do you own land ? do you have work ? do you have relatives living in the surounding? does your kind of people own the land for nearly a thousand years ? If you can say to only one point yes I think your question is obsolete. Why should we run away from what was ours ?

Sometimes I have the impression, all can happen to others (or in best case to the germans) but not to us??? think about it, I do not know you but if you were told GO AWAY or we supress you (or 25 years later we will do genozid to your people) would you go? I don't think so. So pls explain to me why the sudetengermans should had to go? And to speak of right terms the sudetengermans were no minority. The problem was, the Allied created an artifical state and put together different nations like the germans, chzech, slowaks, pols, hungarian , ukrainian. chzech people were about 6 million. sudetengermans were about 3,4 million. so this is NOT a minority !! til 1938 when the sudeten crisis started, there was no sudetengerman in the higher positions for instance of the railway company. only the lesser work were for the germans. according to the 3.4million germans, they should get over 40.000 state and government jobs. not one was given to a german ! in the sudeten areas only chzech police was recruted and so on and so on.

from the chzech government site there you can find alot of traces of the depression of the sudeten germans

as mentioned the railway complaint here:
Prag, am 30. August 1928.
J. Najman m. p., Eisenbahnminister


Plenarsitzung der Abgeordnetenkammer in Prag 1930 bezüglich des Eisenbahnzustandes (Auszug)
Hier: Diskriminierung Sudetendeutscher in der Tschechischen Eisenbahn
Bei der Eisenbahn ist die Ungerechtigkeit noch viel krasser. Sogar ein Mitglied der heutigen Regierungspartei, der Herr Abg. Pohl, hat festgestellt, daß von 600 Oberbeamten im Eisenbahnministerium nur zwei Deutsche sind. Von den 109 Oberbeamten bei den Staatsbahndirektionen ist kein einziger Deutscher. Unter 122 Vorständen der Bahnerhaltungssektion ist kein Deutscher. Von 37 Heizhausvorständen ist abermals kein Deutscher, und so geht es fort. Weiß von dieser Ungerechtigkeit, welche bei jedem Anlass an uns Deutschen begangen wird, auch das Ausland? Das wird wohl der Herr Minister Benesch dem Auslande kaum mitteilen.


it says not only one german chairman from 122 seats, from 37 engine houses no one german, from 109 high level state worker no german and so on. from 600 state workers only are 2 german.

strange behavior isn't it for a multi ethical state ? A nation with 1/3 germans in it ?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users