Czech Corridor?

Minchandre, thank you, thank you oh so very much for reminding me why I like Central Powers victories so much.

[Actually, my enthusiasm for CP victories has waned over time. As of late, I REALLY like Napoleonic Victory scenarios like these... For the record, I am fairly confident that we would all have been a little better off had the Central Powers won the Great War, and MUCH better off had Napoleon emerged more successfully from his endeavors. The former had a relatively conservative vision for the world and the latter had a very liberal vision for the world, but it is hard to argue that either was worse than the machinations of Perfidious Albion. Of course, this is all a tangential discussion, worth debating, but I digress!]

Granted, neither Imperial Germany nor the Austro-Hungarian Empire were perfect, but the fact that the Czech Corridor was ever a serious proposal at the Paris Peace Process strongly suggests that the wrong side won World War One. Nevermind that US President Woodrow Wilson was a hypocritical and racist shit stain who suffered from delusions of grandiosity, that the reasons for US entry in the European Great War were dishonest, such as the Lusitania false flag incident [I do not deny that a German torpedo struck the ship, but the torpedo was not by itself the cause of the sinking. It detonated an explosive cargo of armaments concealed from the public. In fact, unexploded ordnance in the form of rifle ammunition was recovered from the wreckage, as well as evidence that the explosion was internal, the hull was punctured outward! In fact, the German government attempted to post print ads warning Americans against boarding the ship, but the Lusitania was part of a false flag campaign in which "civilian" ships that were armed and/or covertly shipping weapons and/or ammunitions were sent into hazardous waters.] or the distorted Zimmerman note [originally a contingency plan in the event that the US enters the war, which should have been read as an ultimatum, not an unconditional attack plan to be read as a threat], or that US involvement was unprecedented [When was the last time the United States fought in an internal European war?], or the fact that the Entente Powers were (indirectly) fighting on the side of terrorism. [ADDENDUM: The genuine reason behind the Zimmerman Note is debatable but entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Of course, it was probably reasonable to dismiss it as a hoax at the time, even though it did turn out to be genuine. Regardless it certainly was not intended as an ultimatum to the USA as it was a secret communication to Mexico after all. The point is that Wilson dishonestly presented it as an unconditional plan to ally with Mexico for an attack rather than a proposal for an alliance in the event that the US joins the Entente powers. This was, of course, an extremely desperate move on the part of the German government, a sign that they were grasping at straws, perhaps tempted to capitulate. I happen to think that absent US involvement, the Central Powers would almost certainly win but it would be a Pyrrhic victory. Remember that the Zimmerman Note was sent AFTER Wilson severed diplomatic ties with the Germans. Wilson's sound byte version or "Cliff Notes" presentation of the Zimmerman Telegram was far from the only dishonesty on the part of his administration in dragging a neutral nation into a European War. There was that whole false flag campaign. Don't forget that the US history textbooks make sure to emphasize the "barbarity" of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, but always neglect to mention the British blockade that not only starved ethnic Germans, but also Poles, Hungarians, and others.]

Nevermind the unintended/unforeseen consequences of the War and the Peace which would plague the world for decades after, namely a global depression, a Bolshevik revolution in Russia, and a sequel war eclipsing the prior in terms of destruction by any measure.

Just consider the fact that there were serious proposals to make Burgenland a "Czech corridor" between Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. WHY?!? :confused:

This proves how out of touch with reality at least some of the representatives of the victorious powers were. To be fair, they eventually vetoed the idea, it was just too transparently ridiculous, but the fact that it was even seriously considered says something.

Did anyone seriously entertain the possibility of some future pan-Slavist state (with Hungary and Romania together forming a Gambia-like coastal enclave) forming up? The idea of national self-determination is a fundamentally good idea, at least on paper and in principle if not always in practice. But other than fulfilling the pipe dreams of the most radical pan-Slavists, I can not fathom the justification for creating such a "Czech corridor."

@ OP: I may be mistaken, but I thought Burgenland (the proposed "Czech corridor") was majority-German. IIRC, Burgenland was an ethnically German Hapsburg territory outside of the bounds of the Holy Roman Empire until the HRE was disbanded, and it remained outside of the German Confederation, becoming part of the Kingdom of Hungary upon creation of the dual monarchy. Hungarian territory but majority-ethnic German. Burgenland was then added to the Republik Osterreich (modern Austria) as a concession. But I may be wrong about ethnic composition...

Of course, I hate to pick nits, but I found your usage of the term "personal union" ironic. That would be impossible by definition because the Paris Peace Process established both Germany and the nations carved out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire as republics, and a personal union between two states requires that at least one of them is some form of monarchy. (Could be two monarchies like Poland-Lithuania, or one monarchy with the other state being a "dominion." Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and some tiny island nations such as the Bahamas are theoretically part of the United Kingdom by virtue of "Commonwealth" status, even though they are de facto sovereign independent states, governed in a republican fashion.) But I do not think the Czech Corridor was ever proposed to prevent reunification of Austria and Hungary. If anything, the victors feared an Anchluss between Austria and Germany.

And how was such a pan-Slavist superstate supposed to even work? Considering how miserably Yugoslavia failed, and that was a nation that spoke basically the same language (maybe not the exact same language, but Bosnian, Croat, Serb, and Slovene dialects were not unintelligible), over the issue of religion, how exactly would a superstate speaking 5-7 distinct Slavonic languages, and having so much religious and sectarian division (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Uniate, Muslim) possibly have a chance?

[ADDENDUM: Well, thank you Admiral Matt for explaining the strategical justification for this Czech Corridor though Burgenland. Deprive Austria of an ethnically German territory that just so happens to be good quality productive farmland, provide a "highway" between Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia... but what's to say that pan-Slavism was not part of it? In a way, the First World War was a sort of pan-Slavist conspiracy after all, though there was of course much more to it: naval arms race between Britain and Germany (and British fears of rising German economic and political prowess), competition over colonies and hegemony... Whatever stategic considerations beyond making a geographically contiguous pan-Slavic bloc, it is nevertheless telling that the victors scrapped the proposal.]
 
Last edited:
And how was such a pan-Slavist superstate supposed to even work? Considering how miserably Yugoslavia failed, and that was a nation that spoke basically the same language (maybe not the exact same language, but Bosnian, Croat, Serb, and Slovene dialects were not unintelligible), over the issue of religion, how exactly would a superstate speaking 5-7 distinct Slavonic languages, and having so much religious and sectarian division (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Uniate, Muslim) possibly have a chance?

Uhm.... Do you think we're talking about merging Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia? It kind of sounds like you think that's what we're talking about. It's not. The Czech corridor would have been precisely that, and was only intended to connect the circle of "trustworthy" nations around Hungary.

In the end, however badly Versailles did fail, you have to look at the situation after the Entente victory had happened. Would the corridor really make the post-war system that much weaker? To start with, one of the critical points in the rise of Germany to the point where it could compete in the war was the collapse of the Balkan Entente. Once that occurred, German dominance of the Balkans was essentially unavoidable, and the large war became possible. Once the war was won and the damage done, anything that could have prevented OTL's outcome certainly seems preferable.

More broadly, this means making Austria less independent, as the Burgenland was granted them as a way to feed Vienna in-country. This means that Austria will quickly get much closer to the source of the grain feeding Vienna. That's likely to Italy or the Balkan Entente initially, but it would be fairly easy for Germany to take over the trade come the 1920s. It makes Hungary's revanchist claims stronger, yes. But since they were already tremendous and it's now lost valuable farmland to the encircling alliance, I'm not clear how it matters in the short run. This also makes Czechoslovakia more precarious, even ignoring possible German nationalists. My guess is that by the 1960s at the latest the Slovaks are sick of being politically dominated, the Czechs sick of paying taxes so Slovakia will stay, the other minorities want out, and the whole thing goes to pieces anyway.

Assuming, of course, no ruinous events like we saw in OTL.
 
Last edited:
Poor Hungary. As if Trianon wasn't harsh enough.
Well Trianon could be little bit less harsh but then what you can do? Ethnic borders there were so messed up. For example few 100 000 Slovaks stayed in Hungary after Trianon. How much is left now? ;)
 
The Zimmerman Telegram was not intended as an ultimatum to the United States by Germany so there is nothing distorted in it being presented as both a threat and as an insult, given that an effort was made to organize an alliance aimed against the United States using a method of communications provided to Germany by the United States in violation of international law in the hopes of promoting peace talks.


It was also exceptionally stupid as there was no guarantee unrestricted submarine warfare would bring the US into the war but that announcement meant it was obviously the ideal time to not offer further provocation to the US.
 
Top