Stalin unilaterally escalates the Sudetenland crisis

[Turtle]

What would happen if Stalin made it clear to the West that he would not allow appeasement of Nazi Germany? Let's say the USSR explicitly announces that it would consider any loss of territory by Czechoslovakia a violation of the Czechoslovak-Soviet Treaty of Alliance, and a casus belli. Such strong support from a Great Power convinces the Czechs they have a fighting chance, and they make it known they will fight any annexation of the Sudetenland.

Hitler is unlikely to stand down. With hindsight, we know Beck is going to put a bullet through Hitler's head if the Entente gets involved. But do they? Or are Britain and France disgusted at Stalin for destroying a chance at peace and write him off to further isolation? If that's the case, the Eastern front is drastically in scope, at least at first. The Nazis are going to gut the Wehrmacht on Czech fortifications, and give the Entente further time to rearm. From there, the fate of the war depends on the fate of the Baltic states and Poland. Do any of those countries allow armies to transit to reach the front? Do Germany or Russia invade these countries if they're not allowed through? How long does it take for the Entente to make a move?

[Paul V McNutt]

This is a very I interesting question. Soviet troops would have to enter Czechoslavika in order to defend. w Which means Czechoslavika becomes a satellite 10 years earlier.

[ModernKiwi]

How would they get there? The only way is through Poland or Romania. Neither of whom would contemplate allowing it.

[Deckhand]

My ujnderstanding was that romania was willing to let the soviets through on controlled routes

[KACKO]

Or Poland will make a mistake and attack Tesin area and Talin got his casus belli. Romania indexes allowed some supply routs and also overflight of Soviet planes. Just with the transportation I am not sure if it was only for material or also for troops.

[Snake Featherston]

If we look at the huge number of conditions the USSR's alliance with France had at this time, this is extremely unlikely without the *West* accelerating the crisis first. Stalin was a master at signing and adhering to treaties that favored himself over any other signatories.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

If we look at the huge number of conditions the USSR's alliance with France had at this time, this is extremely unlikely without the *West* accelerating the crisis first. Stalin was a master at signing and adhering to treaties that favored himself over any other signatories.

Yes. You mean "Czechoslovakia" here, not "France", but you are right to mention France because the Soviet-Czechoslovakian alliance needed one of those clauses you are thinking of: namely, that the French alliance had to be activated first.

Now, of course Stalin might get a brain transplant, throw away his cautiousness, and declare what is the POD of this thread: that regardless of what the French do (or don't do), the USSR will defend Czechoslovakia.

It is possible that the Czechs decide to resist based on that. Conversely, they really relied on france more, and they might be convinced that the Soviet guarantee is not to be taken seriously.

Those who will in any case believe that the Soviet statement is a fake are the Germans, just like they judged that Britain wouldn't go to war for Poland later on. They will take their precautions by warning Poland and Romania that either they comply with their neutral-state's duties, or they will be considered enemies. But then, they'll go ahead.

What will the new Stalin do at this time? Frankly I can't predict that, he's too new to me.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Michele

Yes. You mean "Czechoslovakia" here, not "France", but you are right to mention France because the Soviet-Czechoslovakian alliance needed one of those clauses you are thinking of: namely, that the French alliance had to be activated first.

Now, of course Stalin might get a brain transplant, throw away his cautiousness, and declare what is the POD of this thread: that regardless of what the French do (or don't do), the USSR will defend Czechoslovakia.

It is possible that the Czechs decide to resist based on that. Conversely, they really relied on france more, and they might be convinced that the Soviet guarantee is not to be taken seriously.

Those who will in any case believe that the Soviet statement is a fake are the Germans, just like they judged that Britain wouldn't go to war for Poland later on. They will take their precautions by warning Poland and Romania that either they comply with their neutral-state's duties, or they will be considered enemies. But then, they'll go ahead.

What will the new Stalin do at this time? Frankly I can't predict that, he's too new to me.

No, I mean France. The Soviet-French alliance in 1935 was extremely loaded to favor the USSR at the expense of France.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

No, I mean France. The Soviet-French alliance in 1935 was extremely loaded to favor the USSR at the expense of France.

Really? For instance?

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Michele

Really? For instance?

For instance the treaty required France to take the onus of any military action while only obligating the USSR to move after France did, and even then the way the USSR moved made it clear that this was an obligation, not a mandate.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

For instance the treaty required France to take the onus of any military action while only obligating the USSR to move after France did, and even then the way the USSR moved made it clear that this was an obligation, not a mandate.

Could you quote the clause stipulating that? I'm not putting that into question, I just don't know these details. OTOH I know that the Soviet-Czechoslovakian treaty specified in par. II of the Protocol of Signature stipulated that the treaty would kick in only "in so far as assistance may be rendered by France".

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Michele

Could you quote the clause stipulating that? I'm not putting that into question, I just don't know these details. OTOH I know that the Soviet-Czechoslovakian treaty specified in par. II of the Protocol of Signature stipulated that the treaty would kick in only "in so far as assistance may be rendered by France".

http://libweb.hawaii.edu/libdept/russian/XX/PDF/17-Volume8.pdf

The Soviets and the French had major issues working out any kind of consistent treaty of alliance, partially because IMHO the USSR wasn't anywhere near ready or willing for a war, and partially because of similar divergent interests to what happened the *previous* time the French and the Tsar had tried to form an alliance.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

http://libweb.hawaii.edu/libdept/russian/XX/PDF/17-Volume8.pdf

Thank you for looking this up for me, but this is dated 1944 AFAICT.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Michele

Thank you for looking this up for me, but this is dated 1944 AFAICT.

D'oh. Here's a Soviet source from 1976, as the only other one I can find is Wikipedia which is a source I don't trust from others and thus am not keen on using myself:

http://leninist.biz/en/1976/UFPAA24/1.5-Soviet.Treaties.of.Mutual.Assistance

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

If we look at the huge number of conditions the USSR's alliance with France had at this time, this is extremely unlikely without the *West* accelerating the crisis first. Stalin was a master at signing and adhering to treaties that favored himself over any other signatories.

The treaty he signed after the Berlin air lift disagrees with you; albeit Stalin was certainly getting on in age and health when that went down

[Turtle]

But Stalin would't be offering Czechslovakia a guarantee so the USSR can go to war with Germany. He's sabatoging Appeasement so the Entente bear the brunt of fighting the Nazis. If Stalin convinces the Czechs to fight, Appeasement blows up the the Entente's face, and their choices are war or geopolitical irrelevance. Stalin's motives will be perfectly clear to everyone involved, but everyone's hand will be forced.

Fortunately, although these events play into Stalin's hand, the Entente is in a somewhat superior position post-war. With hindsight, 1938 was a favorable time for Hitler to be removed. France and Poland won't suffer Nazi occupation, and Britain won't be bankrupt. Stalin has probably gained a few new puppets, but the Entente should be an effective counterbalance to the Communist Bloc.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by BlairWitch749

The treaty he signed after the Berlin air lift disagrees with you; albeit Stalin was certainly getting on in age and health when that went down

The Soviets knew in 1948 that the US nuclear arsenal did not exist while their conventional advantages in any war that had broken out were overwhelming. War did not break out. The Soviets were not exactly going to up and start a war in the 19430s/1940s when they had nowhere near the favorable situation a 1948 shooting war over Berlin would have portended. After all in 1948 the Soviets were a global superpower, in 1938 they were nothing of the sort.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

D'oh. Here's a Soviet source from 1976, as the only other one I can find is Wikipedia which is a source I don't trust from others and thus am not keen on using myself:

http://leninist.biz/en/1976/UFPAA24/1.5-Soviet.Treaties.of.Mutual.Assistance

Thank you again, but here I don't see a clause stating that the obligations were not equal. Sorry to be nagging you, but you've awakened my curiosity.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Turtle

But Stalin would't be offering Czechslovakia a guarantee so the USSR can go to war with Germany. He's sabatoging Appeasement so the Entente bear the brunt of fighting the Nazis. If Stalin convinces the Czechs to fight, Appeasement blows up the the Entente's face, and their choices are war or geopolitical irrelevance. Stalin's motives will be perfectly clear to everyone involved, but everyone's hand will be forced.

This is still quite uncharacteristically brinksmanship for Stalin. At least IMHO.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Michele

Thank you again, but here I don't see a clause stating that the obligations were not equal. Sorry to be nagging you, but you've awakened my curiosity.

It had more to do with the practical implementation of the clauses. Keep in mind that as early as 1917/8 the Bolsheviks were always willing to use diplomacy as a weapon of war. In this case they were perfectly able to rig an alliance that looked impressive on paper but underwhelming in practice.