Again with these derogatory comments, demeaning other posters understanding simply becaues they disagree with you? Didn't we have this conversation already?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Again with these derogatory comments, demeaning other posters understanding simply becaues they disagree with you? Didn't we have this conversation already?
'Perhaps a course in diplomacy might be in order for you' can also be interpreted as rather derogatory, you know.
When that comment is directly preceded by a sentence actively complimenting his detailed and thorough study of fixed fortifications, it could also be taken as a polite suggestion as it was intended.
Last edited:
There is nothing derogatory about pointing out that my post is legitimate, and that his snide remarks earlier claiming it isn't were rude. I will not cave to pressure just because my posts are unpopular for exposing the weak German position in the late 1930s. Because that's all that the opposition has been to my posts since the beginning.
one thing that I haven't seen mentioned yet is that during the sudetencrisis poland was on the side of germany and hungary as well (they wanted czech silesia)
also IMO if you're not sure about your hand then it's ok to fold to a guy who in hindsight was totally bluffing
also IMO if you're not sure about your hand then it's ok to fold to a guy who in hindsight was totally bluffing
No one thinks Germany is strong in 1936. No one has said so. I think you are looking for the Hearts of Iron forum, and this is not it.
Adolph Hitler said great magicians are also great liars, and Hitler was nothing if not a great liar. He lied to Germany, he lied to the world. Hitler lied to gain ground. Hitler lied to start a war. Hitler lied to the English, the French, the Russian and every other power you can name. Hitler cheated and borrowed France's battleplans to design his blitzkrieg offensive that gave his army the aura of invincibility. It is all a magical lie.
Using diplomacy, guilt, murder, and threats of violence, Hitler made Germany strong by weaving together an impossible lie. The problem is that lie still exists today. My new favorite is German Reich Brew being sold for $18.88 Euros a bottle and they can't keep it on the shelf. And if the numbers 18 and 88 don't ring a bell, those are code words used by the Nazis for Adoph Hitler and Heil Hitler while Hitler and Hess were in prison writing Mein Kampf.
So what pressure are you talking about to cave?
Last edited:
I would blame the French!
The Polish was probably only saying what the French want them to say.
So you are saying countries change allegiances based on their current political desires from month to month? I am shocked, Shocked!
You confusing your uniformed opinion with historical fact.
Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual assistance was active by the time of Munich, but had been made redundent by events, military action can only follow if Italy UK and Belgium all agree to the request by an invaded party, and the LO nations also aproves.
Since Italy was on AH side and could veto any military action, the OP you posted is not based on the facts, and now you blame others facts for being superior to you opinion and object to your ill informed opinion being subjected to facts.
My understanding is that the French government felt they needed British political, economic and military backing to confront Germany and Britain was not willing. Whether they were trying to throw Czechoslovakia off the sleigh to keep the wolves from themselves, or gain time to re-arm, or just wanted a stronger Germany to contain France and Russia doesn't matter.
France wanted British support. Britain surrendered to a bluff rather than risk any chance of a fight, and a few years later had to sell of the empire and wreck the manpower of a generation trying to fix the original screwup - that's my opinion.
@Andre Bolkonsky - "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme."
France wanted British support. Britain surrendered to a bluff rather than risk any chance of a fight, and a few years later had to sell of the empire and wreck the manpower of a generation trying to fix the original screwup - that's my opinion.
@Andre Bolkonsky - "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme."
Mark Twain sends greetings
Personally I prefer the one liner that goes: "History does not repeat itself, the historians repeat one another".
Last edited:
Hey guys, why don't we start WW3 by attacking China over Hong Kong and Taiwan?
This is the equivalent of that question. No one wanted a world war over Sudetenland. And no one would start one over a done deal as with anexation of Czechia after it. It's a world war man. First world war knocked Britain out of the pedestal as the sole hegemon of the world, put their finances into red and indebted them to US, all while losing millions of men and getting their colonials all upity over their own sacrifices made for the sake of Britain.
This is the equivalent of that question. No one wanted a world war over Sudetenland. And no one would start one over a done deal as with anexation of Czechia after it. It's a world war man. First world war knocked Britain out of the pedestal as the sole hegemon of the world, put their finances into red and indebted them to US, all while losing millions of men and getting their colonials all upity over their own sacrifices made for the sake of Britain.
So why did they decide to start it over Poland?
Came to mind when it was too late actually?
Depends... the UK defintely felt itself stronger now that they had more than 10 monoplane fighters.
Plus Poland seemed to be a much more capable ally than Czechoslovakia.
Don't thing so. In 1938 Germany had no more monoplanes yet
Czechoslovak army was a formidable power and, with some diplomacy (and Czech good wil
), Poland could be easily took into quotation on their side...
Actually, Germany still had a small number of biplanes at the start of the war, mainly used as naval spotters. From what I recall reading, Poland was the ONLY country to have replaced ALL of its biplanes with monoplanes. Didn't help much, apparently.Don't thing so. In 1938 Germany had no more monoplanes yet
Czechoslovakia was not about to hand Poland the disputed piece of land that Poland eventually got out of the Munich arrangement, so "good will" was highly unlikely at best. As for holding out in a war, the Czechs were not about to relent and give back former Hungarian territory or allow a plebiscite to let the populace decide for themselves, so they needed to garrison the Hungarian border as well as the already extensive one with Germany (not that Hungary had managed to build much of an army at that point). Fortifications are of limited use if they're under-manned, and a lot of those troops who would not be used on the German border because of "loyalty" issues could also not be used on the other border for similar reasons. The situation is very different than the raw numbers on paper would suggest.
Another critical reason why Germany annexed Czechoslovakia later would be finances: the funds looted from Austria to build up a massive war machine were running out quickly, and Hitler needed to loot the Czech treasury to avoid bankrupting Germany. The stockpiles of war materials were some very sweet icing on the cake.
Don't thing so. In 1938 Germany had no more monoplanes yet
Czechoslovak army was a formidable power and, with some diplomacy (and Czech good wil
Poland, the country with territorial ambitions on Czechoslovakia, supporting Czechoslovakia?
Are you going to tell me they support Lithuania next?
That's rather irrelevant, the Soviets also had an alliance with the Czechs, this one did not require any outside nation's approval to activate, and it was one which the Soviets seemed eager to honor. So this would be a legal avenue to circumvent the requirements that Italy or Britain approve. But never mind the fact that Stalin does not need a legal loophole to help the Czechs if he wants to if the Germans invaded.
So if the French and Czechs stand and fight, it's likely The Soviets get involved, if anything then just to eliminate the German strategic and ideological threat before it grows too powerful. Up until the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact Stalin expressed desire to work with the allies against Germany.
Last edited:
Poland had maybe best air fleet in the early 30s, by 1939 it was mostly obsolete, paradoxally probably due to the first - they started programs of modern planes to late, which were delayed in addition.
And the numbers also matter, while Poland exported most and best of produced planes. Till 1939...
So I wrote "with some diplomacy and Czech good will"
However, apart of common myth and later Soviet propaganda, Poland was not a part of Munich agreement, and the annexation of Zaolzie was not agreed in any point with Germany. It was unilateral decision of Poland, which acted rather like scavenger, not predator. The ultimatum was issued when Munich conference was over and Czech gov agreed to transfer the occupied territory (Poland never recognized Czech rule there after treacherous backstab agression in Jan 1919). The Germans were initially furious because they wanted to have Bohumin rail hub for themselves, even some skirmishes occured, but later they appreciated the propaganda value of the Polish land grab.
It was actually pretty rational decision in means of economy and generally historical justice, but absolutely ruined the view of Poland in the world's public opinion, especially bearing in mind that Soviet and Nazi propaganda machines started to work over it immediately.
But, in the war situation, if France and the UK opposed hard Hitler in Munich, nothing like a such would have happened. I don't see any possibility for Poland becoming German ally against France, being always perceived as the friend of Poland with mutual assistance pact. Also Czechoslovakia in the eve of the disaster started to change its position over that absolutely unnecessary conflict. With French pressure Poland could be involved into common action against Germany despite the previouis animosity with Czechoslovakia, but in the first case France had to say no in Munich. And yes, Poland probably would have expected the promised, twenty years before, plebiscite over Zaolzie in return...
BTW: Lithuania was just a rebelled province, of course it would be supported
Kovax said:
Yes. And before Munich Germany was much much weakier opponent for the Allies. No peace of our times was the last moment to stop Hitler.
Facts are stubborn. You started with a claim of the legal aspect of Alliances, that is not based in fact but rather your uniformed opinion, and go on to deride others for not being educated on the facts.
So what the facts are its entirely irrelevant. And the facts are not as you further claim.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-24124-8_4
Secondly, there was the Soviet-Czechoslovak mutual assistance treaty of 1935 under which the Soviet Union pledged military aid to Czechoslovakia in the event of an attack on that country by a third party. Soviet assistance was, however, conditional upon France, which also had a mutual assistance treaty with Czechoslovakia, simultaneously fulfilling its aid obligations — a clause inserted in the Soviet-Czechoslovak treaty of 1935 at the suggestion of Benes/ , the Czech President.