Sudetenland.

[knp7765]

Hey everyone,
I have a question to pose. There has been a lot of talk about what if Britain and France really attacked Germany after they attacked Poland and what might have been different. There has also been speculation about what if France reacted much firmer when Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland. At that time, the German army was no where near strong enough to resist a dedicated French attack.
I am wondering what you think might have happened if England and France had not “sold out” Czechoslovakia when Hitler demanded the Sudetenland.
When Hitler first made threats toward the Sudetenland, the Czech army mobilized and was ready to meet the German army. Remember, the Czech army was very well trained and disciplined and they had good equipment too. Plus, the Germans would have had to attack into a lot of mountainous terrain which is all too good for defense.
At that time, I think the German army was still in the process of expanding, although they were in a lot better shape than when they militarized the Rhineland.

So, if France and England did not bail on Czechoslovakia and Hitler had to try taking the Sudetenland by force, does anyone think that the Czech army might have held out against a German attack?
Also, assuming that since France and England did not sell out the Czechs, perhaps they actually screwed their balls in and backed up Czechoslovakia with military force. Then perhaps Germany, while busy attacking Czechoslovakia, would also have to suffer a French/British attack. (Of course, France and Britain declared war on Germany after they attacked Poland but it didn’t do Poland much good.) One main difference in this scenario is no agreement between Germany and the Soviet Union. That might make a difference.

By the way, I found out something about the situation between Germany and Czechoslovakia that surprised me. When Germany gobbled up the Sudetenland, they weren’t the only ones. Hungary got a large amount of territory along the southern Czech border and even Poland got a small chunk of Czech territory. Can you believe that Poland took part in this? Of course, in the end it didn’t really matter for them, but it was still surprising to me.

[CWO Marc]

You can think of the situation from 1936 (remilitarization of the Rhineland) to spring 1940 (end of the Phony War) as an exponentially rising “curve of difficulty”.  The easiest time to stop Hitler would have been right at the beginning, when he walked into the Rhineland.  With each new non-response from the French and British, Hitler grew bolder, his political power base became more secure, his ability to browbeat his generals into submission increased, his potential enemies (specifically France and Britain) became more and more frightened of getting into a war with him, and Hitler became more and more convinced that they wouldn’t fight him.  Nothing succeeds like success, as the old expression goes, and that was the case with Hitler’s increasing intimidation of the countries who could have stopped him in time if they’d had the gumption to do so.

The Sudetenland crisis was, I’d estimate, at about the halfway point on this rising curve when it started.  The Munich Agreement, in my opinion, pushed it well past the halfway point and put Hitler firmly in the strategic driver’s seat.  If the Czechs hadn’t been sold out, Hitler would have had for the very first time to acquire territory by actual fighting rather than by bullying.  A clear win by Hitler under those circumstances would have consolidated his position, but a clear loss might well have damaged his position fatally, both internationally (it would have proved that Hitler could be resisted successfully) and perhaps domestically (though that’s more tricky to speculate about).  I don’t know if the Czechs would have been able to defeat a German invasion on their own, however.  The Sudetenland contained the country’s natural topographical defenses, which is one of the reasons why Hitler wanted the region in the first place, and I think the Czech military defenses were there too, so fighting there would have been to the Czechs’ advantage.  But ideally the French and British would have joined the fight, and if they’d done so (and had fought convincingly, not just in a token manner), then it’s quite possible the invasion would have been defeated.

[sophiedog2]

The Czechs had very good relations with Stalin, who almost went to war over sudetland.

[knp7765]

@sophiedog2:

The Czechs had very good relations with Stalin, who almost went to war over sudetland.

I did NOT know that. Very interesting.

CWO Marc,
Thank you for your insights. I sometimes envy your knowledge of history.

[barney]

As sophiedog2 says  Russia may very well have gone to war over the sudetnland. I believe France was pretty much ready to go too. The naive pacifist Chamberlain was the one who messed it up.
Poland was definitely no innocent. They jumped on the Czechs when she was down and tore of a chunk for themselves.

I think the germans would have been hard pressed if they attacked, even if Britain and France stood by. There was also a real chance of a coup if Hitler would have invaded as well.

[sophiedog2]

Yes, and Romania and Yugoslavia may have rallied to the allies.

[knp7765]

Another question. Say Germany did attack Czechoslovakia and the Czechs managed to hold them back long enough for Britain and France to jump in, and perhaps even Russia, and Germany was defeated. I imagine there would be sanctions against Germany to teach them a lesson. Of course their rearmament plan would be in a shambles. Plus, as Barney pointed out, Hitler may very well have been overthrown as well. I know the German generals were beside themselves when Hitler threatened military action against Czechoslovakia.

1 If Hitler was indeed overthrown, do you think that would have meant the end of the Nazi Party in Germany? Or would it just be Hitler removed?

2 Since Hungary and Poland both grabbed Czech territory when Germany took the Sudetenland, would either of those countries have also been punished if Germany had attacked and been defeated by the Allies? Or would they have gotten off scot free since their acquisitions didn’t really occur until after the fact?

[barney]

I don’t think it would be the end of the nazi party. Probably German civil war. Poland would look to gain territory from Germany then.
The Czechs probably keep what they were given at the end of WWI. Maybe try for a chunk of Germany/Austria as well.

[sophiedog2]

The poles only took territory after it was obvious Germany would get away with it

[knp7765]

Okay, now I have a question going the other way.
Germany attacks Poland on Sept 1, 1939. I know this is a little out there, but suppose Chamberlain and Deladier (French leader, not sure of spelling) were still bent on appeasing Hitler in spite of the terrible slaughter of the poor Poles and did NOT declare war on Germany.
Would Hitler have still went after France the following Spring 1940? Would he still have attacked Denmark and Norway? OR, is it possible he may have settled down and planned for the invasion of Russia, which we all know was who he always considered the “real” enemy.
I do know that one of his aims was to humiliate the French as revenge for the German defeat in WW1, however I’m not sure if he really wanted to go to war with England. It seems to me that he only attacked the British because they were allied with France.
Of course, if he did decide to go after France, that would have still meant going through Belgium and Holland I think.

[CWO Marc]

@knp7765:

Germany attacks Poland on Sept 1, 1939. I know this is a little out there, but suppose Chamberlain and Deladier (French leader, not sure of spelling) were still bent on appeasing Hitler in spite of the terrible slaughter of the poor Poles and did NOT declare war on Germany.
Would Hitler have still went after France the following Spring 1940?

I think so.  There was a discussion along these lines over here…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34744.0

…in which I posted a few responses giving some thoughts about the subject.

[The11HP20]

Hitler would have attacked the France regardless. He didn’t want a two front war at that point. France was an easier target than the USSR. He wanted to knock the French out of the race before they could join it. The difference would have been France may not have been on a war footing when Hitler attacked. Then he would have just steamrolled the French instead of facing that highly organized and professionally orchestrated defense he didn’t face.

Sorry. My sarcasm is showing again. I hate incompetent generals. They kill more men than the good ones.

To the original question. If Chamberlan could have been hit by blue ice and removed then the English may when have stood up for the Czechs. France would have followed suit IMHO. A BEF force on the continent moving east with the French would have been a good thing. Before Hitler could have mines laid some naval action off the German coast would have been a real eye opener for Hitler. He always thought little of naval power early on.

So here’s my dream scenario. Hitler is making slow progress against the Czechs since bliztkrieg actions against a determined foe in mountains don’t look like what we saw in France. The Czechs did have a well trained and equipped military that was not as laden with idiots as the French high command. The Brits sail in force into the Baltic Sea, announce they are at war with Germany, and flatten some ports and naval installations. Damage done by the branch Hitler thought the least of for some reason. Finally the Allied push from the west. I’m pretty sure at that point in time this would have led to Hitler’s overthrow by the Generals.

Now to ponder the impact on Italy and Japan.

[Chris_Henry]

There is a lot to consider in this question, a lot of what has been touched on above.

We first need to look at the time frame. WWI was still very fresh in everyone’s memory, the Western Allies at least wanted to do everything they could to avoid another war of that scale, and so were willing to appease Hitler, continually believing his lies that he just wanted “a little bit more”. Sacrificing Czechoslovakia for European peace was worth it to them. Same goes for the Rhineland. The other part of this is that no, the Czechs would probably not have been saved had the Allies acted, for very similar reasons that Poland didn’t survive. Geographically speaking, there was nothing France or the UK could do to realistically help the Czech’s and Poles out. Theirs were alliances in name only really. The UK would have taken months to get troops to the mainland, as it did in after Poland was invaded. France also was woefully prepared for war. While they had a large standing army, it was not well trained, and France politically had only recently (finally) backed partial rearmament.

True, the Czech army would have put up a fight, but the other factor here is the incorporation of the Sudetenland. That part of Czechoslovakia was ceded to Germany initially, and had a lot of ethnic Germans. This was the area that also contained the large majority of the Czech border defenses, which largely contributed to the ease in which they were able to take the rest of the country, and why the Czech government knew resistance was futile at that point. Unless of course we’re talking about before the initial Sudetenland cession, then I’d say there was a fighting chance.

[Chris_Henry]

@The11HP20:

Now to ponder the impact on Italy and Japan.

Good point! That would be interesting. I think Italy is easy enough to figure out though: they wouldn’t have done a thing.

Up until Italy invaded southern France, the UK and French were still doing everything in their power to keep Italy out of the war, and even had mild hopes of Italy joining them (though that was more of a stretch considering the fascist regime). That’s why Italy was given such a free hand in invading Abyssinia. True, the western allies condemned the invasion, but they ultimately didn’t want to piss off Italy to do anything more to make them align more with Germany.

One reason why I really have mixed feelings on the Taranto/the UK being able to attack Italy first move in AA 1940. Historically, there’s almost no way the Allies would have attacked Italy first, since they didn’t want Italy joining the fight against them in the first place.

Japan is a different matter. They were still at war with China regardless. It’s hard to see them attacking the US, Dutch, French, and UK, knowing that the whole might of all of them could be brought to the Pacific without any worry in Europe. That being said, with a Germany power vacuum, I wouldn’t be surprised to have seen the USSR become aggressive and take territories in eastern Europe.

We’re getting down the historical fiction hole a lot now though!  :-)

[Wolfshanze]

Simply put, if the Allies stood up to Germany before Munich sold-out the Czechs, Germany probably would have had a massive mess on their hands if they had to militarily take Czechoslovakia… people assume a LOT of things, like the Germans were this massive modern mechanized monstrosity that few could stop… this simply was NOT the case in February 1938 when it first cropped up.  Lets just assume, we look at a few things without the assumptions many put on Germany, and look at a lot of the realities if a war broke out before the Sudetenland was turned over to Germany, no Munich happened, and Czechoslovakia stood firm against Germany in 1938.

1. Czechoslovakia is NOT Poland… this seems obvious, but terrain alone is very much different… instead of flat plains, great for massive panzer formations and flanking units, you have a lot of mountains and rough ground… not exactly ideal for Blitzkrieg warfare…

2. The Sudetenland defenses were fairly well developed and would have posed a significant challenge… the Czechs had a fairly well-laid-out line of trenches, pillboxes and defenses all around the Sudetenland to defend approaches through rough terrain facing Germany… if these were manned and defended, it would be a tough approach for Germany to deal with under even ideal circumstances and with superior equipment.

3. The Germans did NOT have a quality advantage over the Czechs, especially in tanks.  In 1938, Germany really only had two types of Panzers in service… the MG-only armed Pz-I… which was barely more than a training vehicle… and the laughable Pz-II… armed with a whopping 20mm cannon… once again… not exactly anything that is going to strike fear in your enemy.  Pz-III’s were still in development… and mass production would not start till 1939… Pz-IVs just weren’t around… on the other hand, the Czech army was well armed with (at the time), a very capable Skoda CKD Lt vz.35 (later known as the Pz-35t, after the Germans got their hands on it)… the Czechs had nearly 300 of them at the time… these tanks were, in-fact, superior to anything the Germans had in 1938… quite a difference from the common misconception that the Germans always had better tanks than their opponents.

The Czech army alone, was well equipped and in a very defensible position, and could have held out far longer than Poland did, given the situations of 1, 2 and 3 listed above… in-fact, its entirely feasible, the Czechs alone may have completely halted an invasion of their country as long as the Allies didn’t give away their border defenses at Munich.  This doesn’t even account for what would have or could have happened if more countries jumped-in to the defense of Czechoslovakia.

I’m in the firm belief, that had Germany militarily invaded Czechoslovakia in-whole before the surrender of territory at Munich, that it would have been a military disaster for Germany… and very possibly the end of the Third Reich, shortly thereafter.