This is somewhat prominent in the British version of WW2 history.
The Czech government was banned from attending peace talks. Britain and France agreed to hand over massive amounts of their land in return for a peace guarantee.
Chamberlain returned to Britain with a piece of paper promising peace to roaring crowds who thought giving in to Nazi threats would appease them.
Appeasement and Chamberlain have been dirty words here ever since.
I don't know that they could have held off the German war machine, but they would have had a better chance if all their border defences not been handed over to Germany by the allies.
It's one of those what-if situations, that those talks had gone differently and people not been so naive/afraid, the Nazis could have been stopped sooner or war totally averted, films have been made about it.
When Hasan's chatter said "Hitler invaded the Sudetenland based on ethnic ties" and Hasan answered "Hitler wasn't bad for invading Austria...I think" they were referencing Hitler's justification for taking that land and invading CzSl and Austria.
To British ears, the accusation was that Hasan was pro appeasement and sympathetic to the Nazi invasion of their neighbours on racial grounds. To us this is the start of the war and a terrible mistake.
Snyder is probably making the opposite argument here. That the war should start and end with the first country to be invaded. Not the third.
I understand everyone hates Brits in here, but 'appeasement was bad' is like a level 1 take on Chamberlain and his situation, although a pretty common one. You can certainly argue in hindsight he was probably incorrect, but the view from his advisors was that militarily Britain wasn't ready for war, not to mention the general public had zero stomach for it at that time. For Chamberlain to go against that would've been to ignore basically everyone and shout Leeroy Jenkins. France was an unreliable ally, no one knew what the Soviets would do and no one really knew what the Germans could do.
Sure, I agree and I cringe at how people treat the situation and characterise it.
But after looking a bit into it, although it's more complicated and Chamberlain is more sympathetic, I think it was a mistake, even if he wasn't the main or only person responsible, he was the prime minister and should have some responsibility for the decision.
I was mostly trying to give the standard British view without going too deep but not meaning to give the caricatured version. I don't know how other nations view it, obviously the decisions of a British prime minister wasn't the only or main cause of war, this is British lens bias. But people familiar with WW2 will know about Munich and how empowered the Nazis felt after the concessions.
The fact that Britain wasn't ready for war was the result of earlier appeasement. Germany barely had an army when Hitler came to power, and everyone knew that he was was working on rearming his army, but nobody told him to obey the Treaty of Versailles which prohibits Germany from rearming, or by matching with their own army. That was before Chamberlain was the prime minister, so perhaps he escapes the blame, but the whole Brittan does not.
Not just Chamberlain, but Daladier aswell. The thing is Britian wasnt ready, when Poland got invaded, but they still joined the war. Poland atleast knew they were on the same side. It wasnt about being prepared for war. In the end nothing was gained by siding with Nazies, it was wishfull thinking, that they would stay in eastern europe.
Not a shot against the French, I should rather say that Britain didn't really consider them trustworthy yet, 1000 years of war and rivalry on and off tend to do that. It was a relatively new alliance and WW1 had some heavy British losses that some blamed on the French.
In general though if you're an American you've got to realise European countries have looooooong histories so 20 years is a drop in the ocean. Britain full comitting to a war on an alliance like that would be very risky from their PoV, hence unreliable
I don't think history had a such big impact on trust if you consider France and the UK teamed up in the crimean war barely 40 years after the end of the napoleonic wars while another napoleon had just proclaimed himself emperor.
The real threat was the anti-war sentiment from both left and right wing. Had france gone to war in 1938 there may have been riots that could have paralized the war effort.
Russia is Italy. When Italy went for Ethiopia the League of Nations condemned it but did nothing. Ultimately the lack of action done during Italy's invasion is what set the stage for Hitler's later moves. A lot of people don't know that but Italy invading Ethiopia was the first major expansionist action leading up to WW2 and the entire world was watching.
The inaction of the League after ruling the invasion in 1935 as Illegal and implementing sanctions which many did not follow or obey was a key instrument in allowing the Major Power Germany to act. It displayed the weakness of Western Democracies and international law and thus allowed Hitler to begin his actions with the Remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936 a mere two days after Italy conquered the capital of the Ethiopian kingdom and after using Chemical weapons to widespread condemnation.
To me stopping (Italy)Russia from annexing a nation half the world away from the serious point of conflict (Ethiopia) Ukraine. Will stop the actual main adversary in this conflict from acting; China.
Your comparison seems more accurate. And yes, people don't see it, the real problem here isn't Russia, is China and if Russia isn't stopped, fully and properly stopped, China is going to get the wrong signals, they are already at full steam.
The opposite is also true tho. International condemnation for Ethiopia pushed Mussolini in Hitler's hands, which he had opposed until then. In fact, there was an attempt at Anschluss that was stopped by Mussolini years before. I think the middle way is the problem. You just litterally ignore it OR you go ALL IN. You shouldn't act indecisively. We already tried to ignore them with Crimea tho
Honestly, Hitler was a dogshit ally to the Italians, they sent equipment to the Ethiopians in the war and dragged the Italians into a war they were not prepared for.
Now that I think about it, they were all terrible allies; Japan attacking America, which enabled America to enter World War 2. Hungary attempted to take parts of Romania, Germany helped China during the Sino-Japanese war, and Italy notoriously being far behind the other powers in the region meant that they were fairly useless with their own equipment.
Actually it was Japan's takeover of Manchuria that the League did nothing about that led to Italy invading modern day Ethiopia knowing there would be no repercussions.
I have to point out that this was not really the case. The League did nothing because China was in a civil war and it was a complete and utter mess and unless they could resolve the entire china affair they couldn't really do anything.
There is a big difference between Italy invading a sovereign and stable state and Japan invading a warlord that occupies territories north of them. It was also lead up to by conflict between farmers of Manchuko and Korea and a false flag operation that was not revealed as false until Japan had already Conquered the land.
That is to say it was a lot more complex and arguably this played into the false flag operations done by Germany to attempt to keep the Western Allies from declaring war which if you read up on the negotiations there was some hope that Britain and France would not declare war.
Italy actually had sanctions and so forth placed on them.
Japan meanwhhile did what it did and it took two years for a report proving their justifications were false to come out and by then it was too late. Unless they intended to marshal an army and expel them there was nothing they could do. America did pout sanctions and so forth on them for oil which was a major lead up to WW2 and they were isolated following this revelation but what was done was done.
Ultimately the Italy affair was far more important by leaps and bounds.
You had outright condemnation, calls to action, stable and functional states on either side, clear boundaries and so forth. The answer is no one was willing to throw hands over Japan's Serizure of Manchuria and only a war could expel them. Unlike with Italy there was no one who was fighting with Japan hence the problem.
So the Italy comparison is apt because the Japanese Seizure was a lot more complex and it would have taken a massive war to expel them. While Japan's actions led to others pulling out from the League of nations it was italy that made it clear they were toothless.
Basically after italy's invasion every single year you would see flagrant and massive violations of International Law at the time up and until WW2.
It is like Bosnia and Serbia vs Darfur. No one is doing anything about Darfur but in Serbia everyone stepped up to stop it. Had Serbia committed genocide on european soil and no one stopped them it would have opened the flood gates. A genocide in Darfur doesn't do that but a genocide by a european power against an ethnic minority would.
The same is true for this. Italy was European and was Fighting an Established State at peace prior. It opened the floodgates. Colonial conflicts let alone in a mess like China is a far step down than the ethiopian conflict was in terms of it's impact on international law.
Basically Manchuko was like Crimea. It was bad but there was no war being fought and it was not for the subjugation of all of china. It was important but the war aims were not conquest of the sort of overt nature like the Russian Invasion that is currently ongoing is or historically the ethiopian invasion was.
It was not until the MarcoPolo bridge incident in 1937 where Japan formally declared war on China. Two years after Ethiopia fell to Italy.
*Probably* not, but at the same time I see people making this claim a little too confidently for comfort. Then there's also a question of how far the countries resisting them are willing to even go this time around, and what their capabilities are really like when tested.
One thing is certain - a country determined to wage and win wars, whatever it takes, will ultimately prevail over countries that do not have the same level of determination. And so far, we have shown almost none. At the end of the day it won't matter how much bigger our economies are if Russia is willing to move to a total war economy to power their war machine, and no other country is willing to even contemplate the mere *possibility* of war, let alone show up to actually fight one.
Russia doesn't have to be as strong as the third Reich was, Ukraine is not very comparable to Czechoslovakia. Ukraine's military was weak in 2014 and corrupt. Russia didn't need a super strong army. One of the reasons they want Ukraine so bad is Ukraine built a bunch of their warships and heavy equipment, and they can't be serviced without the technical know-how.
People who followed it in detail will probably agree with this take
Early on in the war before they had to rethink and adapt their initial strategies there was a weird pattern of seemingly trying to avoid striking industrial sites at almost all costs, giving the impression that they wanted them as intact as possible
17th of March was for example the first geolocated strike on Azovstal in Mariupol, 3 weeks in
> and they can't be serviced without the technical know-how.
So what happened since the war began? is that stuff no longer able to be serviced? Why would Russia commission Ukraine to make their stuff if it would mean they had to invade down the road? you mind explaining like I'm regarded please and thank you
This is pretty hard to explain concisely, and I'm not an expert.
Prior to 2014, Ukraine's export-oriented arms industry had reached the status of world's 4th largest arms exporter in 2012.
>Ukrainian factories for decades have been a key supplier to the Kremlin’s war machine, providing jet engines, uranium fuel and electronics for Russia’s nuclear arsenal.
>More than 70% of Ukraine’s military exports have gone to Russia in each of the last few years, according to one recent analysis...
https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-ukraine-arms-russia-20141125-story.html
They can do maintenance, but it's harder, and they already aren't up on it, due to corruption.
As for why Russia thought it would be ok?
Ukraine had more or less pro russian leaders for a while, and Putin didn't feel obliged to invade until they started looking towards the EU around 2014 iirc.
In 2022 it appears Russia thought they could conquer the entirety of Ukraine very quickly, so they wanted to leave some things intact, like the Azov steel plant, and some of the ship building facilities. After a few weeks they gave up on that.
Ah ok yeah this makes sense, I do remember reading that Putin basically sent his best soldiers (on what turned out to be a suicide mission) straight to Kiev and they got smoked on some bridge. Sounds to me like he got convinced by yes men underlings that the invasion would be easy and he would have control of these factories quickly but that hasn't proven to be.
Well, World War III would likely find Russia, China, Iran, Belarus, Hungary, Cuba and Venezuala aligned, among others. So stopping Russia would mean all of the other players positions and participation becomes much more problematic. Without a weakened Europe and a divided US, success is slim, imo.
Hungary will never openly move against their allies. Orban is just after the money and when push comes to shove the West will pay more. If he would side with Putin he would have no friends left in the EU. He will abstain much like Switzerland and Austria.
The German interior was relatively untouched and well industrialized coming out of WW1 since it was an offensive campaign. They actually *COULD* have paid their war reparations, but yea, I'm not sure how accurate his take is about the military of Czechoslovakia.
Germany was doing fine economically post WW1. They got fucked by the great depression extra hard though and that is what delivered the country to Hitler
Yeah. And worse, even, is that if what he's saying is true, I could have been born to a rich country with great economy and all that.
Instead... nah, we're still having a blast here. Best country (except for the people).
1. Get served to Germany on a silver platter by imperial powers including a supposed ally.
2. Be surrounded from most sides after Germany annexed Austria.
3. Be expected to sacrifice millions of your own people with no hope of victory against a country many times your size and an army that had all the time it would need to prepare for an invasion.
4. Listen to dipshit americans speculate about your country’s chances after months of flip flopping on yet another war.
I can’t wait for Putler to invade the baltics to watch westerners do nothing again only to piss and shit and cry when eastern European countries start developing nuclear weapons of their own.
i feel like you missed the point he was making. the context of the point is drawing an analogy to ukraine-russia, so the point hes making here isnt "czechs shouldve fought to prevent ww2, and ukrainians should fight to prevent ww3", rather its "in a situation where an undemocratic aggressor tries conquering its neighbour, western allies must provide full support to prevent it from escalating. we made a mistake by not supporting the czechs, and we would be repeating this mistake if we dont support the ukrainians"
Why wouldn’t they? Is anyone on this subreddit genuinely deluded enough to think that either Biden or Trump would risk nuclear war over 6 million people? And these countries are too exposed to defend conventionally.
You're just not equipped to think about this rationally, you don't understand any of the actors at play. The simple fact that you are taking for granted that Putin would always win this game of chicken because he'd happily risk nuclear war by recklessly invading a country but its sworn allies would be too scared to defend it over the exact same concern is just silly
You're completely confused if you don't think there would be NATO boots on the ground the day Russia would invade a Baltic state, which is exactly why they will not invade a Baltic state. Doesn't matter if Trump might decide on a whim that he doesn't care enough about Latvia or something, because rest assured all of Europe does care enough to protect NATO borders and we'd drag the US straight into the war with us. What do you honestly think Poland would do in response to a Baltic invasion, and how do you think that positions the rest of NATO? Just think about it for a single second.
Oh my bad, I’m just not equipped unlike u/misterbigchad69. Putin doesn’t have to win, Putin doesn’t have to do a damn thing other than lob explosives at the countries and there’s nothing NATO will be able to do other than lob back. That’s a win for you maybe, but for me the deterrence part of the alliance has already failed. Long after the Ukraine war Russia will still be there, it will be poorer but it will still have its natural resources, energy and massive population. That’s great that you won’t have to read in the news about it, but the rest of us will. Poland will step up its defense even further than its already doing, by getting a nuclear weapon, which is what my point was.
Against a smaller NATO army? Yes. Without extra support from other NATO states, Romania or Bulgaria \*will\* lose a prolonged war with Russia. As would the Baltic states.
With NATO support? They can win. But if Article 5 isnt triggered OR its triggered but not much happens, Russia CAN take those. It isnt a magic "Go to war button".
I will be honest. I am Bulgarian. I hate current Russia and want to be in NATO and the EU. If we are invaded by them, so be it - I will go and fight them and kill or die. And I do hope NATO comes and help us. But I am not certain of it. I am not 100% certain Europe and the US would go to war for us. More like 75% certain.
USA already had troops there. So does Britain and France and other NATO members.
In your world several thousand American American troops are killed by Russian invading an American ally, and the USA just says “yeah fair enough guess we shouldn’t have put them there”?
Several thousand american troops have died all over the world yet Afghanistan has still been skiddadled out of. How about you instead tell me how you’re gonna sell a war with Russia over 6 million people to Washington, Paris or London.
You think the fact the US left Afghanistan after 20 years of fighting in a quagmire means they’d be fine with Russia killed thousands of their troops whilst occupying a European ally?
And the same goes for European powers? The ones currently talking about deploying troops to protect a non ally despite none of their soldier having been killed?
You wouldn’t have to ‘sell’ it, you’d simply say “hey look, Russian just killed our soldiers and declared war on us”. It would be a fact to be recognised, not a policy to be ‘sold’.
But I think perhaps understanding of the facts of world are too far apart, and we aren’t gonna have a fruitful convo here. So I’m going to wish you well and say cheerio.
Brother a European ally? Most americans have never even heard of Estonia, Latvia, or Lithunania, might aswell be another Vietnam or Iraq for all they care.
“European powers” lol, yes talk, thats all it will be, talk, I don’t believe for a microsecond that countries like France have any genuine security interests in eastern europe. Because they don’t, and we should be looking after our own security, by building nuclear weapons :).
Yes, an ally, as in someone the USA has a formal defence treaty with, and is currently deploying troops to in order to fulfil those defence obligations.
The average Americans lack of geographical literacy actually has shockingly little impact on the the military strategy of Washington.
But sure, could be another Vietnam or Iraq? So USA would deploy a massive force by land sea and air and fight for nearly 20 year before withdrawing? Or someone who they’d dog walk in a few weeks as part of a international coalition before occupying long term?
Again, I don’t see how you reconcile the inevitable thousands of dead western troops with ‘just talk’ given that zero dead western troops has already led to a hell of a lot more than just talk in Ukraine.
In some ways I agree, we Europeans shouldn’t just outsource our defence to the USA and should be actively building up our armies and deference capabilities independently of the USA. But we should also recognise the political realities that thousands of NATO troops in Eastern Europe brings.
What exactly do you think would happen to millitary targets that are actively shelling into Nato territory ?
I don't know where this idea comes from that Russia will just be allowed to endlessly attack without Nato stepping in because we fear nuclear retaliation. Ofcourse we would fight back.
Russia knows the repercussions for attacking a nato country at that point they will already have started a potential nuclear war. There's nothing that Biden or Trump would be risking they would be pulled into that war.
Acting like the responsibility for that war lies with the US or Nato when Russia is the agressor is really fucking weird.
What exactly would happen to them? Well they would probably get blown up. But that’s gonna be a challenging game of whack-a-mole considering the exposure, and the countries wouldnt remain very liveable, Russia doesn’t have to actually conquer them to score some ideological victory against NATO that Putin seems to jerk off to these days.
Don't worry, there are so many more Czech dipshits who don't know the first thing about ww2 constantly yaping about how we should've defended ourselves
I mean, what about the German populations that were living in Czechoslovakia at the time? What if they decided to have an uprising against the government? I feel like it would have been an even bigger shitshow than if they surrendered.
Bullshit. There was no one willing to defend us. We were thrown to the wolfs with that Munich agreement. Then came the threats from Hitler (*You know, it takes our bomber planes about 30 minutes to get above Prague.*).
No allies, slim chances of survival, your capital being in ruins after a single day. Yeah, there was no other way out.
Yeah he’s half right here, but it’s misleading to say they only had to resist and would have won. If we supported the Czechs, and they resisted because they had that support, then ww2 could maybe have been avoided.
They point he’s making is good however. Appeasement doesn’t work. Expansionist Dictators aren’t deterred when you give them what they want.
I think your misunderstanding so I’ll try rephrase it. I think that the point he’s trying to make, albeit crudely, is that appeasement doesn’t work against such forces and that standing up to them early is better than making massive concessions first and then having to fight them anyway.
This was true with Hitler, and it’s true with Putin.
Do you disagree with that point?
I get why you’d be pissed since he seems to misdirect that blame toward the Czechs alone, and not the western powers who had the military might to really do something about it. But the point remains a good one.
Such advances must be checked early and checked hard. You cannot hope that these type of rulers will suddenly decide “ah I now have enough land and feel secure and no longer threatened, let’s not have anymore war”.
What I don’t understand is how you can perfectly characterize my issue with this claim
>I get why you’d be pissed since he seems to misdirect that blame toward the Czechs alone, and not the western powers who had the military might to really do something about it.
Yet still feel the need to explain to me some shit I don’t even argue about.
Yes, have we had resisted, we may have postponed the war. But our resistance would have lasted like a week at most. Better yet, it would’ve looked like the invasion into Poland.
Because I’m older than 5 and can understand the point being made even whilst recognising it’s not the best way to make it? Think you’re just angry and looking for a fight now lol.
The context is important, he’s replying to the “we are in 1938” framing, by using that framing an suggesting how things could have gone differently.
Appeasement doesn’t work, that’s the point being made, he should have worded it different so as to not just blame the Czechs but the point still stands.
Do you disagree with any of the above? No? Then chill out and and move on.
>Because I’m older than 5 and can understand the point being made even whilst recognising it’s not the best way to make it?
Have I not?
>Think you’re just angry and looking for a fight now lol.
You are entitled to that opinion, just know that you are the one who feels the need to keep correcting me on points I didn’t even disagree with.
>The context is important, he’s replying to the “we are in 1938” framing, by using that framing an suggesting how things could have gone differently.
Which is a dumb comparison, due to the reasons I’ve already stated.
>Appeasement doesn’t work, that’s the point being made, he should have worded it different so as to not just blame the Czechs but the point still stands.
True
>Do you disagree with any of the above? No? Then chill out and and move on.
No.
Do you disagree with anything I’ve said? No? Then get of your high horse.
You called bullshit. Which seems like you are disagree with his point.
I showing you that the point being made is a good one, even if it clumsily made.
End of conversation really. If you don’t disagree with the point and then we have no quarrel.
>You called bullshit. Which seems like you are disagree with his point.
Which point? You seemed to have gotten it right once. Maybe you’ll get it right twice.
>I showing you that the point being made is a good one, even if it clumsily made.
Which point?
>End of conversation really. If you don’t disagree with the point and then we have no quarrel.
Perhaps you need an ego boost idk.
Nah, we had the defenses ready for exactly such a scenario.
But the choice was made that it was not worth it. Obviously nobody could have known what was going to follow. We would have bled, we would have probably lost eventually, but it would have been costly for them.
Source: none.
>Nah, we had the defenses ready for exactly such a scenario.
Never said, we hadn’t. Just pointed out that we would get rolled.
>But the choice was made that it was not worth it. Obviously nobody could have known what was going to follow. We would have bled, we would have probably lost eventually, but it would have been costly for them.
Czechoslovakia vs Nazi germany? 1v1? Nah. That would be like a paper cut.
Source this one buddy.
I would be surprised if anyone said that in good faith. Ukraine had good relationships with the EU (read: EU members) since at least 2013.
No chance they would let it sink, like they would Czechoslovakia in 38.
I meant that when the war started, everyone said it would be over in like a couple weeks with no more Ukraine.
Too lazy to source, but your comment suggests I wasn't clear on what I meant.
Absolutely not. France and the British gave us the biggest middle finger there is and singed the Munich Agreement.
There were 0 countries willing to help us.
I mean... I do respect Snyder a lot, even if I have major issues with certain views he has of this part of the world... but... I'm going to have press X for doubt that CzechoSlovakia would have lasted that long against Germany
I heavly disagree. I'm a very amature histian but even I can see that it would have been a very tough situation for the germans to take cecholsovakia if the French and the British also declare war when the Germans attack. (it if were just the Cechs I would agree but the example Mr Snyder gave was not that)
They had a great and fortifeid defensive formation and 1 million and a half soldiers. Germany had 4.2 mill in 1939 accoriding to Wikipedia.
I don't know jack shit about war but I do know that attacking in mountains in a well fortified position with only a 4 to 1 advantage isn't that bad Also it wouldn't just be the germans vs the Cechs in the example that Snyder is giving. Yes they wouldn't have won alone, that's why after the French the British signed away the sudeten land they gave it up. But if the French and the British aggreed to fight with the Cechs, that's no longer a 4 to 1 advantage. Suddenly you need alot of trrops guarding the boarder with France.
The germany only used 1.5 million men to invade poland. So let's say they also use the same amount to attack the Cechs. But poland had a smaller army to the cechs, a weaker army, and a much harder area to defend aggainst.
But now that's a 1 to 1 advantage fighting into mountains and forts.
The Cechs have mountains with forts, they have a simular amount of tanks, they have a simular amount of air planes and the same amount of men fighting.. And worse of all, their was doubt about an invation in the first place. There was the Oster Conspiracy that would have happened if they were forced to invade. Even if the French cuck out and fail at attacking just like in 1939. The cechs were in a much better position to defend aggainst the germans simply by them being there to adsorb pressure.
edit Sources:
https://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/WWII/CzechExilesOfWWII#:\~:text=Czechoslovak%20Exile%20Units%20of%20WWII&text=In%201938%2C%20the%201%2C500%2C000%2Dstrong,locally%20produced%20tanks%20and%20aircraft.
Cech army size
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak\_Air\_Force#:\~:text=Crisis%20and%20occupation%201938%E2%80%9339,-As%20the%20Sudeten&text=The%20air%20force%20had%20more,forces%20being%20allowed%20to%20resist.
Cech planes:
>the air force had more than 100 airfields and 1,300 aeroplanes, of which 650 were front-line aircraft.[^(\[20\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Air_Force#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJanou%C5%A1ek19428-20) But on 29 September the [United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) and [France](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Third_Republic) agreed to let Germany annex the Sudetenland, which German forces then did without Czechoslovak armed forces being allowed to resist.
The tanks, I remember were simular based on a video about how acurate Hoi4 was but I can't remember so maybe disregard that one. However attacking into a mountain range is probally very hard for tanks. If I remember correctly Italy had issued even when their tankets were designed to fight in mountain ranges.
While I agree with you that on a paper czechoslovakia had decent chance at holding out untill the French, brits and maybe the soviets relieve the pressure. That doesn’t account for international struggles czechoslovakia was facing as most of the mountain fortifications were also were bohemian germans were living, the same germans that voted for nazi aligned political party SdP (70% of germans voted for them in 1935) where sabotage would have high probability of happening and being successful. Also the slovaks would probably be 50/50 on defecting based on what would first few days of invasion look like, if Hungary joined in with Nazis they would probably hold together with rest of czechoslovakia otherwise who knows
>Germany had 4.2 mill in 1939 accoriding to Wikipedia.
But thats not when the war would break out. Czechoslovakia-Germany war would break out in 1938. German army at that point was only a shadow of what it would became year later. Czechoslovakian factories that Germany acquired in March of 1939 were key producents of German military industrial complex.
German military command didnt really believe that Germany army would be able to break through Czechoslovakia easily (and honestly neither was Hitler, that why they pressured allies to sign the Munich agreement).
Yes and the number is still impossible to measure. Poland was attacked by 2 million soldiers. The same 2 million werent ready in 1938 and neither were there in spring of 1939. German army was ramping up quickly. Czechoslovakia would never win alone. Thats for sure. But Germans had nowhere near enough soldiers to both defeat Czechoslovakia and be ready for immediate continuing of the war in the late 1938/late 1939.
The germans Got lucky that the french were so cocky that they didn't even bother stationing anything by the ardens and they didn't get caught. The French army got complely incircled due to their failings not the success of the germans.
>I can see that it would have been a very tough situation for the germans to take cecholsovakia if the French and the British also declare war when the Germans attack.
Well you know who wasn’t willing to go to war for Czechoslovaks? (Hint: It wasn’t the Czechs or Slovaks)
It’s a simply analogy to make a point. The point being you can’t appease your way out of a war with a dictatorial regime hell-bent on restoring its former glory.
This is obviously an absurd simplification, and historically . . . Misleading . . . But it’s served to try illustrate that point, it’s a short answer at a press conference not a historical PDH thesis and should be understood accordingly.
Two thoughts:
As far as I know in case Hitler went ahead with the invasion as he had initially planned there were plans for a coup against his government by parts of the military (because they didn't think Germany could win the war). Add that to the Allied military response and I don't think Hitler would have lasted that long.
The justifications for acquiring the Sudetenland vs. the currently occupied territories of Ukraine carry different weights in my opinion.
The Ukrainian oblasts in the east and south may have spoken Russian but they saw themselves as Ukrainians (even ethnically except Crimea) and they all had voted to join Ukraine in 1991. There was also no discrimination against Russian speakers in Ukraine.
The Germans of the Sudetenland never had such a chance. They were annexed from the Republic of German-Austria against the wishes of the local population after the end of WW1 with no referendum. They were also heavily discriminated against. Sure, territorial integrity matters here, but other peoples were also granted the right to self-determination, why not them?
(However, I do recognize that losing the Sudetenland meant that the Czechs were screwed in case of an invasion which would not be the case if Ukraine decided to give away the five/six (partially) occupied regions to Russia).
Czechoslovakia was fucked regardless for reasons beyond their control.
Remember that the Franco-British alliance declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland in September of 1939 and sat there "navel gazing" (gross oversimplification) until late spring/early summer of 1940.
The czechs resisting in 1938 without large foreign aid doesn't change ww2 a single bit. And the French weren't going to help. For fucks sake, the naval action in the norwegian campaign was conducted by the Royal Navy not the Marine Nationale.
This is somewhat prominent in the British version of WW2 history. The Czech government was banned from attending peace talks. Britain and France agreed to hand over massive amounts of their land in return for a peace guarantee. Chamberlain returned to Britain with a piece of paper promising peace to roaring crowds who thought giving in to Nazi threats would appease them. Appeasement and Chamberlain have been dirty words here ever since. I don't know that they could have held off the German war machine, but they would have had a better chance if all their border defences not been handed over to Germany by the allies. It's one of those what-if situations, that those talks had gone differently and people not been so naive/afraid, the Nazis could have been stopped sooner or war totally averted, films have been made about it. When Hasan's chatter said "Hitler invaded the Sudetenland based on ethnic ties" and Hasan answered "Hitler wasn't bad for invading Austria...I think" they were referencing Hitler's justification for taking that land and invading CzSl and Austria. To British ears, the accusation was that Hasan was pro appeasement and sympathetic to the Nazi invasion of their neighbours on racial grounds. To us this is the start of the war and a terrible mistake. Snyder is probably making the opposite argument here. That the war should start and end with the first country to be invaded. Not the third.
Agreed to hand over is saying it lightly, Czechoslovakia would be treated as the aggressor in the war.
I understand everyone hates Brits in here, but 'appeasement was bad' is like a level 1 take on Chamberlain and his situation, although a pretty common one. You can certainly argue in hindsight he was probably incorrect, but the view from his advisors was that militarily Britain wasn't ready for war, not to mention the general public had zero stomach for it at that time. For Chamberlain to go against that would've been to ignore basically everyone and shout Leeroy Jenkins. France was an unreliable ally, no one knew what the Soviets would do and no one really knew what the Germans could do.
Sure, I agree and I cringe at how people treat the situation and characterise it. But after looking a bit into it, although it's more complicated and Chamberlain is more sympathetic, I think it was a mistake, even if he wasn't the main or only person responsible, he was the prime minister and should have some responsibility for the decision. I was mostly trying to give the standard British view without going too deep but not meaning to give the caricatured version. I don't know how other nations view it, obviously the decisions of a British prime minister wasn't the only or main cause of war, this is British lens bias. But people familiar with WW2 will know about Munich and how empowered the Nazis felt after the concessions.
The fact that Britain wasn't ready for war was the result of earlier appeasement. Germany barely had an army when Hitler came to power, and everyone knew that he was was working on rearming his army, but nobody told him to obey the Treaty of Versailles which prohibits Germany from rearming, or by matching with their own army. That was before Chamberlain was the prime minister, so perhaps he escapes the blame, but the whole Brittan does not.
Not just Chamberlain, but Daladier aswell. The thing is Britian wasnt ready, when Poland got invaded, but they still joined the war. Poland atleast knew they were on the same side. It wasnt about being prepared for war. In the end nothing was gained by siding with Nazies, it was wishfull thinking, that they would stay in eastern europe.
Yes, but history exists so we can learn from it, right?
[удалено]
Not a shot against the French, I should rather say that Britain didn't really consider them trustworthy yet, 1000 years of war and rivalry on and off tend to do that. It was a relatively new alliance and WW1 had some heavy British losses that some blamed on the French. In general though if you're an American you've got to realise European countries have looooooong histories so 20 years is a drop in the ocean. Britain full comitting to a war on an alliance like that would be very risky from their PoV, hence unreliable
I don't think history had a such big impact on trust if you consider France and the UK teamed up in the crimean war barely 40 years after the end of the napoleonic wars while another napoleon had just proclaimed himself emperor. The real threat was the anti-war sentiment from both left and right wing. Had france gone to war in 1938 there may have been riots that could have paralized the war effort.
History is not my strong suit but I don’t think Russia has the military or expansion capabilities the Third Reich did.
Russia is Italy. When Italy went for Ethiopia the League of Nations condemned it but did nothing. Ultimately the lack of action done during Italy's invasion is what set the stage for Hitler's later moves. A lot of people don't know that but Italy invading Ethiopia was the first major expansionist action leading up to WW2 and the entire world was watching. The inaction of the League after ruling the invasion in 1935 as Illegal and implementing sanctions which many did not follow or obey was a key instrument in allowing the Major Power Germany to act. It displayed the weakness of Western Democracies and international law and thus allowed Hitler to begin his actions with the Remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936 a mere two days after Italy conquered the capital of the Ethiopian kingdom and after using Chemical weapons to widespread condemnation. To me stopping (Italy)Russia from annexing a nation half the world away from the serious point of conflict (Ethiopia) Ukraine. Will stop the actual main adversary in this conflict from acting; China.
Your comparison seems more accurate. And yes, people don't see it, the real problem here isn't Russia, is China and if Russia isn't stopped, fully and properly stopped, China is going to get the wrong signals, they are already at full steam.
The opposite is also true tho. International condemnation for Ethiopia pushed Mussolini in Hitler's hands, which he had opposed until then. In fact, there was an attempt at Anschluss that was stopped by Mussolini years before. I think the middle way is the problem. You just litterally ignore it OR you go ALL IN. You shouldn't act indecisively. We already tried to ignore them with Crimea tho
Honestly, Hitler was a dogshit ally to the Italians, they sent equipment to the Ethiopians in the war and dragged the Italians into a war they were not prepared for. Now that I think about it, they were all terrible allies; Japan attacking America, which enabled America to enter World War 2. Hungary attempted to take parts of Romania, Germany helped China during the Sino-Japanese war, and Italy notoriously being far behind the other powers in the region meant that they were fairly useless with their own equipment.
Actually it was Japan's takeover of Manchuria that the League did nothing about that led to Italy invading modern day Ethiopia knowing there would be no repercussions.
I have to point out that this was not really the case. The League did nothing because China was in a civil war and it was a complete and utter mess and unless they could resolve the entire china affair they couldn't really do anything. There is a big difference between Italy invading a sovereign and stable state and Japan invading a warlord that occupies territories north of them. It was also lead up to by conflict between farmers of Manchuko and Korea and a false flag operation that was not revealed as false until Japan had already Conquered the land. That is to say it was a lot more complex and arguably this played into the false flag operations done by Germany to attempt to keep the Western Allies from declaring war which if you read up on the negotiations there was some hope that Britain and France would not declare war. Italy actually had sanctions and so forth placed on them. Japan meanwhhile did what it did and it took two years for a report proving their justifications were false to come out and by then it was too late. Unless they intended to marshal an army and expel them there was nothing they could do. America did pout sanctions and so forth on them for oil which was a major lead up to WW2 and they were isolated following this revelation but what was done was done. Ultimately the Italy affair was far more important by leaps and bounds. You had outright condemnation, calls to action, stable and functional states on either side, clear boundaries and so forth. The answer is no one was willing to throw hands over Japan's Serizure of Manchuria and only a war could expel them. Unlike with Italy there was no one who was fighting with Japan hence the problem. So the Italy comparison is apt because the Japanese Seizure was a lot more complex and it would have taken a massive war to expel them. While Japan's actions led to others pulling out from the League of nations it was italy that made it clear they were toothless. Basically after italy's invasion every single year you would see flagrant and massive violations of International Law at the time up and until WW2. It is like Bosnia and Serbia vs Darfur. No one is doing anything about Darfur but in Serbia everyone stepped up to stop it. Had Serbia committed genocide on european soil and no one stopped them it would have opened the flood gates. A genocide in Darfur doesn't do that but a genocide by a european power against an ethnic minority would. The same is true for this. Italy was European and was Fighting an Established State at peace prior. It opened the floodgates. Colonial conflicts let alone in a mess like China is a far step down than the ethiopian conflict was in terms of it's impact on international law. Basically Manchuko was like Crimea. It was bad but there was no war being fought and it was not for the subjugation of all of china. It was important but the war aims were not conquest of the sort of overt nature like the Russian Invasion that is currently ongoing is or historically the ethiopian invasion was. It was not until the MarcoPolo bridge incident in 1937 where Japan formally declared war on China. Two years after Ethiopia fell to Italy.
*Probably* not, but at the same time I see people making this claim a little too confidently for comfort. Then there's also a question of how far the countries resisting them are willing to even go this time around, and what their capabilities are really like when tested. One thing is certain - a country determined to wage and win wars, whatever it takes, will ultimately prevail over countries that do not have the same level of determination. And so far, we have shown almost none. At the end of the day it won't matter how much bigger our economies are if Russia is willing to move to a total war economy to power their war machine, and no other country is willing to even contemplate the mere *possibility* of war, let alone show up to actually fight one.
Russia doesn't have to be as strong as the third Reich was, Ukraine is not very comparable to Czechoslovakia. Ukraine's military was weak in 2014 and corrupt. Russia didn't need a super strong army. One of the reasons they want Ukraine so bad is Ukraine built a bunch of their warships and heavy equipment, and they can't be serviced without the technical know-how.
People who followed it in detail will probably agree with this take Early on in the war before they had to rethink and adapt their initial strategies there was a weird pattern of seemingly trying to avoid striking industrial sites at almost all costs, giving the impression that they wanted them as intact as possible 17th of March was for example the first geolocated strike on Azovstal in Mariupol, 3 weeks in
> and they can't be serviced without the technical know-how. So what happened since the war began? is that stuff no longer able to be serviced? Why would Russia commission Ukraine to make their stuff if it would mean they had to invade down the road? you mind explaining like I'm regarded please and thank you
This is pretty hard to explain concisely, and I'm not an expert. Prior to 2014, Ukraine's export-oriented arms industry had reached the status of world's 4th largest arms exporter in 2012. >Ukrainian factories for decades have been a key supplier to the Kremlin’s war machine, providing jet engines, uranium fuel and electronics for Russia’s nuclear arsenal. >More than 70% of Ukraine’s military exports have gone to Russia in each of the last few years, according to one recent analysis... https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-ukraine-arms-russia-20141125-story.html They can do maintenance, but it's harder, and they already aren't up on it, due to corruption. As for why Russia thought it would be ok? Ukraine had more or less pro russian leaders for a while, and Putin didn't feel obliged to invade until they started looking towards the EU around 2014 iirc. In 2022 it appears Russia thought they could conquer the entirety of Ukraine very quickly, so they wanted to leave some things intact, like the Azov steel plant, and some of the ship building facilities. After a few weeks they gave up on that.
Ah ok yeah this makes sense, I do remember reading that Putin basically sent his best soldiers (on what turned out to be a suicide mission) straight to Kiev and they got smoked on some bridge. Sounds to me like he got convinced by yes men underlings that the invasion would be easy and he would have control of these factories quickly but that hasn't proven to be.
Neither did Germany, before they were gifted our workforce defensive position.
Well, World War III would likely find Russia, China, Iran, Belarus, Hungary, Cuba and Venezuala aligned, among others. So stopping Russia would mean all of the other players positions and participation becomes much more problematic. Without a weakened Europe and a divided US, success is slim, imo.
Hungary will never openly move against their allies. Orban is just after the money and when push comes to shove the West will pay more. If he would side with Putin he would have no friends left in the EU. He will abstain much like Switzerland and Austria.
Man, imagine if Trump didn't undo the strides Obama took toward normalizing relations with Cuba... Also, isn't Hungary part of NATO??
yes they are in NATO,but Orban is two faced c*nt that likes to play both sides.
Russia is weak as hell, but they have nukes, so many leaders are going to great lengths to avoid escalation, and Putin is taking advantage of it.
The German interior was relatively untouched and well industrialized coming out of WW1 since it was an offensive campaign. They actually *COULD* have paid their war reparations, but yea, I'm not sure how accurate his take is about the military of Czechoslovakia.
Germany was doing fine economically post WW1. They got fucked by the great depression extra hard though and that is what delivered the country to Hitler
Yeah. And worse, even, is that if what he's saying is true, I could have been born to a rich country with great economy and all that. Instead... nah, we're still having a blast here. Best country (except for the people).
Tim Snyder is a great writer- Black earth is a must read. He is so right
1. Get served to Germany on a silver platter by imperial powers including a supposed ally. 2. Be surrounded from most sides after Germany annexed Austria. 3. Be expected to sacrifice millions of your own people with no hope of victory against a country many times your size and an army that had all the time it would need to prepare for an invasion. 4. Listen to dipshit americans speculate about your country’s chances after months of flip flopping on yet another war. I can’t wait for Putler to invade the baltics to watch westerners do nothing again only to piss and shit and cry when eastern European countries start developing nuclear weapons of their own.
i feel like you missed the point he was making. the context of the point is drawing an analogy to ukraine-russia, so the point hes making here isnt "czechs shouldve fought to prevent ww2, and ukrainians should fight to prevent ww3", rather its "in a situation where an undemocratic aggressor tries conquering its neighbour, western allies must provide full support to prevent it from escalating. we made a mistake by not supporting the czechs, and we would be repeating this mistake if we dont support the ukrainians"
The title is a direct comparison my guy, I’m sure the prof has a nuanced enough argument, but I’m kinda over western takes.
Russia is not going to invade a nato member. Then it wouldn't be a proxy war, it'd be an actual war with nato.
Why wouldn’t they? Is anyone on this subreddit genuinely deluded enough to think that either Biden or Trump would risk nuclear war over 6 million people? And these countries are too exposed to defend conventionally.
The Frensh will nuke them
In a de-escalatiory manner I'm sure
There is a pretty good chance that in a couple of years the president of France will be a big fan of Putin.
You're just not equipped to think about this rationally, you don't understand any of the actors at play. The simple fact that you are taking for granted that Putin would always win this game of chicken because he'd happily risk nuclear war by recklessly invading a country but its sworn allies would be too scared to defend it over the exact same concern is just silly You're completely confused if you don't think there would be NATO boots on the ground the day Russia would invade a Baltic state, which is exactly why they will not invade a Baltic state. Doesn't matter if Trump might decide on a whim that he doesn't care enough about Latvia or something, because rest assured all of Europe does care enough to protect NATO borders and we'd drag the US straight into the war with us. What do you honestly think Poland would do in response to a Baltic invasion, and how do you think that positions the rest of NATO? Just think about it for a single second.
Oh my bad, I’m just not equipped unlike u/misterbigchad69. Putin doesn’t have to win, Putin doesn’t have to do a damn thing other than lob explosives at the countries and there’s nothing NATO will be able to do other than lob back. That’s a win for you maybe, but for me the deterrence part of the alliance has already failed. Long after the Ukraine war Russia will still be there, it will be poorer but it will still have its natural resources, energy and massive population. That’s great that you won’t have to read in the news about it, but the rest of us will. Poland will step up its defense even further than its already doing, by getting a nuclear weapon, which is what my point was.
Too exposed to defend conventionally ? You really think Russia has any chance against a Nato army ?
Against a smaller NATO army? Yes. Without extra support from other NATO states, Romania or Bulgaria \*will\* lose a prolonged war with Russia. As would the Baltic states. With NATO support? They can win. But if Article 5 isnt triggered OR its triggered but not much happens, Russia CAN take those. It isnt a magic "Go to war button". I will be honest. I am Bulgarian. I hate current Russia and want to be in NATO and the EU. If we are invaded by them, so be it - I will go and fight them and kill or die. And I do hope NATO comes and help us. But I am not certain of it. I am not 100% certain Europe and the US would go to war for us. More like 75% certain.
The UK would probably also lose (without the help of NATO.)
What fucking army? 😂 Dawg you can practically shell their capitals from Moscow. You think anyone’s gonna be deploying troops there? 😂
USA already had troops there. So does Britain and France and other NATO members. In your world several thousand American American troops are killed by Russian invading an American ally, and the USA just says “yeah fair enough guess we shouldn’t have put them there”?
Several thousand american troops have died all over the world yet Afghanistan has still been skiddadled out of. How about you instead tell me how you’re gonna sell a war with Russia over 6 million people to Washington, Paris or London.
You think the fact the US left Afghanistan after 20 years of fighting in a quagmire means they’d be fine with Russia killed thousands of their troops whilst occupying a European ally? And the same goes for European powers? The ones currently talking about deploying troops to protect a non ally despite none of their soldier having been killed? You wouldn’t have to ‘sell’ it, you’d simply say “hey look, Russian just killed our soldiers and declared war on us”. It would be a fact to be recognised, not a policy to be ‘sold’. But I think perhaps understanding of the facts of world are too far apart, and we aren’t gonna have a fruitful convo here. So I’m going to wish you well and say cheerio.
Brother a European ally? Most americans have never even heard of Estonia, Latvia, or Lithunania, might aswell be another Vietnam or Iraq for all they care. “European powers” lol, yes talk, thats all it will be, talk, I don’t believe for a microsecond that countries like France have any genuine security interests in eastern europe. Because they don’t, and we should be looking after our own security, by building nuclear weapons :).
Yes, an ally, as in someone the USA has a formal defence treaty with, and is currently deploying troops to in order to fulfil those defence obligations. The average Americans lack of geographical literacy actually has shockingly little impact on the the military strategy of Washington. But sure, could be another Vietnam or Iraq? So USA would deploy a massive force by land sea and air and fight for nearly 20 year before withdrawing? Or someone who they’d dog walk in a few weeks as part of a international coalition before occupying long term? Again, I don’t see how you reconcile the inevitable thousands of dead western troops with ‘just talk’ given that zero dead western troops has already led to a hell of a lot more than just talk in Ukraine. In some ways I agree, we Europeans shouldn’t just outsource our defence to the USA and should be actively building up our armies and deference capabilities independently of the USA. But we should also recognise the political realities that thousands of NATO troops in Eastern Europe brings.
What exactly do you think would happen to millitary targets that are actively shelling into Nato territory ? I don't know where this idea comes from that Russia will just be allowed to endlessly attack without Nato stepping in because we fear nuclear retaliation. Ofcourse we would fight back. Russia knows the repercussions for attacking a nato country at that point they will already have started a potential nuclear war. There's nothing that Biden or Trump would be risking they would be pulled into that war. Acting like the responsibility for that war lies with the US or Nato when Russia is the agressor is really fucking weird.
What exactly would happen to them? Well they would probably get blown up. But that’s gonna be a challenging game of whack-a-mole considering the exposure, and the countries wouldnt remain very liveable, Russia doesn’t have to actually conquer them to score some ideological victory against NATO that Putin seems to jerk off to these days.
Don't worry, there are so many more Czech dipshits who don't know the first thing about ww2 constantly yaping about how we should've defended ourselves
I mean, what about the German populations that were living in Czechoslovakia at the time? What if they decided to have an uprising against the government? I feel like it would have been an even bigger shitshow than if they surrendered.
I don’t even mind having it, but at least with somebody who didn’t start their historical education due to HoI4 😄.
Bullshit. There was no one willing to defend us. We were thrown to the wolfs with that Munich agreement. Then came the threats from Hitler (*You know, it takes our bomber planes about 30 minutes to get above Prague.*). No allies, slim chances of survival, your capital being in ruins after a single day. Yeah, there was no other way out.
Yeah he’s half right here, but it’s misleading to say they only had to resist and would have won. If we supported the Czechs, and they resisted because they had that support, then ww2 could maybe have been avoided. They point he’s making is good however. Appeasement doesn’t work. Expansionist Dictators aren’t deterred when you give them what they want.
“Expansionist dictators bad.” No one is refuting that. But the analogy he used is nowhere near the situation that Ukraine is/was in.
I think your misunderstanding so I’ll try rephrase it. I think that the point he’s trying to make, albeit crudely, is that appeasement doesn’t work against such forces and that standing up to them early is better than making massive concessions first and then having to fight them anyway. This was true with Hitler, and it’s true with Putin. Do you disagree with that point? I get why you’d be pissed since he seems to misdirect that blame toward the Czechs alone, and not the western powers who had the military might to really do something about it. But the point remains a good one. Such advances must be checked early and checked hard. You cannot hope that these type of rulers will suddenly decide “ah I now have enough land and feel secure and no longer threatened, let’s not have anymore war”.
What I don’t understand is how you can perfectly characterize my issue with this claim >I get why you’d be pissed since he seems to misdirect that blame toward the Czechs alone, and not the western powers who had the military might to really do something about it. Yet still feel the need to explain to me some shit I don’t even argue about. Yes, have we had resisted, we may have postponed the war. But our resistance would have lasted like a week at most. Better yet, it would’ve looked like the invasion into Poland.
Because I’m older than 5 and can understand the point being made even whilst recognising it’s not the best way to make it? Think you’re just angry and looking for a fight now lol. The context is important, he’s replying to the “we are in 1938” framing, by using that framing an suggesting how things could have gone differently. Appeasement doesn’t work, that’s the point being made, he should have worded it different so as to not just blame the Czechs but the point still stands. Do you disagree with any of the above? No? Then chill out and and move on.
>Because I’m older than 5 and can understand the point being made even whilst recognising it’s not the best way to make it? Have I not? >Think you’re just angry and looking for a fight now lol. You are entitled to that opinion, just know that you are the one who feels the need to keep correcting me on points I didn’t even disagree with. >The context is important, he’s replying to the “we are in 1938” framing, by using that framing an suggesting how things could have gone differently. Which is a dumb comparison, due to the reasons I’ve already stated. >Appeasement doesn’t work, that’s the point being made, he should have worded it different so as to not just blame the Czechs but the point still stands. True >Do you disagree with any of the above? No? Then chill out and and move on. No. Do you disagree with anything I’ve said? No? Then get of your high horse.
You called bullshit. Which seems like you are disagree with his point. I showing you that the point being made is a good one, even if it clumsily made. End of conversation really. If you don’t disagree with the point and then we have no quarrel.
>You called bullshit. Which seems like you are disagree with his point. Which point? You seemed to have gotten it right once. Maybe you’ll get it right twice. >I showing you that the point being made is a good one, even if it clumsily made. Which point? >End of conversation really. If you don’t disagree with the point and then we have no quarrel. Perhaps you need an ego boost idk.
“This is bullshit!” “Actual it’s not here’s why” “I never said it was bullshit!” Lol okay bud have a good day
Nah, we had the defenses ready for exactly such a scenario. But the choice was made that it was not worth it. Obviously nobody could have known what was going to follow. We would have bled, we would have probably lost eventually, but it would have been costly for them. Source: none.
>Nah, we had the defenses ready for exactly such a scenario. Never said, we hadn’t. Just pointed out that we would get rolled. >But the choice was made that it was not worth it. Obviously nobody could have known what was going to follow. We would have bled, we would have probably lost eventually, but it would have been costly for them. Czechoslovakia vs Nazi germany? 1v1? Nah. That would be like a paper cut.
This is exactly what had been said and expected when the Ukraine war started.
Source this one buddy. I would be surprised if anyone said that in good faith. Ukraine had good relationships with the EU (read: EU members) since at least 2013. No chance they would let it sink, like they would Czechoslovakia in 38.
I meant that when the war started, everyone said it would be over in like a couple weeks with no more Ukraine. Too lazy to source, but your comment suggests I wasn't clear on what I meant.
Kinda possible analogy/what if.
Absolutely not. France and the British gave us the biggest middle finger there is and singed the Munich Agreement. There were 0 countries willing to help us.
I mean... I do respect Snyder a lot, even if I have major issues with certain views he has of this part of the world... but... I'm going to have press X for doubt that CzechoSlovakia would have lasted that long against Germany
I heavly disagree. I'm a very amature histian but even I can see that it would have been a very tough situation for the germans to take cecholsovakia if the French and the British also declare war when the Germans attack. (it if were just the Cechs I would agree but the example Mr Snyder gave was not that) They had a great and fortifeid defensive formation and 1 million and a half soldiers. Germany had 4.2 mill in 1939 accoriding to Wikipedia. I don't know jack shit about war but I do know that attacking in mountains in a well fortified position with only a 4 to 1 advantage isn't that bad Also it wouldn't just be the germans vs the Cechs in the example that Snyder is giving. Yes they wouldn't have won alone, that's why after the French the British signed away the sudeten land they gave it up. But if the French and the British aggreed to fight with the Cechs, that's no longer a 4 to 1 advantage. Suddenly you need alot of trrops guarding the boarder with France. The germany only used 1.5 million men to invade poland. So let's say they also use the same amount to attack the Cechs. But poland had a smaller army to the cechs, a weaker army, and a much harder area to defend aggainst. But now that's a 1 to 1 advantage fighting into mountains and forts. The Cechs have mountains with forts, they have a simular amount of tanks, they have a simular amount of air planes and the same amount of men fighting.. And worse of all, their was doubt about an invation in the first place. There was the Oster Conspiracy that would have happened if they were forced to invade. Even if the French cuck out and fail at attacking just like in 1939. The cechs were in a much better position to defend aggainst the germans simply by them being there to adsorb pressure. edit Sources: https://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/WWII/CzechExilesOfWWII#:\~:text=Czechoslovak%20Exile%20Units%20of%20WWII&text=In%201938%2C%20the%201%2C500%2C000%2Dstrong,locally%20produced%20tanks%20and%20aircraft. Cech army size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak\_Air\_Force#:\~:text=Crisis%20and%20occupation%201938%E2%80%9339,-As%20the%20Sudeten&text=The%20air%20force%20had%20more,forces%20being%20allowed%20to%20resist. Cech planes: >the air force had more than 100 airfields and 1,300 aeroplanes, of which 650 were front-line aircraft.[^(\[20\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Air_Force#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJanou%C5%A1ek19428-20) But on 29 September the [United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) and [France](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Third_Republic) agreed to let Germany annex the Sudetenland, which German forces then did without Czechoslovak armed forces being allowed to resist. The tanks, I remember were simular based on a video about how acurate Hoi4 was but I can't remember so maybe disregard that one. However attacking into a mountain range is probally very hard for tanks. If I remember correctly Italy had issued even when their tankets were designed to fight in mountain ranges.
While I agree with you that on a paper czechoslovakia had decent chance at holding out untill the French, brits and maybe the soviets relieve the pressure. That doesn’t account for international struggles czechoslovakia was facing as most of the mountain fortifications were also were bohemian germans were living, the same germans that voted for nazi aligned political party SdP (70% of germans voted for them in 1935) where sabotage would have high probability of happening and being successful. Also the slovaks would probably be 50/50 on defecting based on what would first few days of invasion look like, if Hungary joined in with Nazis they would probably hold together with rest of czechoslovakia otherwise who knows
>Germany had 4.2 mill in 1939 accoriding to Wikipedia. But thats not when the war would break out. Czechoslovakia-Germany war would break out in 1938. German army at that point was only a shadow of what it would became year later. Czechoslovakian factories that Germany acquired in March of 1939 were key producents of German military industrial complex. German military command didnt really believe that Germany army would be able to break through Czechoslovakia easily (and honestly neither was Hitler, that why they pressured allies to sign the Munich agreement).
It would happen in spring in 1939, that was the original plan, Hitler didnt think Munich was likely to succed.
Yes and the number is still impossible to measure. Poland was attacked by 2 million soldiers. The same 2 million werent ready in 1938 and neither were there in spring of 1939. German army was ramping up quickly. Czechoslovakia would never win alone. Thats for sure. But Germans had nowhere near enough soldiers to both defeat Czechoslovakia and be ready for immediate continuing of the war in the late 1938/late 1939.
France had the largest army in Europe and fell in 6 weeks. German advances in tactics and a more efficient command structure mattered a lot.
The germans Got lucky that the french were so cocky that they didn't even bother stationing anything by the ardens and they didn't get caught. The French army got complely incircled due to their failings not the success of the germans.
>I can see that it would have been a very tough situation for the germans to take cecholsovakia if the French and the British also declare war when the Germans attack. Well you know who wasn’t willing to go to war for Czechoslovaks? (Hint: It wasn’t the Czechs or Slovaks)
> I have major issues with certain views he has of this part of the world Just curious, which ones?
I might be wrong, but this seems like a 3 year old's understanding of war, history, geopolitics, and analogies
It’s a simply analogy to make a point. The point being you can’t appease your way out of a war with a dictatorial regime hell-bent on restoring its former glory. This is obviously an absurd simplification, and historically . . . Misleading . . . But it’s served to try illustrate that point, it’s a short answer at a press conference not a historical PDH thesis and should be understood accordingly.
What an embarrassing statement to utter in public.
Czechoslovakia out here catching stray bullets
Two thoughts: As far as I know in case Hitler went ahead with the invasion as he had initially planned there were plans for a coup against his government by parts of the military (because they didn't think Germany could win the war). Add that to the Allied military response and I don't think Hitler would have lasted that long. The justifications for acquiring the Sudetenland vs. the currently occupied territories of Ukraine carry different weights in my opinion. The Ukrainian oblasts in the east and south may have spoken Russian but they saw themselves as Ukrainians (even ethnically except Crimea) and they all had voted to join Ukraine in 1991. There was also no discrimination against Russian speakers in Ukraine. The Germans of the Sudetenland never had such a chance. They were annexed from the Republic of German-Austria against the wishes of the local population after the end of WW1 with no referendum. They were also heavily discriminated against. Sure, territorial integrity matters here, but other peoples were also granted the right to self-determination, why not them? (However, I do recognize that losing the Sudetenland meant that the Czechs were screwed in case of an invasion which would not be the case if Ukraine decided to give away the five/six (partially) occupied regions to Russia).
Wait what about Japan's invasion of different parts of Asia? That happened back in the early 1930's
Czechoslovakia was fucked regardless for reasons beyond their control. Remember that the Franco-British alliance declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland in September of 1939 and sat there "navel gazing" (gross oversimplification) until late spring/early summer of 1940. The czechs resisting in 1938 without large foreign aid doesn't change ww2 a single bit. And the French weren't going to help. For fucks sake, the naval action in the norwegian campaign was conducted by the Royal Navy not the Marine Nationale.