What could be different?
Nothing; US forces pull back to the already-agreed demarcation lines. Few more US casualties that's all.
Didn't the Soviets initially occupy Prague in 1945, then pull out a few months later? Perhaps they decide to maintain a presence in Slovakia and only withdraw from Bohemia-Moravia. Slovakia becomes a "popular democracy" and Czechia is committed to neutrality, like Austria, but still maintains close ties with the West.
The more I look at 1945-1948 Czechoslovakia the more it seems to me that Stalin's original intention was to "finlandize" it. Czech were very friendly toward USSR in that time, but too aggressive American attempt to buy their loyalty lead to Stalin's decision to secure his "property rights" by installing puppet commie regime instead of democratic allies.True. And the fact that the new Czech government will in all likelihood not be openly hostile to Moscow (in fact, the Czech governments of 1945-48 were very pro-Soviet and declined Marshall aid at Moscow's behest), means that the Czechs will be rather more comfortable as neutrals than Austria.
The more I look at 1945-1948 Czechoslovakia the more it seems to me that Stalin's original intention was to "finlandize" it. Czech were very friendly toward USSR in that time, but too aggressive American attempt to buy their loyalty lead to Stalin's decision to secure his "property rights" by installing puppet commie regime instead of democratic allies.
You do understand that modern assessment of those events is extremely influenced by modern events, as well as by memories of 1968, don't you? Slovaks and Czech are on crusade today to prove to everyone they were no less oppressed than Poles and never been Russophiles (mortal sin in today's political life). But cold hard fact is that Czechoslovakia was the only country of Eastern Europe where Stalin allowed free elections and democratic regime for years. Neither Poland nor Hungary nor Romania or Bulgaria enjoyed such luxury.Bright day
This is quite the opposite of what many Czech and Slovak historians think. They believe the Košice goverment and the first afterwar goverment were merely convinient for expedient for Moscow. The communists spend those years on force controling police and army and setting up their own independen structers, complete with People's Courts and other stuff. Looking back at the period, one can say that the communist party of Czechoslovakia never negotiated in good faith.
You do understand that modern assessment of those events is extremely influenced by modern events, as well as by memories of 1968, don't you? Slovaks and Czech are on crusade today to prove to everyone they were no less oppressed than Poles and never been Russophiles (mortal sin in today's political life). But cold hard fact is that Czechoslovakia was the only country of Eastern Europe where Stalin allowed free elections and democratic regime for years. Neither Poland nor Hungary nor Romania or Bulgaria enjoyed such luxury.
So, what's more likely for a non-Soviet occupied Czech Republic? Finlandization and neutrality, or joining NATO? And are there any specific political developments one ought to expect?
-- as in Italy.
So, what's more likely for a non-Soviet occupied Czech Republic? Finlandization and neutrality, or joining NATO? And are there any specific political developments one ought to expect?
By "major", I mean that they won a large percentage of the national vote, nothing more. In any case, I expect that no matter how well they performed, the Communists would probably be excluded from government in Western-oriented Czechia as well.The Communists in Italy weren't a major player.