No Czech Coup

In 1948 the Red Army was not occupying Czechoslovakia. It retained a democratic government with Edvard Benes as President. The Czech Communists were the largest party in parliament, but ruled in coalition with other parties under a Communist PM (Klement Gottwald) under the results of the 1946 election.

However, Communist attempts to gain control of the government and their opposition to involvement in the Marshall Plan led to their unpopularity, and it was widely believed they would be dealt a severe defeat in the next election scheduled for May 1948.

In February 1948, the Communist Interior illegally tried to purge non-Communist from the security forces. This caused the non-Communist cabinet members to resign in protest. The idea was to discredit the Communists. The cabinet believed President Benes would refuse to accept their resignation.

However, in response the Soviets backed the Czech Communists in physical threats and intimidation to shut down anti-Communist demonstrations, prevent non-Communist government workers from appearing, and threaten civil disorder. The Soviet ambassador offered Gottwald that the Red Army could invade to make sure the Communists gained power. Benes panicked and accepted their resignations, allowing the Communists complete control of the government who then proceeded to establish a Communist dictatorship. This is commonly known as the Czech Coup.

What if Benes didn't panic and supported the non-Communists? The initial problem is that the Czech communists are showing force in the streets. There is a real possibility of civil conflict, and the loyalty of the army - since many of its senior leaders would be communists - is suspect. If order is not maintained, the Soviets might send in the Red Army to "restore order". US and other democratic forces in Europe would not be in any position to intervene given the sorry state then of the military units in Europe.

On the other hand, Stalin had other opportunities to force coups or invade neighbors in the same time period, but they never did. Finland managed to avoid Czechoslovakia's fate despite being in similar circumstances. Tito's Yugoslavia managed to assert its independence from Stalin. The main thing that distinguished them from the Czechs is that Stalin knew there would be significant opposition from the population if he did so. Qutie simply, if Stalin thought people were cowards, he would risk using force. If he thought there'd be resistance, he decided against it.

So the questions for the board are, if we assume that there is determined resistance against a Communist takeover (I know, this is very debateable given internal Czech politics of the time, but let's go with the POD):

1) Would the Soviets invade to establish a Communist government?

2) Can the non-Communists establish enough order to hold new elections in the next few months?

3) What are the results of that election if held?

4) How is international politics affected if the non-Communists win? Does Czechoslovakia become Finlandized? Does it join the Marshall Plan or even NATO? Something else?

I doubt that you'd see a Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia if Benes does not agree. There would be a real chance of the Czechs resisting and asking for help from the US (& others) and in 1948 Stalin was not going to chance that. As long as Czechoslovakia remains neutral like Finland and Austria, and does not join NATO when it is established in the near future that will be acceptable - Czechoslovakia in NATO would be unacceptable as there was a common border (however small) between the USSR & Czechoslovakia and this would mean NATO (US) troops right on the Russian border - the puppet states of Eastern Europe were there as much to be a sponge to absorb any western attack on the USSR as to be a springboard for a westward assault.

IMHO the communists will lose the 1948 elections, and the Czechs will accept the Marshall Plan aid. As long as this does not go further, Stalin will live with it. Long term this should result in a way more prosperous Czechoslovakia, perhaps getting in to the EU before the USSR collapses - and with more wealth to spread around the Slovaks could decide its better to stay one country although the power of ethnocentrism to be stupid can't be underestimated.

sloreck said:

Czechoslovakia in NATO would be unacceptable as there was a common border (however small) between the USSR & Czechoslovakia and this would mean NATO (US) troops right on the Russian border

Click to expand...

Turkey was in NATO and shared a border with the USSR, but the Soviets didn't go to war over it.

Slorek, the problem for Stalin is that once the Czechs defeat the Communists internally, he has lost all leverage in influencing Czech politics except for explicit threats.

Finland had a long border with the Soviets and were geographically isolated from any help. That small border with Norway and Sweden is not going to lead to sufficient help in case of invasion. Much of Finlandization had already occurred because of earlier treaties resulting from the ending of the Continuation War that obliged Finland to extensive cooperation with the Soviets.

The Czechs though will border NATO and can be immediately defended. They can join NATO quite easily and expect to be defended. Furthermore, the Czechs don't have treaty obligations with the Soviet Union like the Finns had which gave Stalin and the Soviets a legal framework for their coercion.

This is a very important point. Stalin always insisted on some sort of legal framework in justifying Soviet aggression. He was ruthless, but also a very cautious man who always wanted diplomatic cover for his actions.

Austria became neutral because that was the agreed price between superpowers for the Soviets to leave their occupation zone. The US does not need to negotiate with the Soviets to leave Czechoslovakia because the Red Army isn't there.

So if Stalin doesn't intervene in 1948, most likely the Czechs will move into the Western camp and join NATO at some point. They might even be a founding member. From a military point of view, Czechoslovakia might be indefensible from a Soviet offensive and thus potentially excluded from NATO, but given the legacy of the Munich Agreement, I think it would not be politically acceptable to the major Western powers to exclude the Czechoslovakians lest they be excused of a second appeasement.

If so, this greatly complicates international politics after the initial rebellions occur in Eastern Europe after Stalin dies. Having a NATO border with Hungary and Poland could very well change how the Soviets act in 1956.

The solution is simple: a Czechoslovakian Stalin Note, which is accepted. NATO bordering the USSR is a big no-no. This precedent might allow the Hungarians and Romanians to end up Finlandizes, too, if events there are similar to OTL.

Plumber, I have a hard time seeing that. Founding NATO member Norway had a border with the Soviet Union, yet there was no threat by Stalin. When Turkey joined in 1952 there was no threat by Stalin despite it having a border. So simply having a border was not a fireline.

If Stalin decides to accept Czechoslovakia defecting to the Western powers in 1948 by refusing to intervene, I have problem seeing it deciding to react later on when it has less opportunity. At least in 1948, an invasion could conceivably be done under cover of "restoring order" or possibly by invitation of PM Gottwald. A Czechoslovakia that has decisively turned away from the Soviet Union and reduced the Czech Communist Party to a small voting % knows the Red Army won't invade if it hasn't already.

I also think it is important to remember that in 1948 the future of Germany still loomed in everyone's mind. Czechoslovakia wasn't important - what happened with Germany did. The real life "Stalin Note" was between Stalin and the other occupying powers in Germany on coming to an agreement on the future of Germany. Again, it fits Stalin's preferred method of establishing legal and diplomatic acquiescence to his goals. I think a direct threat without any kind of cover of existing diplomatic agreement, or without the ability to compel the creation of such an agreement, Stalin won't do that.

I think Stalin would know if he wanted to do something it would have had to be in February 1948 during the parliamentary crisis, not afterwards. The boat would have already left at that point.

Blackfox5 said:

Slorek, the problem for Stalin is that once the Czechs defeat the Communists internally, he has lost all leverage in influencing Czech politics except for explicit threats.

Finland had a long border with the Soviets and were geographically isolated from any help. That small border with Norway and Sweden is not going to lead to sufficient help in case of invasion. Much of Finlandization had already occurred because of earlier treaties resulting from the ending of the Continuation War that obliged Finland to extensive cooperation with the Soviets.

The Czechs though will border NATO and can be immediately defended. They can join NATO quite easily and expect to be defended. Furthermore, the Czechs don't have treaty obligations with the Soviet Union like the Finns had which gave Stalin and the Soviets a legal framework for their coercion.

This is a very important point. Stalin always insisted on some sort of legal framework in justifying Soviet aggression. He was ruthless, but also a very cautious man who always wanted diplomatic cover for his actions.

Austria became neutral because that was the agreed price between superpowers for the Soviets to leave their occupation zone. The US does not need to negotiate with the Soviets to leave Czechoslovakia because the Red Army isn't there.

So if Stalin doesn't intervene in 1948, most likely the Czechs will move into the Western camp and join NATO at some point. They might even be a founding member. From a military point of view, Czechoslovakia might be indefensible from a Soviet offensive and thus potentially excluded from NATO, but given the legacy of the Munich Agreement, I think it would not be politically acceptable to the major Western powers to exclude the Czechoslovakians lest they be excused of a second appeasement.

If so, this greatly complicates international politics after the initial rebellions occur in Eastern Europe after Stalin dies. Having a NATO border with Hungary and Poland could very well change how the Soviets act in 1956.

Click to expand...

Would the Czechs want to join a military alliance which would be forced to write them off (at least at first) in the event of an actual war? I mean, they'll be surrounded on three sides by Warsaw pact countries, which isn't a very comfortable position for a NATO country.

I think its more likely that, if the Czech Coup was thwarted and Stalin choose not to intervene, that the Czechs would probably want to be neutral, at least officially. They'll be a capitalist democracy of course, and probably have good relations with most of the Western bloc, but they'd probably avoid overly pissing off the Soviets as well. Sort of like Austria.

warsfan said:

Would the Czechs want to join a military alliance which would be forced to write them off (at least at first) in the event of an actual war? I mean, they'll be surrounded on three sides by Warsaw pact countries, which isn't a very comfortable position for a NATO country.

Click to expand...

If the U.S., Britain, and France agree to deploy troops there, even if only token "tripwire" forces, that's still a substantial degree of protection. It means that the USSR cannot attack them without going to war with those other major powers.

It dramatically raises the cost to the USSR of such actions.

True, if the USSR launches a general war in Europe against NATO, Czechoslovakia will fall. But if the USSR does that, neutral Czechoslovakia is very likely to be conquered by the Soviets anyway - if not during the war then after it.

It's a very good question whether the Czechoslovakians would see value in joining NATO. However, given the scenario I can't imagine that the Czechoslovakians would believe neutrality would protect them better than being part of a Western military alliance.

At that point they know Stalin is predatory. The Czechoslovakians were bending over backwards to accomodate Stalin - and the result was a near takeover of the country (IOTL, the takeover actually happened of course). So if active cooperation with Stalin didn't protect them, why would neutrality? Only guarantees from the West would matter in this case.

Besides, in the event of a war with the Western powers, all the neutral powers knew that a NATO victory was the only way they'd keep their independence.

Austria didn't choose neutrality. It had that choosen for them as the price the Soviets demanded to end the occupation. And there was much discussion between NATO and Austria on including it in the defense of Europe in the event of a Soviet attack.

Finland was a similar circumstance except that its proximity to the Soviet Union and distance from NATO allies precluded any chance of open cooperation. Existing treaties dating from the end of the Continuation War prevented that entirely.

Sweden was officially neutral, but actually had all sorts of secret deals with NATO that probably would have seen Sweden become a belligerant in the event of an actual Warsaw Pact invasion.

Even Yugoslavia - after the Tito-Stalin split - cooperated with NATO even though it was Communist and officially "non-aligned". Yugoslavia accepted Marshall Plan aid and even discussed joining NATO, although eventually that fell through. Instead, Yugolsavia signed the Balkan Pact with NATO members Greece and Yugoslavia which linked Yugoslavia to the defense of NATO in case of a Soviet invasion. Tito even gave assurances to the US and Britain that Yugoslavia would fight by NATO even if Yugoslavia itself was not directly threatened. After Stalin died, this open cooperation was reduced, presumably because with Stalin dead, Tito felt less threatened. But it never was repudicated, and presumably in response to Soviet aggression, Yugoslavia could very well reopen that.

The Czechs would know that in event of a war between the Western powers and the Soviet Union, that neutrality would not save them. Having some kind of guarantee would be best way to avoid Stalin's predations. Some sort of defense association would be preferred, and without the limits imposed on Austria and Finland because of Soviet treaties, or the unique status of Yugoslavia, I don't see why Czechoslovakia wouldn't join at first opportunity.

I think that cCzechoslovakia joins NATO. I also think that in a democratic Czechoslavkia, the Slovaks vote to leave. Today there would be large US military bases in the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

warsfan said:

Would the Czechs want to join a military alliance which would be forced to write them off (at least at first) in the event of an actual war? I mean, they'll be surrounded on three sides by Warsaw pact countries, which isn't a very comfortable position for a NATO country.

I think its more likely that, if the Czech Coup was thwarted and Stalin choose not to intervene, that the Czechs would probably want to be neutral, at least officially. They'll be a capitalist democracy of course, and probably have good relations with most of the Western bloc, but they'd probably avoid overly pissing off the Soviets as well. Sort of like Austria.

Click to expand...

This, I can see, at least initially, the Czechoslovakians being very keen on becoming strictly neutral. Not only is it a geopolitical danger (if a war lasts long enough for conventional fighting, a NATO Czechoslovakia is buggered, possibly in days), but the leading politicians in Prague were quite happy in 1948 to work with the Soviets, partly not to anger them but there was still some residual gratitude for liberation.

Sorry to advertise but I wrote a TL about this...