Should Czechoslovakia Have Fought Germany In 1938? (facts, Washington, biggest, economy)

[noetsi]

Being strong or weak has nothing to do with the morality of a cause. One can be strong for lousy causes as Hitler was. You're confusing to entirely different phenomenon.

[j_k_k]

Originally Posted by noetsi

Being strong or weak has nothing to do with the morality of a cause. One can be strong for lousy causes as Hitler was. You're confusing to entirely different phenomenon.

I have no idea what you are talking about here, or who you are talking about, or why this pertains to anything.

[noetsi]

I am talking about what it means to be a strong leader. Which is pertinant to whether Neville Chamberlain was one or not. You are arguing that the definition of a strong leader is if he pursued a course you believe to be morally correct. I am arguing that the definition of a strong leader is someone with a clear goal who firmly pursues it, regardless of resistance. Which Chamberlain did with his appeasement policy. Whether that was wrong or right to do is not pertinant to the definition of strong.

[j_k_k]

Originally Posted by noetsi

I am talking about what it means to be a strong leader. Which is pertinant to whether Neville Chamberlain was one or not. You are arguing that the definition of a strong leader is if he pursued a course you believe to be morally correct. I am arguing that the definition of a strong leader is someone with a clear goal who firmly pursues it, regardless of resistance. Which Chamberlain did with his appeasement policy. Whether that was wrong or right to do is not pertinant to the definition of strong.

You are also arguing that I took a position I did not take, an intolerable but common practice on message boards. To the extent that your post has any relation to what I did actually write, you are repackaging it into a straw man. I'm not going to defend a position you attribute to me; I prefer to defend my actual words. If you want to take issue with something I wrote, kindly quote it with full context.

[noetsi]

If you dont believe the morality of what Chamberlain did was pertinant to whether he was a strong leader or not, than I misunderstood your post. He clearly was strong by the definition that is normally used in foreign policy. That is he had a clear policy and stuck with it regardless of opposition or risks.

[j_k_k]

Originally Posted by noetsi

If you dont believe the morality of what Chamberlain did was pertinant to whether he was a strong leader or not, than I misunderstood your post. He clearly was strong by the definition that is normally used in foreign policy. That is he had a clear policy and stuck with it regardless of opposition or risks.

Okay, I guess I have my answer there. Won't make this mistake again.

[Fred314X]

Originally Posted by 6 FOOT 3

If memory serves me correct from my HS History days was that the Czechs actually had an standing army that wasn't such a pushover as the Poles were and while i still don't understand all the politics inside Czechoslovakia and from the other major Euro countries attitutde towards that country back then however my question is that should they have never allowed the Munich Agreement to go thru and fought Germany if they had invaded in 1938?

Any thoughts ?

Should the Czechs have fought Germany? After the Munich Agreement stripped them of the Sudetenland (where most of their fortifications were), what would you have liked them to do in the way of defenses?

[noetsi]

The argument is that the Czechs should not have given up the Sudenland. They should have defended their fortified belt in the mountains regardless of what the French and British did. In retrospect its obvious that the British and French would have done little to help Czechoslavakia regardless (as they did nothing to help Poland the year later). And the Czechs had little to lose by fighting given their fate after Munich. But at the time this was not so obvious.

[Big bull]

Originally Posted by newhandle

Hardly possible when a good percentage of their population was Sudentenland Germans. Only the USSR gave any hints of help and that fell through.

Stalin following his purges was in even less of a position to intervene. The Molotov Von Ribbentropp pact was a good indication of his fear of conflict with Germany. The Czechs could have made a very strong defense given the terrain, Poland had no natural barriers, and in addition the Arms and manpower gained from the annexation bolstered the Wermachts capabilities.

The French could have ended Hitlers tyrrany when he entered the Rhineland, the german troops had orders to retreat if opposed. Such a failure would have emboldened his rivals and enemies and taken away his aura. The same is true in 38 and again in 39, had they crossed into Germany and supported any of the eastern European countries with a second front.

The German army and industry needed the period prior to the invasion of Poland as well as the 7 months prior to the invasion of France to bolster their capabilities. Their tanks were no match for the French or British tanks of the day.

[Big bull]

Originally Posted by noetsi

If you dont believe the morality of what Chamberlain did was pertinant to whether he was a strong leader or not, than I misunderstood your post. He clearly was strong by the definition that is normally used in foreign policy. That is he had a clear policy and stuck with it regardless of opposition or risks.

The only policy which seems clear was to avoid war at all costs, which inevitably caused much more devastation and loss of life.

It is also true that hindsight is 20/20 and the British government was much more concerned with Stalin than with Hitler until 1939.