Czechoslovakia formed without the Sudetenland

As it says on the tin, what would have been the effect on history if the german speaking majority lands had not been made part of Czechoslovakia in the first place? Let's see if I can just post a link to the image, or whether I need to upload one to do that.

Here:
SfesJyIl.png

There we go. So, we see the boarders marked, and my question is, why in the world were the majority german lands not part of Germany, but rather made part of the Czechoslovakian nation?

Here is another image, with a bit more specific information:
4RYzmmll.png

Here we can more clearly see the areas that really shouldn't have been part of Czechoslovakia in the first place. The pink, sure, that's just a minority of the population, the red, that's really not a good idea, and the Dark Red, that's just crazy!

So, let us say that Czechoslovakia is created, but without the red/dark red areas. What effect would this have on history from 1918 on?
 
Last edited:
why in the world were the majority german lands not part of Germany, but rather made part of the Czechoslovakian nation?
...

So, let us say that Czechoslovakia is created, but without the red/dark red areas. What effect would this have on history from 1918 on?

Without the Sudeten mountains Czechoslovakia would have no natural defensive barrier, and would therefore extremely vulnerable to a German attack. Given that one of the purposes of the post-WWI treaties was to permanently cripple the former Central Powers, surrounding them with those sorts of easy pickings would have been monumentally stupid. Besides, the Sudetenland had never been part of the German Empire, so gaining it having lost the war they started would have been seen as rewarding that behaviour.

This is also why WWII didn't start in March 1939 - there would have been no point in trying to defend the defenceless rump of the Czech state, whereas Poland was expected to be able to hold off the Germans long enough for the UK and France to mobilise and open the western front.
 
The Austrian successor state actually did claim the Sudetenland and the other German parts of Bohemia, but they didn't control it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_German-Austria

You would have to have the Entente basically agree to screw over the Czechs (their loyal allies) in support of defeated enemy nationals that were pushing hard for union with Germany. If the rump Austria from otl is vulnerable to incorporation into Germany, the republic set up with those borders would be even more so. German-Austria with the Sudetenland would essentially be indefensible without massive German support, turning the nation into a de facto, if not de jure, member state of the Reich, and this is before Hitler even comes around.
 
Hitler was a nobody in 1919, and it's not like the decision-makers at the time had played through the game before and were now at an earlier save, and thus knew what was bound to happen.

Weimar Germany had military restriction imposed upon them that meant the Czechs could have easily beat them 1v1, given that the latter had no such restrictions and could field whatever army they could afford.

In order to get a Sudetenland-less Czechoslovakia, IMO you would need to have the Entente decide to support Austria at the expense of Germany, perhaps as a result of a successful Sixtus Affair, i.e. allow Austria to keep the Sudetenland, and give them Bavaria, and maybe throw in bits of Silezia (Austrian territory not that long ago) as well.
upload_2017-10-15_18-19-4.png
 
Hitler was a nobody in 1919, and it's not like the decision-makers at the time had played through the game before and were now at an earlier save, and thus knew what was bound to happen.

Weimar Germany had military restriction imposed upon them that meant the Czechs could have easily beat them 1v1, given that the latter had no such restrictions and could field whatever army they could afford.

In order to get a Sudetenland-less Czechoslovakia, IMO you would need to have the Entente decide to support Austria at the expense of Germany, perhaps as a result of a successful Sixtus Affair, i.e. allow Austria to keep the Sudetenland, and give them Bavaria, and maybe throw in bits of Silezia (Austrian territory not that long ago) as well.
View attachment 349292
That effectively neuters Hitler's rise and German aggression by creating a possible stronger ally for the Little Entente. Nice!
 
There we go. So, we see the boarders marked, and my question is, why in the world were the majority german lands not part of Germany, but rather made part of the Czechoslovakian nation?

Because they had been part of historic Bohemia, because without them Czechoslovakia was strategically indefensible, and because the Allies wanted to weaken Germany in case of another war, and were certainly not about to let it actually gain territory. And they weren't about to let Austria keep it, either--after all, Austria was from the Allied point of view at least as guilty of the War as Germany, and in any event, a future Anschluss, though forbidden by the peace treaties, could not be guaranteed to never happen--just as it could not be assumed that the disarmament of Germany would last forever. Austria, after all, was also deprived of the South Tyrol, including its German-speaking parts--once again, the strategic interests of the winners prevailed over self-determination.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Because they had been part of historic Bohemia, because without them Czechoslovakia was strategically indefensible, and because the Allies wanted to weaken Germany in case of another war, and were certainly not about to let it actually gain territory. And they weren't about to let Austria keep it, either--after all, Austria was from the Allied point of view at least as guilty of the War as Germany, and in any event, a future Anschluss, though forbidden by the peace treaties, could not be guaranteed to never happen--just as it could not be assumed that the disarmament of Germany would last forever. Austria, after all, was also deprived of the South Tyrol, including its German-speaking parts--once again, the strategic interests of the winners prevailed over self-determination.
In addition to all of your points here, I would like to point out that the economy of the Sudetenland appears to have been closely linked to the economy of the rest of Bohemia; indeed, this is the impression that I get from reading this 1939 article:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/czech-republic/1939-01-01/czechs-and-germans-after-munich
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Without the Sudeten mountains Czechoslovakia would have no natural defensive barrier, and would therefore extremely vulnerable to a German attack. Given that one of the purposes of the post-WWI treaties was to permanently cripple the former Central Powers, surrounding them with those sorts of easy pickings would have been monumentally stupid. Besides, the Sudetenland had never been part of the German Empire, so gaining it having lost the war they started would have been seen as rewarding that behaviour.

Interestingly enough, though, a non-Nazi German leadership probably wouldn't have been interested in attacking rump Czechoslovakia in this TL.

This is also why WWII didn't start in March 1939 - there would have been no point in trying to defend the defenceless rump of the Czech state, whereas Poland was expected to be able to hold off the Germans long enough for the UK and France to mobilise and open the western front.

If this was genuinely Britain's and France's mentality, then they appear to have been very stupid. After all, based on their actual behavior in the West in 1939-1940, it would appear that they would have expected Poland to hold out on its own indefinitely! :(
 
So some people are toying with the idea of letting Austria keep the Sudetenland (while, as per the premise, there is a Czechoslovak state). I'd like to ask you all: how? After all, that would result in a nation that is roughly shaped like this (with slightly straightened out borders, made contiguous):

uzemni_naroky_rakouska_1918.jpg


Even if we remove the enclaves and make the yellow bit contiguous with the brown bit, that nightmare border would hit #1-#2 of every "top 10 insane borders" video on Youtube, assuming Youtube is invented before the political borders change for good. That's unworkable.

Now, in the chaos of the post-WWI Central Powers successors, there were certain places where nationalist movements tried to stage popular uprisings to join another state in spite of the treaties that were dictated by the Entente. For example, in the white east Austrian territory you see above, today known as the Burgenland, a Hungarian paramilitary organization briefly established a breakaway "state" known as the Banat of Leitha, with the intent of annexing this land to Hungary in spite of the Trianon treaty. If, somehow, German nationalist sentiment could be ignited in late 1918-early 1919 in the Sudetenland, so that these nationalist paramilitaries then demand annexation to the German states (perhaps rising up while the Czechoslovak army is already fighting the Hungarian Soviet Republic), you could have a Sudetenland that's split between Austria and Germany. The Entente would have to be distracted to a greater extent than IOTL, of course. A more threatening general strike in France, coinciding with the Hungarian Soviet Republic's "glorious 133 days" could convince the French leadership that the communists are such a great threat that enforcing every clause of the peace treaties (which, actually, weren't all finalized by 1919) might not be so important - effectively, like with the Lausanne/Sévres treaties of Turkey, where enforcing the original treaty was simply too costly and thus a milder treaty was imposed instead. This'd leave a lesser Czechoslovakia and a slightly larger Germany and Austria. (The Entente might intervene to ensure that as much of the Sudetenland goes to Austria, not Germany, as possible.) This, I think, is the most plausible way to achieve this.

As for the effects? A weaker Czechoslovakia, obviously. Also, one that is more likely to be subservient to German economic interests down the line (being completely exposed to invasion does tend to make a nation more friendly to the potential invader). If the Germans can force economic cooperation from Czechoslovakia via subtle gunboat diplomacy, they might be able to get a headstart on their tank industry later on by buying blueprints from Skoda.
 
In order to get a Sudetenland-less Czechoslovakia, IMO you would need to have the Entente decide to support Austria at the expense of Germany, perhaps as a result of a successful Sixtus Affair, i.e. allow Austria to keep the Sudetenland, and give them Bavaria, and maybe throw in bits of Silezia (Austrian territory not that long ago) as well.
View attachment 349292
I know France was worried about Germany having more manpower even after the peace treaty and at one point considered attaching Bavaria to Austria. France might go for this.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
As for the effects? A weaker Czechoslovakia, obviously. Also, one that is more likely to be subservient to German economic interests down the line (being completely exposed to invasion does tend to make a nation more friendly to the potential invader). If the Germans can force economic cooperation from Czechoslovakia via subtle gunboat diplomacy, they might be able to get a headstart on their tank industry later on by buying blueprints from Skoda.
For what it's worth, though, threatening one's neighbors with invasion isn't going to help with your chances of settling other territorial disputes in your favor. Indeed, Germany wanted to acquire Danzig and the Polish Corridor--something which other Great Powers might be more resistant to if you have previously threatened Czechoslovakia with invasion.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
because without them Czechoslovakia was strategically indefensible

The thing was it was knowable and known that Czechoslovakia was going to be a much weaker country than Germany without the Sudetenland or *with* the Sudetenland.

The main strategic defense of Czechoslovakia was in fact its western allies, not its local mountains.

But possession of the Sudetenland, and the sizeable German population living there, weakened British and French *political* commitment to strategically protect Czechoslovakia.

Czech independence in a truly dog-eat-dog Central Europe was going to be just a bluff regardless.

because the Allies wanted to weaken Germany in case of another war

Yet it did not weaken Germany in the long run. Instead, by muddying the waters with a self-determination issue, it allowed Germany two consecutive bloodless victories and weakened WAllied credibility all at the same time.

Addressing the OP:


There's a couple alternatives to the crazy map in post #9:
1) Austria gets the adjacent, southern portion of German-speaking Bohemia, Czechoslovakia gets the enclaves, Germany gets only the northern half of Sudetenland adjacent to Bavaria, Saxony and Silesia. True, Germany gains some territory, but the Allies can console themselves that Germany was still a *net* loser of territory in the wartime settlement.
2) Austria gets the adjacent, southern portion of German-speaking Bohemia, Czechoslovakia gets the enclaves, and the northern half of Sudetenland becomes a micro-mini-state. Yes, it is a long, skinny strip, but the land area is still greater than Luxemburg, Andorra and Lichtenstein. Also, certainly more than the Free City of Danzig, in fact maybe it could be called the "Freistaat Bohmen-Mahren-Schliesen".
3) Or, to make the new state bulkier and more compact, the Entente could detach Silesia from Germany and add it to the "Freistaat Bohmen-Mahren-Schliesen" in the treaty.
 
Last edited:
The thing was it was knowable and known that Czechoslovakia was going to be a much weaker country than Germany without the Sudetenland or *with* the Sudetenland.

The main strategic defense of Czechoslovakia was in fact its western allies, not its local mountains.

It's not a matter of either-or. Just the prospect that Czechoslovakia might hold off the Germans for some time would be an advantage for the British and French in a future war with Germany. In the end, of course, they decided not to go to war in 1938, even with this advantage--but there is no reason to think they would be any more likely to do so in defense of a smaller Czechoslovakia (as indeed they did not go to war in March 1939 in OTL).
 

CaliGuy

Banned
It's not a matter of either-or. Just the prospect that Czechoslovakia might hold off the Germans for some time would be an advantage for the British and French in a future war with Germany. In the end, of course, they decided not to go to war in 1938, even with this advantage--but there is no reason to think they would be any more likely to do so in defense of a smaller Czechoslovakia (as indeed they did not go to war in March 1939 in OTL).
Out of curiosity--why exactly didn't Britain and France go to war in defense of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 in our TL?
 
Here we can more clearly see the areas that really shouldn't have been part of Czechoslovakia in the first place.
The "Sudetenland" (I may be mistaken, but I believe this is mostly if not strictly a post-WWI term) had been part of the Bohemian Kingdom for centuries. I believe that most of the Germans there were descended from settlers who had been invited by the Bohemian crown to colonize the region. As others have pointed out, Bohemia-Moravia are largely indefensible against Austria/Germany without those mountain ranges. That's not to say that I don't think the people living there were undeserving of some sort of autonomy or political protection, though.
 
So some people are toying with the idea of letting Austria keep the Sudetenland (while, as per the premise, there is a Czechoslovak state). I'd like to ask you all: how? After all, that would result in a nation that is roughly shaped like this (with slightly straightened out borders, made contiguous):

uzemni_naroky_rakouska_1918.jpg


Even if we remove the enclaves and make the yellow bit contiguous with the brown bit, that nightmare border would hit #1-#2 of every "top 10 insane borders" video on Youtube, assuming Youtube is invented before the political borders change for good. That's unworkable.

Now, in the chaos of the post-WWI Central Powers successors, there were certain places where nationalist movements tried to stage popular uprisings to join another state in spite of the treaties that were dictated by the Entente. For example, in the white east Austrian territory you see above, today known as the Burgenland, a Hungarian paramilitary organization briefly established a breakaway "state" known as the Banat of Leitha, with the intent of annexing this land to Hungary in spite of the Trianon treaty. If, somehow, German nationalist sentiment could be ignited in late 1918-early 1919 in the Sudetenland, so that these nationalist paramilitaries then demand annexation to the German states (perhaps rising up while the Czechoslovak army is already fighting the Hungarian Soviet Republic), you could have a Sudetenland that's split between Austria and Germany. The Entente would have to be distracted to a greater extent than IOTL, of course. A more threatening general strike in France, coinciding with the Hungarian Soviet Republic's "glorious 133 days" could convince the French leadership that the communists are such a great threat that enforcing every clause of the peace treaties (which, actually, weren't all finalized by 1919) might not be so important - effectively, like with the Lausanne/Sévres treaties of Turkey, where enforcing the original treaty was simply too costly and thus a milder treaty was imposed instead. This'd leave a lesser Czechoslovakia and a slightly larger Germany and Austria. (The Entente might intervene to ensure that as much of the Sudetenland goes to Austria, not Germany, as possible.) This, I think, is the most plausible way to achieve this.

As for the effects? A weaker Czechoslovakia, obviously. Also, one that is more likely to be subservient to German economic interests down the line (being completely exposed to invasion does tend to make a nation more friendly to the potential invader). If the Germans can force economic cooperation from Czechoslovakia via subtle gunboat diplomacy, they might be able to get a headstart on their tank industry later on by buying blueprints from Skoda.

Germany getting German Bohemia and Sudetenland leaves Austria with a good border.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The "Sudetenland" (I may be mistaken, but I believe this is mostly if not strictly a post-WWI term) had been part of the Bohemian Kingdom for centuries. I believe that most of the Germans there were descended from settlers who had been invited by the Bohemian crown to colonize the region. As others have pointed out, Bohemia-Moravia are largely indefensible against Austria/Germany without those mountain ranges. That's not to say that I don't think the people living there were undeserving of some sort of autonomy or political protection, though.
To be fair, though, a non-Nazi Germany might be interested in actually invading rump Czechoslovakia in this TL.
 
I could see two alternative courses the Allies could have taken, if they hadn't put so many chips on the Czech nationalists.

1. No Czechoslovakia at all. Slovakia still becomes independent, so Hungary is still screwed. Bohemia, Moravia and Austria Silesia remains part of Austria, which was IOTL really what was left over of "the lands represented in the Imperial Council" once Poland, Italy, and Yugoslavia got their cut.

2. While Slovakia is independent, Austria gets the German speaking parts immediately adjacent to IOTL Austria in the South, plus that German speaking enclave north of Olmutz (sp?), which is a detached enclave of Austria, the same as Luxembourg was attached to the Netherlands for much of the nineteenth century.

Now #2 is closer to IOTL, and results in a smaller Czechoslovakia and a bigger Austria. But in this scenario, Czechosolvakia keeps the Bohemian mountain ranges. The territory they do lose is to Austria, which is not a threat to them, instead of Germany, which is. The German population within Czechoslovakia is reduced enough that Hitler has less of an issue, though that probably won't make s difference. However, he winds up with the parts added to Austria anyway when he absorbs Austria.

However, #1 makes more of a difference and is probably what should have been done. With Bohemia and Moravia incorporated into postwar Austria, Austria is much bigger, economically more viable, and defensible and has more of an independent identity. And the Czechs make up a much better proportion of the Austrian population than they did in Hapsburg Austria and, though they woudn't get their own country, would still have a major say in how the Republic of Austria was run. The nationalists would have to be happy with that. This probably not only prevents the Sudetenland crisis, it probably prevents Hitler's annexation of Austria as well.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I could see two alternative courses the Allies could have taken, if they hadn't put so many chips on the Czech nationalists.

1. No Czechoslovakia at all. Slovakia still becomes independent, so Hungary is still screwed. Bohemia, Moravia and Austria Silesia remains part of Austria, which was IOTL really what was left over of "the lands represented in the Imperial Council" once Poland, Italy, and Yugoslavia got their cut.

Without Czechoslovakia, though, Slovakia likely becomes either a Polish or a Hungarian puppet state. Back then, Central European countries weren't as respectful of their neighbors as they were after 1991 in our TL.

2. While Slovakia is independent, Austria gets the German speaking parts immediately adjacent to IOTL Austria in the South, plus that German speaking enclave north of Olmutz (sp?), which is a detached enclave of Austria, the same as Luxembourg was attached to the Netherlands for much of the nineteenth century.

Now #2 is closer to IOTL, and results in a smaller Czechoslovakia and a bigger Austria. But in this scenario, Czechosolvakia keeps the Bohemian mountain ranges. The territory they do lose is to Austria, which is not a threat to them, instead of Germany, which is. The German population within Czechoslovakia is reduced enough that Hitler has less of an issue, though that probably won't make s difference. However, he winds up with the parts added to Austria anyway when he absorbs Austria.

However, #1 makes more of a difference and is probably what should have been done. With Bohemia and Moravia incorporated into postwar Austria, Austria is much bigger, economically more viable, and defensible and has more of an independent identity. And the Czechs make up a much better proportion of the Austrian population than they did in Hapsburg Austria and, though they woudn't get their own country, would still have a major say in how the Republic of Austria was run. The nationalists would have to be happy with that. This probably not only prevents the Sudetenland crisis, it probably prevents Hitler's annexation of Austria as well.

To be honest, I still see Hitler eventually annexing Austria (and thus annexing Czechia as well) in scenario #1. After all, Austria would have still been German-majority in such a scenario.
 
Top