Patton in Prague

Considering that the US Army, when it pulled up to its stop line in the middle of Germany, was actually closer to Prague and the heart of what is now the Czech Republic than the Soviet armies were, what would have been the effects of Patton deciding to liberate one of the few democratic nations in Eastern Europe and having his army (can't remember which one, think it was the 3rd) grab Czechia before the Russians?

Eisenhower and Bradley would be furious if he did it after being told to stop. If he did it before being told to stand down he might get away with it. Eisenhower and Bradley would be furious. Churchill would be dancing in the streets. Does anyone know of Monty's views of the Soviets?

There would be Major Problems with Dept of State, which at that time had a Large number of Communist Agents working in it. This is from KGB files released after the fall of the USSR. They were very pro USSR and had strong support in the house. Patton would have been replaced, and the forces ordered back to Germany.

Best way Patton or the western allies could get some of Czechoslovakia, and be able to keep it, would be for the Germans to somehow delay the Russians in a way that the US, British, Canadians, and French would be forced to keep moving for a few more days. Maybe heavier resistance in Berlin results in heavier Soviet casualties, or maybe some German commander that has access to some mustard gas or something decides to use it in a last ditch attempt to stop the Soviets, which could possibly kill tens of thousands, or maybe even hundreds of thousands, and they have to pull troops and equipment from other areas, thus taking some pressure away from other German positions. If the US and British had to go more than little ways into the country, and got into a couple battles, I don't think it would play well politically for Truman and Churchill to send thousands, if not tens of thousands of men to fight to take over an area, only to give it up to the Soviets for free. Such an event might be bad for Eisenhower in the 1952 Presidential elections as well.

Hyperion said:

Best way Patton or the western allies could get some of Czechoslovakia, and be able to keep it, would be for the Germans to somehow delay the Russians in a way that the US, British, Canadians, and French would be forced to keep moving for a few more days. Maybe heavier resistance in Berlin results in heavier Soviet casualties, or maybe some German commander that has access to some mustard gas or something decides to use it in a last ditch attempt to stop the Soviets, which could possibly kill tens of thousands, or maybe even hundreds of thousands, and they have to pull troops and equipment from other areas, thus taking some pressure away from other German positions. If the US and British had to go more than little ways into the country, and got into a couple battles, I don't think it would play well politically for Truman and Churchill to send thousands, if not tens of thousands of men to fight to take over an area, only to give it up to the Soviets for free. Such an event might be bad for Eisenhower in the 1952 Presidential elections as well.

Click to expand...

Well they did yield all of eastern Germany that was west of the Elbe to the Soviets for free (well, it was previously agreed) and it did nothing in the way of politics. Remember that when Churchill came and made his "Iron Curtain" most ordinary people in the United States still had a highly favourable view of Joseph Stalin and the USSR and thought that Churchill was hyping over nothing. It was 1945/1946 after all, not 1955.

Also by the timeframe being discussed the Soviets were well into Czechoslovakia. Most people don't seem to realize this however, since it must appear that Czechoslovakia stops where the edge of the maps of Germany stop or that the nation only consists of Prague. The Soviet capture of Berlin or Vienna or their aid in the liberation of Belgrade never gave them total control of Germany, Austria or Yugoslavia, respectively and likewise, I doubt the American capture of Praque is going to give the Americans control of Czechoslovakia. Within the timeframe being discussed most of Slovakia and parts of Moravia had already been liberated by the Soviets (so around 50-70% of Czechoslovakia), while even if the Americans take Praque, their army would never control more than 10% of the country. Now which is more likely, that the Soviets withdraw from ALL of 90% of the country just because the Americans get Praque or that the Americans withdraw from 10% of Czechoslovakia (an area smaller than what they yielded in eastern Germany I might add)?

Rommel while in command in France, was approched by conspirators who wanted him and his superior (dont rember the name) to abandon Franc eand pull everything east of the Rhine, and use it as a defensive line. This might slow down the Soviet offense with more German units available in the East.

What I'm imagining as a potential result is that we end up with the modern day division of Czechoslovakia in 1945 instead of 1993. From what I've heard, and the maps I've seen, the Soviets didn't really bother advancing deep into Bohemia and Moravia, as by that point they were concentrating their armies for the final push on Berlin. Patton's army actually did stop, unless I'm very much mistaken, within the Czech border. To be honest, the real question would be how the Soviets would respond.

The Allies could have taken Prague very easily. Eisenhower wanted that cursed 'steady advance lin' while Monty and Patton screamed for blitzkreig, after political wrangling let's say they DO get their way and encircle the Germans, cut them off from Berlin (so they can safely surrender) and spearhead east and south.
Now that I've that off my chest.
After the sudden Allied thrust supposedly to Berlin (but it wasn't), Stalin steps up the race and concentrates ALL forces on that German front and can't be buggered with the Czechs that can be finished off later. Suddenly the Allies are parachuting and rolling towards Prague. Stalin can't call off those forces - it make him seem weak and hesitant to finish off the Nazis. He has no choice but to let the west take Czechoslovakia or look aggressive.
Later discussions make the country end up like Germany - socialist republic in the east, capitalism in the west. I can see this going on and on and on...

It goes back to late 44 to early 45, but perhaps the best way the Germans could seriously slow down the Soviets, possibly even to the point where it throws off their advance a few weeks, would be to send the forces used in the Battle of the Bulge to the eastern front. The US, and I think some British spent close to a month retaking the territory lost in that attack. Also, the Germans could probably kill many more Soviet forces than US or British forces. Actually, if the US and British don't have to deal with that offensive and the Soviets do, the US and British could be able to move much faster than they did in OTL.

Maybe he only liberates the Czech but not the Slovak part? They seperated in 1939 and in 1993 too...

Hyperion said:

It goes back to late 44 to early 45, but perhaps the best way the Germans could seriously slow down the Soviets, possibly even to the point where it throws off their advance a few weeks, would be to send the forces used in the Battle of the Bulge to the eastern front. The US, and I think some British spent close to a month retaking the territory lost in that attack. Also, the Germans could probably kill many more Soviet forces than US or British forces. Actually, if the US and British don't have to deal with that offensive and the Soviets do, the US and British could be able to move much faster than they did in OTL.

Click to expand...

Without the Ardennes Offensive, the Allies have a door open right into Germany. The time leading up to the Offensive, it was more the Allies overextending supplu lines, and the winter that were slowing them, rather then anything that the Germans were doing. May something that involves the marginalization of Hitler, and the Generals realizing having the Western Allies occupying Germany was better then the Soviets doing so. A de jure cease fire while the Americans and British snatch up as much land as possible before the reds?

I don't believe the final territorial arrangements for postwar Europe came about until early in 45, so if the German High command gets Hitler to use the forces slated for the Battle of the Bulge and other units that were already in position to defend against the western allies, it would give Patton and Monty an easier time advancing, and it could delay the Soviets several weeks. Convincing Hitler and other top commanders that the US and British would be bette that being overrun by Soviet forces would be essential though.

A random thought on the early Czech Republic (I think the Soviets will still end up with Slovakia)... The Germans were to be expelled from Eastern Europe, but in 'Western' places they mainly ended up staying in place. Do the Sudeten Germans have a chance at staying? (Perhaps they could claim to have been "Sudeten Austrians" rather than Germans)
Another thought- If for some reason there is a desperation for Czech-Slovak unity, we could have a 'Czechoslovak State Treaty', which would neutralize it, much like Austria was.

1945 - Bohemia

Firast, to correct an earlier statement. The Russians had made painfully slow progress through the Carpathian Passes during the spring of 1945 as the bulk of the Soviet offensive capability had gone north with Zhukov and Koniev and the germans had massed a fairly strong defence line under Schoerner. Moravska Ostrava fell on May 3rd 1945 and that is right in the east of Slovakia so the Red Army hadn't got too far into Czechoslovakia.

Patton's forces did enter the far west of Bohemia in mid-April, taking Asch and Eger and advancing toward Pilsen. The advance of Patton's left flank south east was held up by German armoured units in the vicinity of the Austrian border on or about the end of April. Remember the Allies believed that the Germans had set up a powerful Redoubt in the southern alpine regions of Bavaria and Swabia and this influenced a lot of thinking. They fought cities like Salzburg, Munich and Innsbruck would be heavily defended as were the mountain passes like the Brenner.

The Germans still had armour in Czechoslovakia and could have contested the American advance. If the allies either realise or decide to accept that the Redoubt is a myth, then Patton's left flank might have been told to continue moving east. As far as I know, no demarcation lines had been set for Russian and Anglo-American forces beyond the Elbe in Germany and the Ems river in Austria. I'm certainly not aware that a "stop-line" existed in Czechoslovakia but it might well have done.

Patton wouldn't have had an uncontested drive to Prague but let's give him ten days to approach the city, say by April 27th. I suspect the Czech partisans and the local German commanders would have been eager to parley and we could envisage Patton entering Prague on April 29th 1945 and finally meeting the Russians ten days later.

Does this affect post-war developments ? I don't see how - unless it's agreed that Czechoslovakia can be "neutral" like Austria or it's divided as someone has already suggested with a pro-western Czech state and a pro-Russian Slovak state. Presumably, the Czech state joins NATO and the Iron Curtain extends a little further south.

Hmmm

This was one of the deltas in Tarrantry...

stodge said:

Firast, to correct an earlier statement. The Russians had made painfully slow progress through the Carpathian Passes during the spring of 1945 as the bulk of the Soviet offensive capability had gone north with Zhukov and Koniev and the germans had massed a fairly strong defence line under Schoerner. Moravska Ostrava fell on May 3rd 1945 and that is right in the east of Slovakia so the Red Army hadn't got too far into Czechoslovakia.

Click to expand...

Actually, as the name should suggest, Moravska Ostrava is in the east of Moravia (now part of the Czech Republic). By April 18, almost all of modern Slovakia had been liberated by the Soviets.

Anyway, here is a link to a US Army map (which is also added below).
http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/ww2 europe/ww2 europe pages/ww2 europe map 78.htm

and it's index:
http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/ww2 europe/ww2 europe war index.htm

Hyperion said:

I don't believe the final territorial arrangements for postwar Europe came about until early in 45,

Click to expand...

and

stodge said:

As far as I know, no demarcation lines had been set for Russian and Anglo-American forces beyond the Elbe in Germany and the Ems river in Austria. I'm certainly not aware that a "stop-line" existed in Czechoslovakia but it might well have done..

Click to expand...

I recommend that you find a copy of [Churchill's The Second World War and look for map of the agreed upon partition of Germany outlined at the Quebec Conference of 1943 I believe.

Hyperion said:

so if the German High command gets Hitler to use the forces slated for the Battle of the Bulge and other units that were already in position to defend against the western allies, it would give Patton and Monty an easier time advancing, and it could delay the Soviets several weeks.

Click to expand...

Hyperion said:

It goes back to late 44 to early 45, but perhaps the best way the Germans could seriously slow down the Soviets, possibly even to the point where it throws off their advance a few weeks, would be to send the forces used in the Battle of the Bulge to the eastern front. The US, and I think some British spent close to a month retaking the territory lost in that attack. Also, the Germans could probably kill many more Soviet forces than US or British forces. Actually, if the US and British don't have to deal with that offensive and the Soviets do, the US and British could be able to move much faster than they did in OTL.

Click to expand...

plus all the others speculating on using the Battle of the Bulge German troops against Germany:

http://www.eisenhowerinstitute.org/programs/livinghistory/SovietExperienceww2.htm

Also, I doubt the Germans would be able to kill that many more Soviets and even if they did, to the Soviets it would have hardly made a difference. Like a drop in a bucket.

stodge said:

Patton wouldn't have had an uncontested drive to Prague but let's give him ten days to approach the city, say by April 27th. I suspect the Czech partisans and the local German commanders would have been eager to parley and we could envisage Patton entering Prague on April 29th 1945 and finally meeting the Russians ten days later.

Does this affect post-war developments ? I don't see how

Click to expand...

Agreed. I think the US occupation of Prague (and not the majority of Czechoslovakia) would affect post-war developments as much the OTL Soviet occupations of Finnmark in Norway (which wasn't split from Norway incidentally) or Bornholm Island of Denmark (which again wasn't split from Denmark), i.e. not at all. The partition of Czechoslovkia in 1939 had been encouraged by the Nazis and the Allies were not in the habit of propping up states essentially set up and run the Nazis, fascists or any of their allies, otherwise Yugoslavia would never have been reconstituted. They also weren't in the habit of partitioning liberated states, witness Austria, OTL Czechoslovakia, Denmark and Norway with Korea being the only exception and even then partition came a full 3 years later, was supposed to be temporary and was not what the Koreans, the Soviets nor the Americans wanted and was as much as a result as to their being a more or less equal occupation of territory by the Soviets and Americans.

Also, after Nazi rule, I doubt very many Czechs or Slovaks were not keen on reconstituting the old, pre-1938 Czechoslovak state.

I want to know where people got the idea that Patton was the type of guy to violate orders? Sure he disagreed with a lot of them and of course said so but I don't think he ever disobeyed an order or even take action without prior approval.

On one, if not two occasions in Sicily, he slapped a soldier an a medical facility. He got in trouble, and spent the rest of 43, and into July of 44 stuck in London doing nothing, when he could have been in Italy, or planning the D-Day operation. He also supposedly made some troublesome comments concerning the Soviets to newspaper reporters, but I'm not sure about that one.

As for the US and Britain getting a chunk of Czech territory and setting it up as a pro west democracy after the war, it would have given NATO another army, small, but still an army, to work with. It would give the US and other NATO forces more land to work with. People trying to escape from East Germany might have an a few more areas that they could escape through. Also, it would give the West another voice to challenge the Soviets in the Cold War.

I remember reading a few yrs ago that many Western leaders felt guilty about allowing the USSR to have Czechoslovakia, given that they'd betrayed CS into 1938-39 into surrendering peacefully to Hitler and thereby compelling them to endure so much Nazi oppression. Could such an imperative have caused Patton and others to at least try to restore the balance by at least liberating part of CS ?