Allies troops in Czechoslovakia afther Munich

[user23123]

What if after agreeing to Hitler demand for Sudetenland. The Allies had have send troops in Czechoslovakia.

How will this change thinks, would Germany risk a war. 1938 ( I personal think is highly unlikely )
How this change thinks up for Poland, those Hitlers still risk a war with them,
And when will the war stat. I suppose the Nazis will take more time preparing.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland

 

[user23123]

Let say he doesn’t trigger a war for Czechoslovakia.But after while as in OTL start making demand on Poland could he get way with a Munich like agreement for Poland.
How will the allies react do they tell Poland to accept,and what if Poland doesn’t accept to they DoW on Germany.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

He WANTED a war. Some people say he was disappointed when the West caved in at Munich.

So, no, british and french soldiers in Prague wouldnt have sropped him at all.

 

[Snaut]

If the Allies actually dispatch forces to rump Czechoslovakia, they clearly mean business. The wave of guarantees probably comes at the same time, and Poland is likely to accept for the same reasons as in OTL. Germany presumably reacts by arranging a pact with the USSR. Europe is in the same situation as in August 1939: Germany's next action will cause a big war. But there is a significant difference: Germany does not have Czechoslovakia's considerable wealth and armaments.

As for Germany pulling a Munich 2.0 on Poland after grabbing the Sudetenland ...

Actually, Hitler really really wanted an alliance with Poland right until 1939. The only territories he demanded were Danzig and an exterritorial road across the corridor. So why did Poland refuse? I don't think anybody important in Poland had any illusions as to the possibility of resisting Germany on their own. But Poland wanted to remain neutral and independent as long as possible, and membership in the Axis would obviously impair Poland's freedom of action. It was therefore desireable to prolong the existence of the status quo as long as possible.

So Poland tried to buy time, exploiting Hitler's relative unwillingness to confront it and pretending not to hear when Germany enquired about Danzig. And Poland managed to get away with this until Germany defecated on the treaty of Munich and Britain reacted by terminating appeasement and issuing guarantees left and right. To the Poles it seemed that their strategy had been vindicated, and accepted the British proposal. Now, if Germany wished to attack Poland, it would automatically become embroiled in a war with France and Britain. Surely, the Polish foreign minister thought, plunging Germany into such a war was something no sane man would do. And most tragically, just like Stalin who knew that no sane man would attack the USSR before dealing with Britain, he was correct.

So I can think of two ways of having the Munich 2.0 happen:

1) Change Poland's foreign minister. Either replace him with someone more cautious, or better at understanding Hitler. Or cause him to realize that Hitler fears nothing and won't back down. So Poland gives away Danzig and an exterritorial road across the corridor and joins the Axis. Pterodactyl-sized butterflies ensue.

2) Germany proceeds to ask for the deal I described above before grabbing the rump Czechoslovakia, and insists on Danzig and Polish membership in the Axis. Britain and France remain in appeasement mode and declare they don't want to die for Danzig. As a result, Poland accepts. The million-dollar question is what happens next. Sooner or later Hitler will cross the line as far as Britain is concerned, and then there will be no reason not to issue guarantees left and right. Even if Britain won't fight just yet, some sucker who would otherwise have allied with Germany might just be prised out of the Axis, killing two birds with one stone by depriving Germany of an ally and giving it another front to worry about. Will Poland accept anyway? Or will it decide that since Germany currently has no demands against it, it would be unwise to tempt fate and that the best course of action is to watch events unfold?

 

[user23123]

To make thinks a bit clear i was think in terms of giving Hitlers a series of concessions but make it clear for him that if tray to get one more millimeter is war.
The goal is to achieve the following for the allies :

1. Hitler will not have access to Czechoslovak industry and resources, and other east European resources, and industries.
3. Make it clear for him that it he will have to fight on a broad front and with more enemies.(buying more time to get ready for the allies they where not ready for war 1939 )
4. Move Germany further a way from her window of opportunity (beyond 1941/42 the allies will be ready for Germany so the Germany will not achieve what it achieve)

To make it clear a do believe a war is inevitable since the Nazis will not step down (they will very likely be hanged for they’re crimes as soon as the lose or give up power ) and the German economy will collapse under they're control, so the have two options civil war,or world war.

My questions are could the allies both the time,and what is the year beyond Germany loses is window of opportunity

 

[Blackfox5]

The problem with the scenario is that putting Allied troops in Czechoslovakia basically means Britain and France think war remains a real possibility even after giving Germany the Suedetenland. If that is true, then the Allies have no reason to give the Suedetenland to Germany in the first place.

There was a real belief in Chamberlain's mind that Hitler's goals were moderate and reasonable. Giving him the last remaining area of large German population would end Hitler's demands. That is why Chamberlain believed there would be "peace in our time" because the last remaining issue which might cause a general war was now resolved.

Stationing troops in Czechoslovakia means Chamberlain knows that Hitler is not moderate or reasonable in his demands and means to overthrow the current international system. If that is the case, Chamberlain would never surrender the Suedetenland because it is prime defensive territory.

Also, logistics is very important here. There is no sea access to Czechoslovakia, which means you need one or more countries cooperation in stationing troops there and allowing a flow of supplies. Geography dictates then that Poland must also be involved in a collective defense along with Czechoslovakia, France, and Britain. (It's possible, but very unlikely, a different route would be used - the diplomatic challenges are simply too formidable). If that is the case, Hitler won't be challenging Poland - the reason he attacked is that he thought Poland would be alone and that the British guarantee was just a bluff.

 

[KACKO]

The problem with the scenario is that putting Allied troops in Czechoslovakia basically means Britain and France think war remains a real possibility even after giving Germany the Suedetenland. If that is true, then the Allies have no reason to give the Suedetenland to Germany in the first place.

There was a real belief in Chamberlain's mind that Hitler's goals were moderate and reasonable. Giving him the last remaining area of large German population would end Hitler's demands. That is why Chamberlain believed there would be "peace in our time" because the last remaining issue which might cause a general war was now resolved.

Stationing troops in Czechoslovakia means Chamberlain knows that Hitler is not moderate or reasonable in his demands and means to overthrow the current international system. If that is the case, Chamberlain would never surrender the Suedetenland because it is prime defensive territory.

Also, logistics is very important here. There is no sea access to Czechoslovakia, which means you need one or more countries cooperation in stationing troops there and allowing a flow of supplies. Geography dictates then that Poland must also be involved in a collective defense along with Czechoslovakia, France, and Britain. (It's possible, but very unlikely, a different route would be used - the diplomatic challenges are simply too formidable). If that is the case, Hitler won't be challenging Poland - the reason he attacked is that he thought Poland would be alone and that the British guarantee was just a bluff.

Well Czechoslovak secret service had some indication on German moves against Czechoslovakia in March 1939. I am not sure how soon they got them, but there were some planes to move at least Air Force to Poland.

But to the logistic. Actually Romania was allied to Czechoslovakia and even mobilised its troops on Hungarian borders in March 1939 but after it was clear Prague basically capitulated and Slovakia declared independence, they saw no point in further actions. Anyway. Romania drift towards Axis was due to power vacum in area after March 1939.

Czechoslovakia still shared border with Romania, but after Vienna agreement 1938 some parts of Ruthenia were not acesible for Czechoslovak rail transports as parts of rail lines were already on Hungarian territory - Kosice for example. New railways to eastern Slovakia were only finished during war.

Still at least some symbolic troops could be put there. Of course, if Germany attack, only hope is quickly abandon Czech lands and hold in mountains on Czech-Slovak borders.

Still no over 400 tanks in German hands, artillery and Air Force.

Still interesting scenerio.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The problem with the scenario is that putting Allied troops in Czechoslovakia basically means Britain and France think war remains a real possibility even after giving Germany the Suedetenland. If that is true, then the Allies have no reason to give the Suedetenland to Germany in the first place.

There was a real belief in Chamberlain's mind that Hitler's goals were moderate and reasonable. Giving him the last remaining area of large German population would end Hitler's demands. That is why Chamberlain believed there would be "peace in our time" because the last remaining issue which might cause a general war was now resolved.

Stationing troops in Czechoslovakia means Chamberlain knows that Hitler is not moderate or reasonable in his demands and means to overthrow the current international system. If that is the case, Chamberlain would never surrender the Suedetenland because it is prime defensive territory.

Also, logistics is very important here. There is no sea access to Czechoslovakia, which means you need one or more countries cooperation in stationing troops there and allowing a flow of supplies. Geography dictates then that Poland must also be involved in a collective defense along with Czechoslovakia, France, and Britain. (It's possible, but very unlikely, a different route would be used - the diplomatic challenges are simply too formidable). If that is the case, Hitler won't be challenging Poland - the reason he attacked is that he thought Poland would be alone and that the British guarantee was just a bluff.

How many troops, thats the question. I could easily see Britain and France putting a token number of troops into czechoslovakia, as a 'trust but verify' kind of measure. 'Of course we trust you, Herr Hitler, we're just reassuring the Czechs'. And/or 'That madman Mr. Churchill has a lot of support back in England, so we have to throw a sop to him.'


Additionally, this will change things immensely with the Soviet Union. If the west is looking less like pussycats, the soviets might well align with the west rather than the Nazis. This means few raw materials on cheap terms for the nazis.

Moreover, if the west puts troops, even token ones, into Czechoslovakia, the Soviets will do the same.

 

[Evan]

How many troops, thats the question. I could easily see Britain and France putting a token number of troops into czechoslovakia, as a 'trust but verify' kind of measure. 'Of course we trust you, Herr Hitler, we're just reassuring the Czechs'. And/or 'That madman Mr. Churchill has a lot of support back in England, so we have to throw a sop to him.'

Really? That'd make a great excuse if they want to put troops in, but would they really go to all the difficulty of mounting an expeditionary force and negotiating supply lines for Czech reassurance or a sop to Churchill?

Moreover, if the west puts troops, even token ones, into Czechoslovakia, the Soviets will do the same.

I'm sure they'd want to, but I'm also sure the Czechs won't let them. (And, remember Czechoslovakia doesn't border the Soviet Union at the moment. The Poles definitely wouldn't let Soviet troops march over their soil; do you think the Romanians would?)

 

[user23123]

How many troops, thats the question. I could easily see Britain and France putting a token number of troops into czechoslovakia, as a 'trust but verify' kind of measure. 'Of course we trust you, Herr Hitler, we're just reassuring the Czechs'. And/or 'That madman Mr. Churchill has a lot of support back in England, so we have to throw a sop to him.'

Additionally, this will change things immensely with the Soviet Union. If the west is looking less like pussycats, the soviets might well align with the west rather than the Nazis. This means few raw materials on cheap terms for the nazis.

Moreover, if the west puts troops, even token ones, into Czechoslovakia, the Soviets will do the same.

A symbolic number,at least initially not something to take Berlin just to send the Germans and Czechoslovakia the message that the allies will stand by the side of Czechoslovakia.
The my idea was that Chamberlain was right in hes approach England was not ready for war ,and needed time to get ready,the troops are there to make Hitler back down and not annex the rest of Czech republic,make a puppet Slovakia or if he doesn’t back down make him fight for it.
But if the allies could buy time by presenting Churchill as some kind of a buggy man at home I agree with it

As for the Soviets remember that Stalin wanted a war between the western powers,but if the allies are supplying the Czechoslovakian’s through Romania will not ask for Bassarabia. the will ask the Germans for it if the Germans controlling Romania or do something like otl with Poland and invade from the east when the are sure that the Romanians are about to lose the war

Really? That'd make a great excuse if they want to put troops in, but would they really go to all the difficulty of mounting an expeditionary force and negotiating supply lines for Czech reassurance or a sop to Churchill?

I'm sure they'd want to, but I'm also sure the Czechs won't let them. (And, remember Czechoslovakia doesn't border the Soviet Union at the moment. The Poles definitely wouldn't let Soviet troops march over their soil; do you think the Romanians would?)

Don't think the Romanians will let the Soviets move true.

If the allies would have been ready probably world not have stand idle to annexation of Austria let alone Sudetenland probaly make the Czechs give more autonomy but that it is. (just in case some ask why agree to Munich if they wanna to fight him)

 

[Alternate History Geek]

England was not ready for war

Actually, against Germany, it was.

The Wehrmacht was a joke before Germany absorbed the factories and armaments and gold reserves in Bohemia-Moravia.

 

[user23123]

Actually, against Germany, it was.

The Wehrmacht was a joke before Germany absorbed the factories and armaments and gold reserves in Bohemia-Moravia.

Yes and no Wehrmacht wasn't ready for a general European war but still capable of creating a lot of problems. And there was also the Soviet Union and the western powers wore not very fond of them.
And the first world war was still vivid in memories of the European leaders

 

[KACKO]

How many troops, thats the question. I could easily see Britain and France putting a token number of troops into czechoslovakia, as a 'trust but verify' kind of measure. 'Of course we trust you, Herr Hitler, we're just reassuring the Czechs'. And/or 'That madman Mr. Churchill has a lot of support back in England, so we have to throw a sop to him.'


Additionally, this will change things immensely with the Soviet Union. If the west is looking less like pussycats, the soviets might well align with the west rather than the Nazis. This means few raw materials on cheap terms for the nazis.

Moreover, if the west puts troops, even token ones, into Czechoslovakia, the Soviets will do the same.

That's what I tought. Only small forces. Maybe squadron of French Fighters. In that case, even Hungary could ally with West. Actually there were looking more for toward London then for Berlin. Of course, they still had issues with Czechoslovakia for tha rest of Ruthenia, with Romania and Yugoslavia. But maybe with bigger Western commitment they may drop other demands after gaining part of Czechoslovakian territory after Vienna 1938 (hardly, but more maybe members with more knowledge about Hungarian politics could bring some light to this).

 

[user23123]

That's what I tought. Only small forces. Maybe squadron of French Fighters. In that case, even Hungary could ally with West. Actually there were looking more for toward London then for Berlin. Of course, they still had issues with Czechoslovakia for tha rest of Ruthenia, with Romania and Yugoslavia. But maybe with bigger Western commitment they may drop other demands after gaining part of Czechoslovakian territory after Vienna 1938 (hardly, but more maybe members with more knowledge about Hungarian politics could bring some light to this).

I wonder if there would still be a first Vienna Award if the allies are in Czechoslovakia, would the Hungarians and Poles still ask for one ?
As for Hungary joining in one or the other a think in the begging the will stay neutral and see what happens.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Really? That'd make a great excuse if they want to put troops in, but would they really go to all the difficulty of mounting an expeditionary force and negotiating supply lines for Czech reassurance or a sop to Churchill?

I'm sure they'd want to, but I'm also sure the Czechs won't let them. (And, remember Czechoslovakia doesn't border the Soviet Union at the moment. The Poles definitely wouldn't let Soviet troops march over their soil; do you think the Romanians would?)

What supply lines? A hundred men as a tripwire force would mostly need food, which can be locally supplied. Minor arms expenditure (bullets and such) can easily come through Romania, say.

As for soviet troops, the Benes government was very friendly with the soviets and would, im sure, gladly accept any soviet troops available.
Admittedly, GETTING them there would be tricky. Romania, if asked nicely by the czechs, would surely allow the transit of unarmed soviet troops, who could be armed then by the czechs.

Certainly, moving a tank army in would be .... difficult, but a regiment of infantry should be easily possible.

 

[user23123]

What supply lines? A hundred men as a tripwire force would mostly need food, which can be locally supplied. Minor arms expenditure (bullets and such) can easily come through Romania, say.

As for soviet troops, the Benes government was very friendly with the soviets and would, im sure, gladly accept any soviet troops available.
Admittedly, GETTING them there would be tricky. Romania, if asked nicely by the czechs, would surely allow the transit of unarmed soviet troops, who could be armed then by the czechs.

Certainly, moving a tank army in would be .... difficult, but a regiment of infantry should be easily possible.

It will require allies reinsurance for the Romanians to accept it.
It could require that Romanians is member of the Allies.
Czechs asking nicely alone will work,

 

[KACKO]

It will require allies reinsurance for the Romanians to accept it.
It could require that Romanians is member of the Allies.
Czechs asking nicely alone will work,

OTL Romanians allowed Soviet transport to Czechoslovakia, I believe separate transport of troops and equipment as well as overflights of Soviet planes to Czechoslovakia. So indeed if Prague nicely ask Bucuresti, answer very probably will be yes.

 

[user23123]

If the soviets are in then no Molotov–Ribbentrop pact. Or will the soviets change there mind in time,other path could be that Poland and Germany forming an alliance,

Never the less this decreases the chance of a WW2

 

[KACKO]

If the soviets are in then no Molotov–Ribbentrop pact. Or will the soviets change there mind in time,other path could be that Poland and Germany forming an alliance,

Never the less this decreases the chance of a WW2

Even if France and Britain proposed some small contingent in Czechoslovakia after Munich, possibility of Soviets being part of it would be very small.
1. They were not even invited to Munich.
2. Decision of politicians in Prague could be different, they could say no to Munich and ask Moscow for troops.
One of the reasons Benes agreed with Munich were his words: "I couldn't let reds into central Europe."

Of course, were they his words, or it was jut communist propaganda?

 

[user23123]

Even if France and Britain proposed some small contingent in Czechoslovakia after Munich, possibility of Soviets being part of it would be very small.
1. They were not even invited to Munich.
2. Decision of politicians in Prague could be different, they could say no to Munich and ask Moscow for troops.
One of the reasons Benes agreed with Munich were his words: "I couldn't let reds into central Europe."

Of course, were they his words, or it was jut communist propaganda?

I have no idea if he actually said that but the Soviets where the other buggy-man especially for central European countries,and there the Soviets and Germans were not foes it could be a case of let,at lest deal with one master.

But in this scenario the allies are in and this could reassure Benes that does not change a master of another.and then there is the question do the allies want the soviets. Since the any help the soviets give will probably come at a price,