Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

With the imminent release of Dunkirk at cinemas this Friday

I've been re-visiting the early war for Bolt Action and FOW

Part of that involved looking at the pre-war history: appeasement, Munich etc etc

Having revisited the Munich crisis, I'd forgotten all about the Czechs and the role they could have played.

So, what does dakka think? If the Munich crisis had led to war in 1938, could the Czechs have held out against Germany?

Factors in their favour:

1. Strong border fortifications

2. A well equipped army trained by the French.

3. Good tanks that the Germans used themselves in the early part of WW2

4. Possible hep from Britain and France

Factors against the Czechs:

1. German army bigger than the Czech army

2. Two pronged attack from Germany and Austria could hinder them a la invasion of Poland

3. Sudeten Germans acting as a 5th column and sabotaging the Czech war effort

4. Britain and France reluctant to go to war for "far away people of whom we know nothing "

Stopped? No.
Delayed? Yes.

If the UK and France hadn't stabbed them in the back, the war could've gone very differently.

I'm voting No, but I'll put my reasons why.

While your points in favour are very good, there is a lot more behind the scenes that made German progress (and eventual conquering) of Czechoslovakia.

While you are correct that Czechoslovakian army was well equipped with great tanks, their command structure wasn't as good. Add in the German blitzkrieg tactics (which were revolutionary) and general inexperienced soldiers, Germany made huge gains. To put it into perspective, the Czech's in a desperate attempt to counter the Panzer II tanks used actual cavalry horsemen.

They were annihilated 300m+ from the tanks.

Secondly, while the Sudetan Germans might have done some sabotage, it was the VERY effective subterfuge campaign using the radio to report of Czech crimes, propaganda etc to rile them and some native Czechs into wanting to reconnect with Germany.

Lastly, I doubt Britain would have helped. Britain was still weary after WW1, had economic troubles (mostly from Britain not getting money from Germany and loss of stock money to the Wall Street Crash ) and you see Britain in a situation where they don't want to go to war.

 MinscS2 wrote:
Stopped? No.
Delayed? Yes.

If the UK and France hadn't stabbed them in the back, the war could've gone very differently.

Britain and France expressed surprised at the speed of which Poland was overrun, but unlike Poland, the Czech border region is quite mountainous, and dug in Czech would have been hard to shift.

Also, if you're familiar with the Poland campaign, then you'll know that German high command was dismayed at the lack of fighting spirit in some German formations, the high percentage of break downs and failure in tanks and vehicles, and the often poor coordination between units, especially between ground and air. Obviously, these were great lessons to draw upon for the attack on France, but I think the Czech army could have surprised the Germans in 1938.

Their tanks were good quality, and anyone into firearms history will be familiar with the quality of product made at the Brno gun factory, the Bren gun being a famous example.

But yeah, sadly, they were stabbed in the back.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Freddy Kruger wrote:
I'm voting No, but I'll put my reasons why.

While your points in favour are very good, there is a lot more behind the scenes that made German progress (and eventual conquering) of Czechoslovakia.

While you are correct that Czechoslovakian army was well equipped with great tanks, their command structure wasn't as good. Add in the German blitzkrieg tactics (which were revolutionary) and general inexperienced soldiers, Germany made huge gains. To put it into perspective, the Czech's in a desperate attempt to counter the Panzer II tanks used actual cavalry horsemen.

They were annihilated 300m+ from the tanks.

Secondly, while the Sudetan Germans might have done some sabotage, it was the VERY effective subterfuge campaign using the radio to report of Czech crimes, propaganda etc to rile them and some native Czechs into wanting to reconnect with Germany.

Lastly, I doubt Britain would have helped. Britain was still weary after WW1, had economic troubles (mostly from Britain not getting money from Germany and loss of stock money to the Wall Street Crash ) and you see Britain in a situation where they don't want to go to war.

I'm not that familiar with the Czech military command structure, so I don't know how good their junior officers and NCOs were, which as you know, was a strength of the German army.

On your other point, yeah, Britain was war weary, but if the Czechs had held out for some months, then Britain and France, under intense political and public pressure at home from somebody like Churchill, might have found themselves involved.

The UK and France were less well placed to help Czechoslovakia in 1938 than they were to help the Poles in 1939.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The UK and France were less well placed to help Czechoslovakia in 1938 than they were to help the Poles in 1939.

France borders with Germany, had the largest army in Western Europe, and was considered the foremost power in Europe. Yeah, we know with hindsight it all went downhill, but they could easily have invaded Germany in 1938 to support the Czechs.

Add in the German blitzkrieg tactics (which were revolutionary)

How revolutionary were they though? 'Military History' magazine had two articles on the blitzkrieg of Serbia and Romania by the Austro-Hungarian and German forces in WWI a couple of weeks back. Surely the generals must have been studying the WWI campaigns in detail before WWII?

 Kroem wrote:

Add in the German blitzkrieg tactics (which were revolutionary)

How revolutionary were they though? 'Military History' magazine had two articles on the blitzkrieg of Serbia and Romania by the Austro-Hungarian and German forces in WWI a couple of weeks back. Surely the generals must have been studying the WWI campaigns in detail before WWII?

There's a lot of myth about Blitzkrieg: who invented it, was it such a thing, and was it official doctrine of the German army in WW2?

The best quote I've ever seen about it is this: "The invasion of France was an improvised campaign that succeeded, whilst invading the Soviet Union was a planned campaign that failed." Or words to those effect.

As for 1938, war of manoeuvre has always been an ethos of the Prussian and later, German army, and no doubt it would have happened in 1938, but I doubt if it would have been all out Blitzkrieg.

As I said earlier, the German army, as the Poland campaign showed, were still largely untested in battle. For obvious reasons.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
Stopped? No.
Delayed? Yes.

If the UK and France hadn't stabbed them in the back, the war could've gone very differently.

Britain and France expressed surprised at the speed of which Poland was overrun, but unlike Poland, the Czech border region is quite mountainous, and dug in Czech would have been hard to shift.

OTOH there's much less Czechoslovakia than Poland.

Dresden to Prague is less than 150km. Vienna to Brno is even less. And the industrial areas will be the ones that will be overrun the first. Tanks were good, but the doctrine not so much. Fortifications can be bypassed in a mobile war, and the CZ air force would last minutes against the LW.

Slovakia at the time was largely agricultural, much less developed than the current Czech Republic.

However I saw once a documentary about some anti-Nazi members of the Wehrmacht that plotted to overthrow Hitler in case he invaded Czechoslovakia and the allies stepped in. There's very little information online, but it was known as the Oster conspiracy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oster_Conspiracy

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
Stopped? No.
Delayed? Yes.

If the UK and France hadn't stabbed them in the back, the war could've gone very differently.

Britain and France expressed surprised at the speed of which Poland was overrun, but unlike Poland, the Czech border region is quite mountainous, and dug in Czech would have been hard to shift.

OTOH there's much less Czechoslovakia than Poland.

Dresden to Prague is less than 150km. Vienna to Brno is even less. And the industrial areas will be the ones that will be overrun the first. Tanks were good, but the doctrine not so much. Fortifications can be bypassed in a mobile war, and the CZ air force would last minutes against the LW.

Slovakia at the time was largely agricultural, much less developed than the current Czech Republic.

However I saw once a documentary about some anti-Nazi members of the Wehrmacht that plotted to overthrow Hitler in case he invaded Czechoslovakia and the allies stepped in. There's very little information online, but it was known as the Oster conspiracy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oster_Conspiracy

Good points, but if the Czechs had held out for a good few months, then who knows?

As Sun Tzu said: one man fighting for his home is worth 10 of the enemy.

Meh, Blitzkrieg was a propaganda piece as much as anything. Combined arms and using superior mobility to pierce lines and force encirclements goes back to what, Alexander? Nonetheless, the Germans had been trained, equipped, and focused on attack to a degree that was largely unexpected and unplanned for, which was a tremendous advantage. Likewise, the diplomatic situation was not prepared to deal with Germany's ambitions.

Expecting France or Britain to invade Germany in 1938 ignores the political realities. There was no way that was going to happen for the Czechs. Wars are not fought in a vacuum, and the English, French, and Czechs were all firmly set on avoiding war.

However, had Beneš not bowed to the west and instead embraced the Soviet offer of support, things might have gone down very differently. Maybe. The Soviets may also have carved Czechoslovakia with Germany up like Poland or worked some other deal.

Combined arms and using superior mobility to pierce lines and force encirclements goes back to what, Alexander?

I would argue that the modern version was invented by the British in 1918, but that's for another thread.

As for your other point, yeah, Britain was reluctant to go to war over Czechoslovakia, but public opinion could have shifted a la Belgium being invaded in 1914.

The British have never liked a bully, have always sought to stop any one power from dominating Europe, and a plucky Czechoslovakia, holding out for months, might have galvanized the British public into supporting a war in 1938, with possibly Winston Churchill leading the crusade for it.

It's all assumptions, but IMO, not beyond the realms of possibility.

Well in the Romanian Blitzkrieg in WWI, the Central Powers had trouble forcing the passes through the Carpathian mountains even with an advantage in men and materiel, however poor infrastructure and transport combined with the long front that the Romanian army had to defend meant that the Central Powers picked them apart by constantly switching the locus of attack.

I can see the Bohemians having similar issues trying to defend their long borders with Austria and Germany especially as their air power deficiency would make moving armoured forces without casualties a difficult prospect.

 Kroem wrote:
Well in the Romanian Blitzkrieg in WWI, the Central Powers had trouble forcing the passes through the Carpathian mountains even with an advantage in men and materiel, however poor infrastructure and transport combined with the long front that the Romanian army had to defend meant that the Central Powers picked them apart by constantly switching the locus of attack.

I can see the Bohemians having similar issues trying to defend their long borders with Austria and Germany especially as their air power deficiency would make moving armoured forces without casualties a difficult prospect.

I don't doubt the German ability to win against troops in mountainous terrain - the Balkans campaign of 1941 showed us that the Germans could operate very successfully in the mountains and the narrow valleys. None the less, the German army of 1941 was a well oiled machine, that was flush with victory and battle-hardened, and able to win the day.

The German army of 1938 was largely untried, and had a lot of problems with inter-divisional cooperation and problems with the reliability of a lot of its vehicles and tanks.

When Germany entered Austria, half the vehicles broke down, and that was in favourable, non-combat situations on flat roads!

I think the Czechs could have held out for at least the winter.

 jmurph wrote:
Meh, Blitzkrieg was a propaganda piece as much as anything.

To some degree this is true. The Germans did develop some novel combined-armed tactics early in the war that enabled SOME units to move quickly, however the vast majority of German army was moved by foot or horse.

Many wars that open in a spectacular fashion do so because one side is just unprepared, and by that I mean from the lack of basics in training and motivation, to the quality of equipment and then the lack or or poorly thought of tactics. Typically the more aggressive side is going to perform better in the beginning.

There was an excellent alternate history series about this scenario. If you'd like to check it out - it's here.

I personally believe that the Czechs would have delayed the Germans, but not stopped them completely.

Could Czechoslovakia have stopped Germany in 1938? On its own? No.

Had they put up a stiff resistance and been able to significantly slow or even temporarily stop the German invasion? They probably could have shamed France & Britain into war against a Germany that was dramatically less prepared than it was in 1939 and likely won there.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Could Czechoslovakia have stopped Germany in 1938? On its own? No.

Had they put up a stiff resistance and been able to significantly slow or even temporarily stop the German invasion? They probably could have shamed France & Britain into war against a Germany that was dramatically less prepared than it was in 1939 and likely won there.

Beat me to it word for word. By themselves they couldn't have stopped them but they could have really slowed them down. Then, with a bit of luck, Britain, France and maybe some other nations could have counter attacked Germany and.....checkmate.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Could Czechoslovakia have stopped Germany in 1938? On its own? No.

Had they put up a stiff resistance and been able to significantly slow or even temporarily stop the German invasion? They probably could have shamed France & Britain into war against a Germany that was dramatically less prepared than it was in 1939 and likely won there.

Were the UK and France in 1938 more prepared than in 1940 when the Germans steamrolled them to the channel? (since the whole thing started with the Dunkerque movie).

That'd be some major change. Europe saw Czechoslovakia as so irrelevant they even allowed Poland to carve a piece of it during the German annexation.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The UK and France were less well placed to help Czechoslovakia in 1938 than they were to help the Poles in 1939.

France borders with Germany, had the largest army in Western Europe, and was considered the foremost power in Europe. Yeah, we know with hindsight it all went downhill, but they could easily have invaded Germany in 1938 to support the Czechs.

I don't see why the fact that we know the UK and France didn't feel strong enough to attack in 1939 means anyone should have felt in 1938 they were strong enough to attack. There was an obvious government decision at the time not to defend Czechoslovakia.

As well as everything else the UK and France didn't have any alliance with the Czechs and both nations were busy re-arming and has a year's less new equipment than they would have a year later.

No if Britain and France combined could not, what hope would the Czechs have.

Marxist artist wrote:
No if Britain and France combined could not, what hope would the Czechs have.

Britain and France could have, but bad luck and incompetence wrecked the chances.

KTG17 wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Meh, Blitzkrieg was a propaganda piece as much as anything.

To some degree this is true. The Germans did develop some novel combined-armed tactics early in the war that enabled SOME units to move quickly, however the vast majority of German army was moved by foot or horse.

Many wars that open in a spectacular fashion do so because one side is just unprepared, and by that I mean from the lack of basics in training and motivation, to the quality of equipment and then the lack or or poorly thought of tactics. Typically the more aggressive side is going to perform better in the beginning.

People often overlook the fact that Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 was heavily reliant on vehicles captured from the British, Czechs, and the French. Germany's automobile industry, and the switch to tank production, left Germany short in military trucks and transports.

Capturing Czech tanks, and the Skoda factory, was a big factor in Germany's ability to wage war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Verviedi wrote:
There was an excellent alternate history series about this scenario. If you'd like to check it out - it's here.

I personally believe that the Czechs would have delayed the Germans, but not stopped them completely.

Good link


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Could Czechoslovakia have stopped Germany in 1938? On its own? No.

Had they put up a stiff resistance and been able to significantly slow or even temporarily stop the German invasion? They probably could have shamed France & Britain into war against a Germany that was dramatically less prepared than it was in 1939 and likely won there.

France wouldn't have acted without Britain. Even in September 1939, the French were still reluctant to declare war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Could Czechoslovakia have stopped Germany in 1938? On its own? No.

Had they put up a stiff resistance and been able to significantly slow or even temporarily stop the German invasion? They probably could have shamed France & Britain into war against a Germany that was dramatically less prepared than it was in 1939 and likely won there.

Were the UK and France in 1938 more prepared than in 1940 when the Germans steamrolled them to the channel? (since the whole thing started with the Dunkerque movie).

That'd be some major change. Europe saw Czechoslovakia as so irrelevant they even allowed Poland to carve a piece of it during the German annexation.

Poland's actions was shameless opportunism, and cost them a lot of good will and international support. Something that could have helped them a year later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The UK and France were less well placed to help Czechoslovakia in 1938 than they were to help the Poles in 1939.

France borders with Germany, had the largest army in Western Europe, and was considered the foremost power in Europe. Yeah, we know with hindsight it all went downhill, but they could easily have invaded Germany in 1938 to support the Czechs.

I don't see why the fact that we know the UK and France didn't feel strong enough to attack in 1939 means anyone should have felt in 1938 they were strong enough to attack. There was an obvious government decision at the time not to defend Czechoslovakia.

As well as everything else the UK and France didn't have any alliance with the Czechs and both nations were busy re-arming and has a year's less new equipment than they would have a year later.

Much has been made over the years about Britain's military in the 1930, and the common view is that it was run down, not ready, needed time to re-arm etc etc but in recent years, historical revisionism has changed the balance for the better in my view.

Germany obviously spent heavy on tanks and infantry, but being a land power, that was to be expected.

People criticise Britain's small army, but overlook the fact that it had a vast empire.

Britain spent heavily on the Singapore base, upgrading Gibraltar, radar network and the RAF, and of course, had the largest navy in the world in 1940.

Britain was spending, just not on tank divisions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Marxist artist wrote:
No if Britain and France combined could not, what hope would the Czechs have.

We obviously know what happened, but yes, Britain and France could have stopped Germany in 1940 or even 1938.

People forget how much of a gamble the invasion of France was in 1940.

If the Meuse crossing had been better defended. If German traffic jams in Luxembourg had been heavily punished by bombers, and of course, if the French counter-attacks had not been delayed or were better organised, then the Germans would have been in deep, deep, trouble etc etc

So many missed opportunities for Britain and France

But obviously, none of that happened, and the rest is history.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Marxist artist wrote:
No if Britain and France combined could not, what hope would the Czechs have.

Britain and France could have,but bad luck and incompetence wrecked the chances.

It doesn't happen often, but I'm in complete agreement with you.

I don't think so. But what would have happened possibly is that the Chezchs fighting back would have forced Britain and France into war sooner.

The only thing that might has stopped WW2 dead before it even really began is if France had invaded Germany while nearly all of the German troops were invading Poland. They could have, by most estimations, captured Berlin with very light resistance and potentially forced peace talks right then and there. Of course, this might not have lead to Hitler or the Nazis being booted from power, only postponed a new war a decade or so later.

That's the one thing a lot of ''want if'' scenarios don't consider with an early war defeat of Germany. An earlier victory isn't going to be a total capitulation of Nazi Germany, it would given the political climate of the time probably just be more concessions to germany in exchange for a few years if peace. And they possibly remain around many decades into the future to cause more havoc.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don't think so. But what would have happened possibly is that the Chezchs fighting back would have forced Britain and France into war sooner.

The only thing that might has stopped WW2 dead before it even really began is if France had invaded Germany while nearly all of the German troops were invading Poland. They could have, by most estimations, captured Berlin with very light resistance and potentially forced peace talks right then and there. Of course, this might not have lead to Hitler or the Nazis being booted from power, only postponed a new war a decade or so later.

That's the one thing a lot of ''want if'' scenarios don't consider with an early war defeat of Germany. An earlier victory isn't going to be a total capitulation of Nazi Germany, it would given the political climate of the time probably just be more concessions to germany in exchange for a few years if peace. And they possibly remain around many decades into the future to cause more havoc.

Allied war plans were to use the blockade to starve Germany off resources again, build up a mass bomber fleet to hammer German cities, and build up overwhelming force for an invasion of Germany in '42 or '43. Not far off the end date of 1945 when you think about it.

People often forget that France and the UK could afford to sit back, becuase they had vast global resources to draw upon. Prior to the fall of France, right up until 1941, Britain sourced few war resources from the USA, becuase they didn't have too. Britain was determined to keep the hell away from the USA, and not because they were anti-American but becasue the Americans insisted on payment in dollars for obvious reasons. Britain was powerful enough to force other nations, especially South American nations, to give goods in return for IOUs, due to huge British commerical interests in South America.

Germany, on the other hand, had to attack and win quickly, because they knew in the long run, the resource war, Britain and France win 99 times out of 100.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don't think so. But what would have happened possibly is that the Chezchs fighting back would have forced Britain and France into war sooner.

The only thing that might has stopped WW2 dead before it even really began is if France had invaded Germany while nearly all of the German troops were invading Poland. They could have, by most estimations, captured Berlin with very light resistance and potentially forced peace talks right then and there. Of course, this might not have lead to Hitler or the Nazis being booted from power, only postponed a new war a decade or so later.

That's the one thing a lot of ''want if'' scenarios don't consider with an early war defeat of Germany. An earlier victory isn't going to be a total capitulation of Nazi Germany, it would given the political climate of the time probably just be more concessions to germany in exchange for a few years if peace. And they possibly remain around many decades into the future to cause more havoc.

Allied war plans were to use the blockade to starve Germany off resources again, build up a mass bomber fleet to hammer German cities, and build up overwhelming force for an invasion of Germany in '42 or '43. Not far off the end date of 1945 when you think about it.

People often forget that France and the UK could afford to sit back, becuase they had vast global resources to draw upon. Prior to the fall of France, right up until 1941, Britain sourced few war resources from the USA, becuase they didn't have too. Britain was determined to keep the hell away from the USA, and not because they were anti-American but becasue the Americans insisted on payment in dollars for obvious reasons. Britain was powerful enough to force other nations, especially South American nations, to give goods in return for IOUs, due to huge British commerical interests in South America.

Germany, on the other hand, had to attack and win quickly, because they knew in the long run, the resource war, Britain and France win 99 times out of 100.

We did not mine up shells ready to fire.
Industry mattered alot too and keeping that intact.

We had massive global resources. They are useless if we cannot forge iron into steel. Steel int armour and make shells , bombs and aicraft engines.

No for the following reasons.

1. The large 'German' demographic makes the army much less reliable than it appears on paper. There are more Germans than Slovaks in Czechoslovakia. There are also Slovak tensions.
2. All the defences face towards Germany, the Germans can easily advance through newly annexed Austria and avoid most of the static defences.
3. Unlike the Czech army the Czech air force is weak and reliant on the French air force to intervene. The French air force will be too little too late anyway.
4. They have too few local (central and eastern European) allies. Relations with the Poles are still poor which will (be one of many reasons that will) prevent Soviet aid.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Could Czechoslovakia have stopped Germany in 1938? On its own? No.

Had they put up a stiff resistance and been able to significantly slow or even temporarily stop the German invasion? They probably could have shamed France & Britain into war against a Germany that was dramatically less prepared than it was in 1939 and likely won there.

France wouldn't have acted without Britain. Even in September 1939, the French were still reluctant to declare war.

Probably true.

Future War Cultist wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Could Czechoslovakia have stopped Germany in 1938? On its own? No.

Had they put up a stiff resistance and been able to significantly slow or even temporarily stop the German invasion? They probably could have shamed France & Britain into war against a Germany that was dramatically less prepared than it was in 1939 and likely won there.

Beat me to it word for word. By themselves they couldn't have stopped them but they could have really slowed them down. Then, with a bit of luck, Britain, France and maybe some other nations could have counter attacked Germany and.....checkmate.

Yeah, Germany would not have had the capability to functionally resist had there been an aggressive response by Britain and France. I can understand the complex reasons why there was not, but it would have saved a lot of heartache.

jouso wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Could Czechoslovakia have stopped Germany in 1938? On its own? No.

Had they put up a stiff resistance and been able to significantly slow or even temporarily stop the German invasion? They probably could have shamed France & Britain into war against a Germany that was dramatically less prepared than it was in 1939 and likely won there.

Were the UK and France in 1938 more prepared than in 1940 when the Germans steamrolled them to the channel? (since the whole thing started with the Dunkerque movie).

That'd be some major change. Europe saw Czechoslovakia as so irrelevant they even allowed Poland to carve a piece of it during the German annexation.

Yeah, the whole Czechoslovakia affair was handled deplorably. That said, the UK and France were in a much stronger position than Germany in 1938. They were too in 1940 really, what they consistently ran into were failures of both military and political will, and some really awful leadership quality at the higher military echelons coupled with a regressed and outdated doctrine in many instances. The Germans quite simply were more determined imaginative.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I would argue that the modern version was invented by the British in 1918, but that's for another thread.

I wonder what argument you have that could steal the credit away from Lt Gen. John Monash?



I'm not going to bother to quote the rest of the "Britain does not like a bully" nonsense. Churchill was a product of an era of British imperialism and war-mongery.
It is only fortunate for him in posterity that world war two reversed his well deserved reputation as a reckless war criminal.

To address the poll, no, .Czechoslovakia could not have stopped Germany because, by that time they were already strategically enveloped into a position of weakness.

It's hard to see how a fight between Germany and Czechoslovakia would have resulted in anything but German victory. German airpower and superior training and doctrine, combined with greater numbers would have got the job done. The Czechs had better tanks, but so did the French and the Soviets during Barbarossa - but they don't help much when you have poor tank doctrine and the enemy has air superiority.

But it is an interesting question whether the Czechs might last just long enough. The Czechs had a different political situation than Poland. Poland was politically and economically pressured to defend the disputed regions as they thought if they ceded these to the Germans in the fighting they would be unlikely to get them back during any negotiated ceasefire. This meant the Poles pushed troops to the fringes of the border with Germany and opened up the encirclement that collapsed the Polish defense. Now admittedly the Czechs also had similar territorial concerns, but defense of the Sudetenland didn't have the same vulnerabilities, you couldn't bypass that territory and threaten Prague. So possibly the Czechs might have lasted longer, held a viable defensive line longer.

That chance to last longer in a protracted campaign would then play in to the next consideration - the weakness of Hitler's position in 1938. Hitler's military aggression was not popular in Germany, not even among the officer class, who treated his promises of easy victories with skepticism. But the resistance melted as Hitler's promise of easy victories came - annexation of Czech territory, then swift victory over Poland then France caused that skepticism to melt away, and Hitler's political position went from weak to insurmountable. If a campaign in Czechoslovakia had become at all protracted, and also brought a combined British, French and Russian end of trade, then Hitler's political position in Germany might have collapsed.

But of course, that's a lot of guesswork to reach an unknown. Guesses to produce a hypothetical. I'm not sure what that's worth.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
France borders with Germany, had the largest army in Western Europe, and was considered the foremost power in Europe. Yeah, we know with hindsight it all went downhill, but they could easily have invaded Germany in 1938 to support the Czechs.

In 1938 French force projection was woeful. Their organisation, doctrine and equipment level was committed to a defensive, static war. Even in 1939 when they went to war to support Poland, they sent expeditionary units across the border and came scurrying back at the first sign of resistance.