But how are the Soviets going to get involved? Neither Poland nor Romania are likely to invite them in so there is no route for them to reach Germany or Czechoslovakia.
-
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.
But how are the Soviets going to get involved? Neither Poland nor Romania are likely to invite them in so there is no route for them to reach Germany or Czechoslovakia.
So what you are saying is, if France stood up to Germany in defense of Czechoslovakia, the Soviets would have the green light to defend Czechoslovakia, which they wanted to do, sort of like how my OP says? It seems you have misunderstood what I have been saying.
Here are the Facts. If France stood up to Germany at Munich, its feasible, and possibly likely, they could have gotten the Soviets involved using either the French-Soviet Alliance or the Czech-Soviet Alliance.
The Little Entente was originally created to defend against Hungarian and Austrian Aggression, but France later signed treaties with each little Entente Member nation that protected general security of the signatories, and was aimed toward Germany as threat of two front war.
Both the agreements with the little entente aimed at Germany, and the Soviet Alliance with the Czechs were active during the Munich conference, and its entirely possible France could have used them against Germany in a just war in defense of Czechoslovakia.
This is what my factual original post said.
Probably in a similar fashion as to how the Russians sent volunteer divisions to France in WWI. Send as many Soviet troops to France as the infrastructure can support, and attack Germany that way. In 1939 the German westwall fortifications were "still a building site". I'd imagine a year earlier it would simply not exist at all yet.
It is not a paradox, but the very nature of the investments. The fun part is doing those things at the correct time, that you are competitive when it matters.
I have posted nothing that would lead you to assume that, i have in fact, posted the opposite of that by pointing out your facts are not facts, but are instead uninformed opinion that is not supported by the facts. You have referenced two legal documents ( treaties) and misrepresented what mil action they allow, in both instances you claim they allow what the text of the documents show not to be the case. Thats is what i have pointed out in each instance.
No that is not a fact, in either instance, its is your opinion. Fist you ignore the veto power of Uk IT and Bel, then you ignore the conditional french aspect of another treaty, in both cases your ignorant of the texts of the treaties and what they contain, and blame others for being ignorant of the facts.
Sigh, your opinion is not superior to the facts, you can hold any opinion you like, but its not superior to the facts, nor is your opinion supported by your own facts.
Ah yes, Facts become opinions when they are inconvenient to you. The Czechoslovak–Soviet Treaty of Alliance has no stipulation for approval by any other nation other than France. If France and the Czechs are resisting, this treaty can be used to bring in the USSR into the war, and of course the willingness on the part of the Soviets was there.
"Of France's allies in Eastern Europe, only the Soviet Union, which had no frontier with Czechoslovakia, professed a willingness to come to Czechoslovakia's aid if Germany should invade" - Thomas 1999, p. 135
The real important factor is the Soviets willingness to defend the Czechs, not the legal framework. The USSR, as a totalitarian state, can simply force through a war to defend the Czechs no matter what any treaty says, but the fact of the matter is, they did have a legal justification to do so.
Romania and Yugoslavia had obligations to Czechoslovakia and France as well, France had treaties with all three nations that were general security pacts, not merely ones focused on Hungarian agression, this is a fact. But their willingness to commit to war was dubious.
Your first post on that contains
So your facts are that a veto power of one treaty is inconvenient to your claim and can now be ignored, and move onto another treaty that "did not require any outside nation's approval to activate" and "The Czechoslovak–Soviet Treaty of Alliance has no stipulation for approval by any other nation other than France" to support your claim that it is others who are ignorant of the facts.
Facts are inconvenient to you, not to what i have posted.
Last edited:
It is not a big matter. France was a big aid provider for these nations after WW1 and can persuade them. There was air route too. But whatever, it was quite important not let the Czech treasure, Czech well known weapon factories and weapon stockpile fall into the hand of Nazi .
all of those things weren't in danger (at that moment and officially only) though, hitler didn't demand for the entirity of czechoslovakia, he demanded those parts of czechoslovakia that were majority german in accordance with the principle of self-determination (the sudeten-germans were massively in favor of belonging to germany), just as the polish wanted that part that was majority polish and hungary the part that was majority hungarian, that this all would lead to a german protectorate over czechia wasn't mentioned anywhere
it's again like the rhineland or anshluss, nothing hitler asked for was outragesly out of bounds or unfounded in previous foreign policy and as such anyone refusing would be seen as unreasonable or even agressive
What does it matter if treaty 1 does not work for my purposes, if treaty 2 does, the overall point of my post is still valid, some alliance treaty existed that could feasibly get the Soviets involved, what does it matter if it was the Franco-Soviet Treaty or the Czechoslovak-Soviet treaty.
Some Areas in the Sudetenland were not majority German. Furthermore, the actions of Germany at the Munich conference were seen as hostile soon after the conference. This is just for Britain - "The generally positive reaction quickly soured despite royal patronage. But there was opposition from the start; Clement Attlee and the Labour Party opposed the agreement, in alliance with two Conservative MPs, Duff Cooper and Vyvyan Adams, who had been seen up to then as a die hard and reactionary element in the Conservative Party."
To be in accordance with the principle of self determination, it would have been more appropriate to evacuate the German population to Germany, so as to not violate the rights of some Czech majority areas in the Sudetenland.
The facts are not as you claim, you *want* them to support your pre concieved opinion, they do not. Your overall point is your ignorant of the provisions of both treaties, your purpose is to invent history, and facts to support your opinion. Thats what matters, but not to yourself it appears.
Ok what is the question? Why the French delegation did what they did? If that the it is highly likely that they were better informed about the value of all those alliances (they were the ones, who made them) and decided that they are not going to work unless the UK puts in its weight.
No. The principle of national self-determination does not say "we can deport you all if you have a nationstate".
It also doesn't say, "sorry Czech majority counties, your German minority population is more important than you!" At the very least they could have limited the territories given to Germany to only counties with German majority.
Ah yes, a protectorate the Czechs had no input on, no control over, and no representation in. What about it?
Which is not what you argued for. Try not moving the goalpost this blatantly next time.
The problem with the situation in the Sudeten was similar to the one on the Hungarian border: the land was heavily divided between the ethnic groups on a city or town basis, not along some neat and clear dividing line that you can mark on a map, like the victors of WWI did anyway. The German and Czech majority towns (usually with a VERY significant majority of one or the other) were scattered and intermingled, just like the Magyar and Slovak towns to the south (or the scattered German, Magyar, and Romanian towns in parts of northern Romania where there was no clear "majority" except in local pockets). Unless you give each town its own choice and end up with a crazy patchwork quilt for a map, one culture is going to be a significant minority in the other country with areas where it is a majority. There was no "easy answer" that didn't involve ruining a lot of peoples' lives or subjecting them to second-class citizen status.
Evacuation was a non-starter. Many of those communities had existed as such for over a thousand years, and the families were not about to pick up and leave their ancestral homes without coercion. So much for "self-determination", just drive them out at gunpoint like the Soviets did after the war, right?
One grandma of my wife "came" from here:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hranice_u_Aše
I link the German wiki, because there is a nice map. The town had a well developed weaving industry strongly interwoven (
) with the neighboring Bavarian and Saxon (later German) industries.After WWI it was considered that such places with like 99.99% German population, low economic and bad traffic connection towards the core Bohemia might be given to Germany. (there were two or three of those little "appendices"). But than Germany should not profit from losing a war... vae victis. Than in 1938 none had interest of the actual places with Czech majority... vae victis. Than in 1947 practically no German allowed to stay... vae victis. Then after the third defenestration the place became a frontline of the Cold War, so quite a few Czechs who got houses had to leave to make room for a more tighter border control. That's how those things run from the perspective of the common men.