Poland and Czechoslovakia stand together against the Nazis

[Melior]

I will give You and example. Revolution in 1848 in Bohemia: It was a political and yes a national issue, but Bohemians were fighting for their rights to be a equal nation INSIDE the monarchy. They never questioned the rule of Emperor, and they petitioned him as their sovereign. The issue was a constitution that would respect nationalities within the Empire and would make up a Empire which was based on federalization.

 

[seraphim74]

HELLO!
Could we get back to the topic, please?

 

[Kabraloth]

Kabraloth, it was the Prussians who betrayed the Kaiser in 1918, threw out their oaths to him, and then not only convinced the Germans people but themselves that the German officers had been the victims of the 'stab in the back' or Dolchstoss, at a time when the German military's power in society was as close to supreme as can be imagined.

That's actually two seperate issues:
1) Telling Wilhelm that the war was lost was not imo a betrayal. What should they have done? Waited around until they were captured, all the while saying that it looked good?
2) The real betrayal was when Moltke lied to Wilhelm in 1914 about not being able to cancel the Schlieffen plan.
3) Agree about the Dolchstoß. That was just disgusting and turned into a catastrophe.

So Beck couldn't convince the senior officers to repeat in 1938 exactly what went on in 1918 without benefit of an actual disastrous war?

Telling Hitler that war was folly? He had been doing exactly that for a while.

Or the officers understood exactly where their standing would be once they had provided a pattern of German officers as Latin American junta in the making?

That's possible. I still want to know what you would have them do: coup or no coup?

Of course, the fact that Beck had already been proven wrong and Hitler correct on several issues didn't help. Another rewrite of history is how Hitler was constantly blundering when the reality is that from 1933 to 1941 he was generally more accurate than the Wehrmacht officer corps en masse.

Just be grateful he couldn't warm to Manstein.

Yes, the blundering was a post-war lie.
That sounds more like you understand why Beck's contemporaries were not willing to coup without an obvious catastrophe, though. I don't understand your position: on the one hand you blame the staff and the generals for not couping, then point out their reasons and say that by couping they would have become a junta and they did not want to do that?

Do I need more coffee?

 

[Max Sinister]

Either he was luckier or accurate... I'd say the first, cause accurate and well minded person would realize the situations later and wouldn't ordered disastrous "no falling back" in 42 -44 years.

I agree. He gambled in situations where more saner men would've said "no, too risky". At the beginning he was lucky. And BTW, during the fight in France he often ordered halts (most famous: Dunkirk), but some panzer commanders still advanced. Since they were successful, he had no problem with that, and even claimed the blitzkrieg in France was successful thanks to him.

It's true that Hitler's orders to stand firm in '41 winter saved the Wehrmacht

It did? The Wehrmacht still lost one quarter of their men (dead, wounded, missing) until spring 42. Brauchitsch had suggested a retreat into better defendable positions, but was sacked.

 

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

For one thing, many have wept for the fall of Austria-Hungary. It was not the perfect one, but a good option IF IT COULD transform into multinational federation. You may cry about being a prison of nations, and yet most of population was happy until the WWI, and THEN the distress was caused by the war, not primarily by the existence of Empire.

On the other hand, multinational or national empires, make no difference. Wars are being waged by both of them, and in greater meaning, war WOULD come anyway. There were just too many small and great wrongdoings on all sides.

Calgacus & HurganPL: Idea of national state comes with the French revolution earliest. Until then, it wasn't national or multinational states. Yes people identified with groups, but unlike today, it was more ethnic. Just two examples: in Middle ages, many times a country or land changed rulers often. But people's loyalities were not to the "nation" nor country, rather they were to their respective Lord, and the nobility was loyal either to itself or the ruling House. Uprisings of common people then, were not motivated by national ideas, but a desire for better life.

Another example: Roman empire (I'm talking about early Empire). It consisted of many ethnic groups ( I use the term ethnic rather than nations, as the very term of nation was not used then). Romans called themselves "people of Rome". Social and political status was different not by nationality, rather by birth, or wealth, or freedom. Slaves could work to their freedom, barbarian mercenaries or cities and groups could gain the status of Roman Citizen. Roman Empire was multi-ethnic, multi-religion, multi-whatever-you-like, but NOT a multinational.

And I can give you an idea of multinational state going to hell... Yugoslavia. Before WW2, large dominated by Serbs, after then, national problems were mostly held under carpet by Tito and Communist party. Once Tito gone, the problems started to reappear again, and after not more than 10 years not even communist party was united. What followed we all know. Another round of Balcan wars.

The Key with Tito was Half The People Loved him and Half The People Feared him with All of them Holding him in The Highest Possible Respect, Kinda Hard to Forge Credentials Like that ...

As for The OP, The Czechs and The Poles Would Have Made for Natural Allies ...

If they Hadn't Wanted to KILL Each Other Instead!

 

[Melior]

I agree. He gambled in situations where more saner men would've said "no, too risky". At the beginning he was lucky. And BTW, during the fight in France he often ordered halts (most famous: Dunkirk), but some panzer commanders still advanced. Since they were successful, he had no problem with that, and even claimed the blitzkrieg in France was successful thanks to him.

Yes that's true. Most of panzer commanders that time advance under cover of "fighting reconnaissance", and advancing more at Dunkerque perimeter was better option. Gambler isn't lucky always

It did? The Wehrmacht still lost one quarter of their men (dead, wounded, missing) until spring 42. Brauchitsch had suggested a retreat into better defendable positions, but was sacked.

Hmm i reckon, thats questionable. But in this matter, it's mostly that retreat on large scale would still do large damage (think of Napoleon), and this way it kept some morale and most positions (not all though) intact. During retreat, they would still lose these, including more equipment, and men who had to be left behind.

 

[Melior]

The Key with Tito was Half The People Loved him and Half The People Feared him with All of them Holding him in The Highest Possible Respect, Kinda Hard to Forge Credentials Like that ...

As for The OP, The Czechs and The Poles Would Have Made for Natural Allies ...

If they Hadn't Wanted to KILL Each Other Instead!

Yes that's it Him is to give credit to holding the Yugoslavia for so long. I was just pointing out that not everytime a multinational state will be option. Problems in Balcans go through history to Roman rule, and it would take more than four generations of wise and enlightened education to get rid of these anticipations. Not likely to see it near future.

EDIT: as to Polish-Czech relations, they were not settled until end of Fifties... And even after that, Poland didn't get much credit, for example it took part in 1968 invasion and occupation of Czechoslovakia.

 

[Otis Tarda]

And even after that, Poland didn't get much credit, for example it took part in 1968 invasion and occupation of Czechoslovakia.

Awwww... could you be so nice and notice, that Polish government in 68' was neither Polish nor democratic?

As for initial question: interesting possibility, probably the last chance for Poland to avoid war. Czech-Polish aliance could have chance, not to win, but rather to stop Hitler from agression.

But: 1) due to tensions between Poland and Czechoslovaka it was almost impossible to create such an alliance.
2) Hitler could just wait, not attack Czechoslovakia (intimidating it instead), and after war with Poland in 39' attack it just as he attacked Yugoslavia.