Jump to content


We Need Your Help - Become a Site Supporter

For 16 years we've been delivering WWII discussion and research, help support our efforts for the next 16 years. Become a WW2 Forums Patron!


Photo
- - - - -

The Czech crisis


  • Please log in to reply
154 replies to this topic

#26 albanaich

albanaich

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 70 posts

Posted 02 May 2016 - 11:08 AM

The Czech's (and the Poles) knew they stood no chance against Germany. War is as much about economics, production and manpower as it is about weapons and skill. The Finns eventually, inevitablly, had to do a deal with the Russians because they ran out of ammunition. Admitedly they got a better deal they if they had just rolled over.

The purpose of the attacks on the Czech's and Anschluss was to provoke a war with the UK and France. The British war economy had been mobilzing from 1936 onwards, but at the time of the Munich agreement the British only had 93 Spitfires and Hurricanes to oppose 1200 fast German bombers, and 100's of Me 109's. 

Germany had to 'bounce' Western europe early in 1937 - 38 before the French and UK war economies came on stream. It's was too late by 1940. So reality is Czechoslovakia and Poland were deliberately sacrificed to buy time - and it was absolutely the correct decision.



#27 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 02 May 2016 - 02:28 PM

 So reality is Czechoslovakia and Poland were deliberately sacrificed to buy time - 

This is not correct : you will not find ONE proof for your claim .Cz was not sacrificed:CZ chose not to fight and F+B (not B +F ) did not abandon Poland : they declared war on Germany, without this DOW, Poland would have disappeared .



#28 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 02 May 2016 - 02:35 PM

First stop Hitler,

 

then deal with any disloyal Sudeten's

 

 

then find a solution with the Slovak's

 

 

1) How?  And Why ? 

 

2 ) How ? Besides : they were not disloyal, they had been forcibly incorporated in CZ in 1918

 

3 ) How ?  And Why ? 

 

No state can survive if 50 % of its population felt persecuted by the other 50 % .

 

If the Irish had the right to secede, why not the SD Germans and why not the Slovaks ?



#29 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 02 May 2016 - 02:48 PM

The Czechs took the justified decision not to fight ,in 1938 and in 1939 . 

 

Why ? They were on their own, without allies . If they would fight, France also would fight, but this would not help the Czechs .

 

The Czechs wanted two things : peace and the continuation of the existence of CZ as it was founded in 1918 = a state of nationalities,dominated by 50 % of the population . If there was a war, this state would disappear, what would be the outcome of the war . 

 

WWI resulted in the end of the multicultural states of Russia and AH . 

 

WWII would reult in the end of the multicultural Polish and CZ states .

 

That's why CZ refused to fight : it would have refused to fight even if it could expect a very quick French offensive .



#30 Belasar

Belasar

    Court Jester

  • Administrators
  • 7,445 posts

Posted 03 May 2016 - 01:48 AM

This is not correct : you will not find ONE proof for your claim .Cz was not sacrificed:CZ chose not to fight and F+B (not B +F ) did not abandon Poland : they declared war on Germany, without this DOW, Poland would have disappeared .

 

Your real agenda presents itself and helps to explain your largely nonsensical and often incoherent post's in this thread.

 

You fret that this thread is about the Anglo-French actions at Munich. Your position is that they didn't stab the Czech's in the back, but if they did it was France's fault "and F+B (not B+F)". This is not the subject of this thread, the subject is what might happen if the Czech's had decided to fight a 'hopeless' fight as Poland, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Yugoslavia and Greece did.

 

The second half of your post returns to the largely nonsensical and often incoherent.

 

 Did not Czechoslovakia return AFTER the war as a Warsaw Pact puppet of the Soviet Union as Poland did, or do you have access to maps of a alternate universe?


Wars are rarely fought in black and white, but in infinite shades of grey

(Poppy is occasionaly correct, or so I hear)


#31 Belasar

Belasar

    Court Jester

  • Administrators
  • 7,445 posts

Posted 03 May 2016 - 03:12 AM

1) How?  And Why ? 

 

2 ) How ? Besides : they were not disloyal, they had been forcibly incorporated in CZ in 1918

 

3 ) How ?  And Why ? 

 

No state can survive if 50 % of its population felt persecuted by the other 50 % .

 

If the Irish had the right to secede, why not the SD Germans and why not the Slovaks ?

 

As usual you saw a left turn sign and turned right.

 

When faced with a complex problem, or one you cannot solve in a single go, you triage the situation as they do when a hospital is overwhelmed by patients. Select those who are not critical, set them aside and concentrate on those that cannot. The Slovak's could wait, the Sudeten's are largely  manageable without German agitation. German Aggression is the pressing problem. 

 

1) A tyrant bent on conquest can not be appeased, only resisted. Some,perhaps many, will fall before the Tyrant is stopped, but until confronted a Tyrant can never be stopped. That's why.

 

2) If Germany is defeated The Czech's could do as they historically did after the war, forcibly relocate them or they could ask for international help to peaceably relocate them either within Germany or Austria with subsidies to ease the move or they could try to find a middle ground that made them feel welcome. The Czech's didn't take their land by conquest, the Victorious Great War allies redrew the map of Europe. If there is blame, it lies there.

 

3) Why first. Because together they are greater than the sum of their part's. How. Find common ground, allow greater autonomy in each 'state' while keeping a central 'Federated' government for national and international affairs. Is that easy, no, but multi cultural, multi lingual Countries have done it before.

 

As for your last, perhaps you should touch up on British Imperial history. Never has so many been denied their freedom by so few. In the case of Ireland they were forced to endure English rule, at the behest of English rulers, for 800 years. A outside force did not draw up their borders.


Wars are rarely fought in black and white, but in infinite shades of grey

(Poppy is occasionaly correct, or so I hear)


#32 Belasar

Belasar

    Court Jester

  • Administrators
  • 7,445 posts

Posted 03 May 2016 - 03:21 AM

The Czechs took the justified decision not to fight ,in 1938 and in 1939 . 

 

Why ? They were on their own, without allies . If they would fight, France also would fight, but this would not help the Czechs .

 

The Czechs wanted two things : peace and the continuation of the existence of CZ as it was founded in 1918 = a state of nationalities,dominated by 50 % of the population . If there was a war, this state would disappear, what would be the outcome of the war . 

 

WWI resulted in the end of the multicultural states of Russia and AH . 

 

WWII would reult in the end of the multicultural Polish and CZ states .

 

That's why CZ refused to fight : it would have refused to fight even if it could expect a very quick French offensive .

 

Back to largely nonsensical and often incoherent.

 

They allowed the dismemberment of their country because they wanted to keep it intact. 

 

The Mad Hatter would be proud of that logic.


Wars are rarely fought in black and white, but in infinite shades of grey

(Poppy is occasionaly correct, or so I hear)


#33 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 03 May 2016 - 05:35 AM

As usual you saw a left turn sign and turned right.

 

When faced with a complex problem, or one you cannot solve in a single go, you triage the situation as they do when a hospital is overwhelmed by patients. Select those who are not critical, set them aside and concentrate on those that cannot. The Slovak's could wait, the Sudeten's are largely  manageable without German agitation. German Aggression is the pressing problem. 

 

1) A tyrant bent on conquest can not be appeased, only resisted. Some,perhaps many, will fall before the Tyrant is stopped, but until confronted a Tyrant can never be stopped. That's why.

 

2) If Germany is defeated The Czech's could do as they historically did after the war, forcibly relocate them or they could ask for international help to peaceably relocate them either within Germany or Austria with subsidies to ease the move or they could try to find a middle ground that made them feel welcome. The Czech's didn't take their land by conquest, the Victorious Great War allies redrew the map of Europe. If there is blame, it lies there.

 

3) Why first. Because together they are greater than the sum of their part's. How. Find common ground, allow greater autonomy in each 'state' while keeping a central 'Federated' government for national and international affairs. Is that easy, no, but multi cultural, multi lingual Countries have done it before.

 

As for your last, perhaps you should touch up on British Imperial history. Never has so many been denied their freedom by so few. In the case of Ireland they were forced to endure English rule, at the behest of English rulers, for 800 years. A outside force did not draw up their borders.

1) Hindsight is a bad argument 

 

About Ireland : the fact remains that Britain gave the Irish their independence in 1921 and that NI was allowed to remain in the UK .The period between the 2 WW's was dominated by the principle of self determination :if the Irish had their self determination, why not the SD Germans and the Slovaks ? 

 

3) After WWI the epoch of the multicultural states was over : multicultural AH was gone, and its multicultural successors would go .Nationalism was ruling . 

 

And there is an other point : a war where Germany would be defeated would open the gates for the SU, and no country in eastern Europe was enthusiastic about the arrival of the SU . War in 1938 would mean the end of CZ as an independent state as it was created in 1918;a year later there was such a war and it resulted for CZ in an occupation of 40 years by the SU .And when the SU disappeared, CZ disappeared : the Slovaks left . 



#34 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 03 May 2016 - 07:17 AM

Assassment of the British Chiefs of Staff (14 september 1938)

 

"Appreciation of the situation in the event of war against Germany" 

 

The Germans could achieve "the occupation of the whole of western Cz including Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia" easily" without any appreciable delay"....

 

 

I think that with this everything has been said .



#35 Belasar

Belasar

    Court Jester

  • Administrators
  • 7,445 posts

Posted 03 May 2016 - 01:02 PM

1) Hindsight is a bad argument 

 

About Ireland : the fact remains that Britain gave the Irish their independence in 1921 and that NI was allowed to remain in the UK .The period between the 2 WW's was dominated by the principle of self determination :if the Irish had their self determination, why not the SD Germans and the Slovaks ? 

 

3) After WWI the epoch of the multicultural states was over : multicultural AH was gone, and its multicultural successors would go .Nationalism was ruling . 

 

And there is an other point : a war where Germany would be defeated would open the gates for the SU, and no country in eastern Europe was enthusiastic about the arrival of the SU . War in 1938 would mean the end of CZ as an independent state as it was created in 1918;a year later there was such a war and it resulted for CZ in an occupation of 40 years by the SU .And when the SU disappeared, CZ disappeared : the Slovaks left . 

 

Hitler was hardly the first tyrant or conqueror in history and, as with all of them, they were never stopped until confronted. 

 

Gee, it only took the altruistic British 800 years to see the light, can't you give the Czech's a wee bit more time than a single generation, especially since they did not go out to conquer the Sudeten's out of greed for land and resources? Of course Britain's sudden interest in self determination at the aftermath of the Great War did not extend to the remainder of the Empire did it? Actually they found a whole host of new lands from which the Sun would never set in Africa, Middle East and Asia.

 

The era of Multi-Cultural Empire's were indeed coming to a close, but as Britain, France and the Soviet Union proved, they could stagger on as long as your were willing to assume the cost and spill the blood. Multi-Cultural nations do exist. Canada has Native American and French subsets, with a growing Asian community. The US is even more diverse. Belgium has three official languages and many semi official ones. 

 

To finish, your last again is nonsensical and incoherent. Munich also ended the Czechoslovak state for all intents and purposes. It also laid the foundation for the Soviet Union moving from a nation who wanted to see Nazi Germany contained into one that embraced them in word and deed. Germany confronted in 1938 might have seen a world where the Soviet Union never strayed far from her borders.


Wars are rarely fought in black and white, but in infinite shades of grey

(Poppy is occasionaly correct, or so I hear)


#36 Belasar

Belasar

    Court Jester

  • Administrators
  • 7,445 posts

Posted 03 May 2016 - 01:10 PM

Assassment of the British Chiefs of Staff (14 september 1938)

 

"Appreciation of the situation in the event of war against Germany" 

 

The Germans could achieve "the occupation of the whole of western Cz including Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia" easily" without any appreciable delay"....

 

 

I think that with this everything has been said .

 

From the same source that thought that Norway would welcome seizure of her northern ports, that Sweden would gratefully permit the Anglo-French to tromp over their country to fight along side the noble Finn's against Hitler's ally, The Soviet Union? That thought they would contain Germany until 1941-42 where upon they would then march across the German Border and end the war?

 

Indeed that does say much, but not what you think it does. 


Wars are rarely fought in black and white, but in infinite shades of grey

(Poppy is occasionaly correct, or so I hear)


#37 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 03 May 2016 - 02:24 PM

 Belgium has three official languages and many semi official ones. 

 

 

 

 Munich also ended the Czechoslovak state for all intents and purposes.

 

It also laid the foundation for the Soviet Union moving from a nation who wanted to see Nazi Germany contained  

 

into one that embraced them in word and deed. Germany confronted in 1938 might have seen a world where the Soviet Union never strayed far from her borders.

   1 )  No : it has not

 

   2  ) Irrelevant : A war would also have ended the CZ  state

 

  3  )  NO : the SU did not want Germany contained :that's only Soviet propaganda 

 

  4 ) The SU did not embrace Germany in word and deed

 

5  ) As the SU had no common border with CZ, the fall of CZ was of no importance to the SU :the role of the SU in the SD crisis was minimal .



#38 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 03 May 2016 - 02:32 PM

From the same source that thought that Norway would welcome seizure of her northern ports, that Sweden would gratefully permit the Anglo-French to tromp over their country to fight along side the noble Finn's against Hitler's ally, The Soviet Union? That thought they would contain Germany until 1941-42 where upon they would then march across the German Border and end the war?

 

Indeed that does say much, but not what you think it does. 

The British chiefs of staff knew more than you and had more expertise . ,besides the Czechs agreed with them : in case of a German invasion, the Czechs would abandon their fortifications and retreat to hostile Slowakia . This debunks the theory that the  German  attack would fail .

 

The Czechs were realistic and knew that they had no chance at all . They could not expect any help .



#39 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 03 May 2016 - 02:36 PM

Hitler was hardly the first tyrant or conqueror in history and, as with all of them, they were never stopped until confronted. 

 

 

Hindsight and wrong : a restoration of the German domination of central Europe (between the Rhine and the SU ) was not endangering France :it is the opposite : it would give France more safety.



#40 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,126 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 03 May 2016 - 03:56 PM

  ...

  3  )  NO : the SU did not want Germany contained :that's only Soviet propaganda 

 

  4 ) The SU did not embrace Germany in word and deed

 

5  ) As the SU had no common border with CZ, the fall of CZ was of no importance to the SU :the role of the SU in the SD crisis was minimal .

??? 3 hardly looks like Soviet propaganda to me.  Perhaps you could explain with sources.

 

4 they most certainly did.  Observe the partition of Poland and the business relations between the two in the aftermath of "CA"

 

5 You'll  have to make a stronger case than stating your opinion.  It wasn't the proximity it was how the West reacted from what I can see.



#41 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,126 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 03 May 2016 - 03:58 PM

Hindsight and wrong : a restoration of the German domination of central Europe (between the Rhine and the SU ) was not endangering France :it is the opposite : it would give France more safety.

Hardly hindsight or wrong.  as for the rest it's it simply doesn't hold up under the weight of history.  Of course things are different in your own personal "reality".



#42 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 03 May 2016 - 06:30 PM

Hardly hindsight or wrong.  as for the rest it's it simply doesn't hold up under the weight of history.  Of course things are different in your own personal "reality".

Proofs that your knowledge of European history lacks even the elementary minimum .

 

Germany master of central Europe was no danger for France :that's why at the end of the twenties France decided to abandon Poland and CZ and to build the Maginot Line . Poland and CZ had originally as mission to replace Russia as ally,but vey soon it became obvious that France could have as ally or Poland or CZ,as bith countries were each enemies .

 

the whole of easten/central Europe was a minefield where every one was waiting to fly at the throat of the neighbour;if France supported A, B would be angry ,and the opposite, it it remained netral,they both would be angry . Therefore it was a wise decision of France to withdraw of this region ,which Austin Chamberlain declared at Locarno as not worth the bones of a British Grenadier .

 

Let's take something  plausible 

 

Border incidents between Poland and CZ escalate to a full-scale war .Lithuania attacks Poland to get back Wilna . The SU attacks Lithuania and the other Baltic states and Poland . Germany attacks Poland (or CZ or both) .Hungary attacks CZ but is attacked by Romania,which is invaded by the SU and Bulgaria which is attacked by Turkey and Greece, very soon however,both are fighting against each other . 

 

Whom should France support ? 

 

Before WWI, France had wisely abandoned its alliance with Russia to not get involved in the Macedonian and  insoluble problems of central Europe,and it had chosen the Entente Cordiale with Britain .

 

20 years later, it was the same but much worse . :Britain who had refused to guarentee the borders in eastern Europe,was more important for France than the states of eastern Europe who had no military importance .

 

For Britain and France there was no objection for a German domination of eastern Europe as long there was no war . 

 

See the visit of Halifax to Germany in november 1937 and the letter from the same Halifax in november 1939 to the British ambassador in Paris .

 

It was the same for France .

 

All the rest are the usual Churchillian and cold war nonses .



#43 steverodgers801

steverodgers801

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,655 posts

Posted 03 May 2016 - 07:51 PM

The French and British quit because it was clear that the German airforce would sink England and that Germany would easily all the allied armies in one battle 



#44 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 03 May 2016 - 08:14 PM

The French quit because they had given up CZ already in 1930. Britain quit because it never had guarenteed the borders of Cz and because it refused to be involved in these problems,which were not Britain's problem . There were a lot of stories about a LW attack on London,with devastating results, but these stories did not impress Chamberlain :for Neville, Sudetenland was not worth the bones of a British grenadier .

 

No one in Britain would fight to deprive the SD Germans of the right of self determination, but every one in Britain would fight if Germany attacked CZ . Thus the trick was to prevent war by forcing the Czechs to give up the SD and the Czchs need no pressure at all .No one wanted to die for the Sudeten.



#45 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,126 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 03 May 2016 - 08:43 PM

Proofs that your knowledge of European history lacks even the elementary minimum .

 

Germany master of central Europe was no danger for France :that's why at the end of the twenties France decided to abandon Poland and CZ and to build the Maginot Line . Poland and CZ had originally as mission to replace Russia as ally,but vey soon it became obvious that France could have as ally or Poland or CZ,as bith countries were each enemies .

 

....

 

Actually all this shows is that you have no idea of what a proof is and that your opinions are only very marginally related to reality. 

 

Germany mastering Central Europe showed itself to be a threat to France a couple of times in the 20th century alone.  Even without the wars it was a potential economic threat. 

 

I don't mind if you live in your own "reality" I just wish you wouldn't keep trying to project it on to the real one.
 



#46 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 04 May 2016 - 09:05 AM

Before WWI,the French policy was not to be involved in conflicts east of the Rhine : they refused to be involved in the problem of the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegowina in 1908, in the Liman von Sanders crisis,and even in 1914 they advised the Russians to be more moderate and they looked the other way when the Germans declared war on Russia .

 

For the French alliances east of the Rhine had as meaning only to  get help if Germany attacked France, not to help these countries if they were attacked by Germany or to interfere if they were fighting between each other .



#47 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,126 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 04 May 2016 - 11:27 AM

In regards to your post #46:  What's your point?  Indeed it can be argued that it supports the position that the French regarded German control of Central Europe as a threat.

 

As an illustration of why stating a more or less random fact and leaping to a conclusion is a long way from a proof let us examine the following.

...

Germany master of central Europe was no danger for France :that's why at the end of the twenties France decided to abandon Poland and CZ and to build the Maginot Line . Poland and CZ had originally as mission to replace Russia as ally,but vey soon it became obvious that France could have as ally or Poland or CZ,as bith countries were each enemies .

.....

 

This simply ignores the situation at the time.  After WWI Germany was left relatively impotent as both a military and economic threat to France.  The French position by the late 20's early 30's was again that Germany could and probably would be a threat again in the not to distant future.  The chaotic nature of Eastern and Central Europe likely suggested that a fortification such as the Maginot line was more dependable.  However it is obvious that a Germany dominating Central Europe is more of a threat than a Germany that doesn't.  In addition not  having fixed treaties with the miscellaneous countries in the region left France free to act in what she considered her best interest at the time.



#48 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts

Posted 04 May 2016 - 12:33 PM

 However it is obvious that a Germany dominating Central Europe is more of a threat than a Germany that doesn't.  In addition not  having fixed treaties with the miscellaneous countries in the region left France free to act in what she considered her best interest at the time.

It was obvious for the French that this was not so : they felt safe behind the Maginot Line .And it was also so that if France could not dominate Central Europe and calm down its allies, it would be very difficult for Germany to do it . And the more Germany was implicated in Central Europe the more the chance that it would crash with the SU .

 

The countries in this region were hostile to each other, and they would remain hostile to each other if Germany took the place of France .



#49 steverodgers801

steverodgers801

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,655 posts

Posted 04 May 2016 - 06:41 PM

LJAD, the French were eager for war against Germany in 1914, which is why their plan 17 called for an immediate invasion of Germany.   



#50 steverodgers801

steverodgers801

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,655 posts

Posted 04 May 2016 - 06:43 PM

The Maginot was built to free up French troops so France could fight Germany. The failure of France and Britain besides fear of casualties was not understanding that the Soviet treaty gave Germany the resources it would need to survive blockade. The allies thought Germany would quickly collapsed as it did at the end of WW1






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users