Message forum of the Feldgrau.com research community
Moderator: George Lepre
I wouldn't think that the strong industrial infrastructure can be correlated fully with richness; several parts of the country, where agriculture was at its best, were quite wealthy (think Southern Slovakia, for example).Czech lands were rich, with very advanced infrastrucute and strong industry, the rest lands were poor, Ruthenia was poorest territory in Europe at all.
This is pure crap.So, when Czechoslovakia was under real fascist menace (1938) with enemies on all sides (west and south Germany, north Poland, on eastsouth Hungary, east faithless Slovaks and also 3,5 milions Germans lived in common state-the enemy inside), betrayed by France, Britain and USSR - Czechoslovak prezident decided to not fight. Hitler occupied sudet lands and within year assault (15.03.1939) Czech and Moravia (and declared protectorate Bohmen und Maren), Slovakia day before (14.03.1939) declared own clerico-fascist state (reportedly to save themselves before Hungarians) and Ruthenia as Slovakia declared independence with same aim, but in contrast of Slovakia Hitler allows Hungarians to occupied their territory (14.03.1939).
Nice, nice. Let's bring in the myth of the weak, unorganized, inexperiences, moraleless Hungarian forces... Well done, my friend. Of course, I suppose You know the sources to support Your theories. Your own mind, that is. Pride is one thing, but aggressive nationalism is another. You're not supposed to generalize in terms of morale, experience, organization or even arnament of the two armies, as it was never proved in fighting what were the Czech troops worth of... Only thing we know is that the Hungarians made good progress against the Slovaks in their short armoured conflict, managed to push back the Romanian forces in Transylvania during 1944 and had some good periods of fighting against the Soviet. Nothing of this suggests of such a big gap between the Axis nations and Hungary in terms of military strength, or does it?After occupation Czechoslovak units located in Ruthenia started defend territory (against Hungarians and also Ukrainian nacionalists, after some time nacionalists started fight against Hungarians too). Naturally Czechs even better organized, armored, experienced with high morale than Hungaries (which were weak during all WW2 among Axis alliance)
Well done. Congratulations for the objective and thought-after comment of a whole nation. Of course, Czechs are always way better than the Slovaks, aren't they? Nationalism is the right word in this case, too.treachery Slovaks
I have never heard of such big conflicts between the Hungarian and Rusyn population that I would say they "had no rest". Can You prove Your point here?And what Rusyns? They conceived that without Czechoslovakian protection had no chance to survive, and had 2 possibilities: A) stay home and wait for Hungarians (which never brough them rest), or B) exit fatherland – the questions is where, but it had a simply solution – of course to USSR „there are Russians the SLAVS as we are“. BUT!!! - Hungarian regent Horthy expressly said, that dispatched spies (spy) into USSR territory. So therefore directly after crossing USSR borders they were arrested and convicted by „brothers“ Russians for ilegal crossing border (from 3 to 7 years) and sent to Soviets concentration camps (gulags) into cold Siberia!!! According statistics 20 000 Rusyns crossed borders, and only 8 000 survived!!!
The Czechoslovak nation DOES NOT EXIST!!! And did not exist either. This is just a politically made-up designation. Rusyns, Sudeten Deutsche and Slovakian Magyars were none less Czechoslovak then Czehs and Slovaks. I wouldn't dare to present the Jews as a separate component within this fictional nation - as most of the Jewish population considered itself either Czech, Slovak, (and most of all) Hungarian or German.So finaly we can said that in 1th Czechoslovak army corp was more Rusyns, that Czechoslovaks (Jews, Czechs, Slovaks).
More than enough, thank You. Please reconsider Your nationalist view of history and try to stick to the facts. Please avoid using crap such as the Czechoslovak nation and the "treacherous Slovaks" in order to keep the discussion civilized. If that's what You want, of course,Uff, I hope its enough for this moment.
I was not talking about any Czech nationalism whatsoever; I was talking about You showing the sings of nationalism. I wouldn't dare to judge a nation as a whole - that be Czechs, Slovaks or Hungarians. I have nothing against patriotism - but it shouldn' be confused with nationalism.in introduction - what Czech nationalism you talking about? Czechs are not nationalistic nation, unfortunately I can say, that Czechs have no even healthy patriotism (by the way consequence of 300 years under Austro-Hungarian empire!). Nationalism is closer exactly to Slovaks and Hungarians. You should know it better.
Nothing wrong with this; I only tried to emphasise that not only the industrially developed parts could have been wealthy.1) During Austro-Hungarian empire (where Czech lands belonges from 1621 to 1918) the majority industrial part was situated in Bohemia. Firstly cos of Sudet Germans living along border lands (textile, glass industry), secondly thanks growing Czech financial independent: collection of money to organize „Zivnostenska banka“, and than investment to foundation of heavy industry (machinery, armament industry etc.) like Skoda, Kolben&Danek etc. In public statistics you can find that during 20th a 30th years Czechoslovakia became to 7 the most advanced countries in the world.
You're quick of the mark here judging my knowledge. Please keep from comments considering my abilities You just don't know. As for the nice background info You have given from the years 1918/19 - You are right, but then we weren't talking about that years - but some 20 years later. Considering another nation an enemy (arch enemy, that is), for events that occured 20 years before is not the topic of the actual politics, You know, and the only problem between the two countries was the strip of land on the south of the country. I wouldn't consider Hungary an enemy, unfriendly the worst I can say, but definitely not an enemy to such an extent as You have described. And Hungary didn't have problems with the loss of the land - but the loss of the Hungarian population of that land. And that's a huge difference.2) Im very sorry, but you have no any idea about politic situation in central Europe of 20th centuary. Hungarians weren’t enemies? So why Czechoslovak legions had to 2x displaced Hungarian units from Slovakia? First Hungarian intervention (15.11.1918), cos Hungarians did not agree with connection upper-hungarian lands to Czechoslovakia. In January 1919 Czechoslovak units (italian legionaries) captured this territory back to Czechoslovakia. Until June 1919 Czechoslovak units fought with Hungarians in Ruthenia (which became part of Czechoslovakia until Novemeber 1918). In meantime Hungarian started second intervention into Slovakia and were defeated again. I understand Hungarians after loss much of lands – but that´s just it why Hungary was for Czechoslovakia natural enemy.
Same stuff here. Poland and Czechoslovakia were natural allies against the Germans, not to be spoiled by bad relations from 20 years before. Blaming Poland for following the directive from Munich is not serious. And I wouldn't blame Poland for the Czechs not fighting it out with the Germans.Now about Poland. You know we had very complicated relationships with Polish in that period. The reasons are several: 1) Polish fought in WWI against Russians, but Czechs not, by contraries they fought in Eastern front with Russians against Austro-Hungarian units. Polish had two denouncements (one hidden in Germany, and second public in USSR - in addition it was demonstrated in 1939) 2) Czechslovakia and Poland has conflicts about north teritory Tesin (with branching point and coal mineral wealth) and some territory in Slovakia – so Czechoslovak units fought also with polish units on begining of Czechoslovakia history. 3) Czechoslovakia signed military pact with USSR (natural enemy of Polish). So when in september 1938 our prezident though about fight or not fight, Czechoslovak generaly stuff said: „we can fight on 2 sides (west with Germany, south with Germany), not on 3 sides. Hungary is weak they will not attack until Czechoslovaks will not be on knees“ - in addition Rumunia (ally of Czechoslovakia) wag Hungarians that will attack them if také part in German coalition. Czech generals also said to prezident: „We must agree with Polish about their neutrality – even at price we give them contentious Tesin territory“. But Polish (especialy their prime minister Beck who hated Czechs from legionary period) rejected and started arrangements for occupation (what really did) of Tesin territory and also some terrytories in north Slovakia. After it (enemies all around Czechoslovakia except southeastern borders with Rumunia) prezident decided to not fight (which was mistake – but it is my subject opinion).
You just don't get my point. Don't judge whole nations!!! The "long known facts" are all true - but still, how could the Slovaks have been unfaithfull to the Czechs for wanting a state of their own? Masaryk, Benes and the others exactly knew why were the two nations joined into one country - to make it last against the Hungarian demands. Of course, when the situation was stabilized, this alliance of two independent nations broke into two - I just wouldn't call this traison. Or do You consider the separation of Slovakia and the Czech Rep in 1993 a deed of the "faithless" Slovaks?For "Faithless Slovaks". The answer is again very simply. Slovaks and their lands (with never existing history – only beyond the princedom in early middle ages) were always component part of Hungary. And thanks negotiation of our foreign delegation: Masaryk (lately first Czechoslovak president), his advisor Benes (the second president) and general Stefanek (Slovak) they could obtain independent for Czechoslovakia + Ruthenia in one state. But what is inconceivable, that Slovaks from the beginning started intrigues how to become separated. Far more it seems in the end of 30th years, where they keep company with Sudetish Germans and also plans confederation with Poland. Thats all are long since known facts. So in depressed time 1938 Czechs lawfuly couldnot depended on Slovaks, except Czechoslovak army wich was under Czech control (in Ruthenia as well).
You can't blame the Sudeten Deutsche who were trying to rejoin their fatherland. During the times of the Austro-Hungarian empire, the Czechs also wanted to have a country where they were in majority - but You wouldn't call the Czechs inner enemies, would You? Using this terminology, Austro-Hungary was a pack of inner enemies of Austria. Wanting to be with the main body of Your nation is not an ideology, but a hope. It's not that I don't understand what You say - but the terminology You use is just not proper for the situation.As for Sudet Germans. Czechoslovakia was not only Czech nation. In Czechoslovakia lived 13,5 million citizens (7 mil. Czechs, 3,5 mil. Germans, 0,5 mil. Hungaries, some houndred thousands Polish, also Ruthenes and only 2,5 mil. Slovaks). 3,5 mil. Germans - isnide enemy – what do you think, that Sudet Germans did during nacist period, of course they wanted back to „Reich“. Naturaly there were among them people who denied this ideologii (1%) and some of them also fought in 1th Czechoslovak army corps.
Yes, I do know a little more. From 1936 onwards, the main part of the Hungarian forces were organized into 7 mixed brigades, that were later reversed into army corps. One of the reasons of this designation was to confuse the "enemies" - seems that it worked quite well given some people are confused even now. One infantry regiment etc etc is pure crap, of course, but why would you care?3) As Hungarian you should no more about hungarian army of that period. Before occupation of Ruthenia the Hungarian available military forces comprised one infantry regiment, two cavalry regiments, three independent battalions on bicycle, one motorized battalion, two border guard battalions, one artillery division, two armored train units, and one regiment of fighter planes!
Thanks for the small lesson of history. Believe me or not, I too have attended school in (Czecho)slovakia and know quite a lot about the Czech armies. What fighting are You talking about? The brief and unimportant contact fighting in Southern Slovakia or the Hungarian victory against Slovak troops in Ruthenia? Just in order I could refresh my shaby knowledge about how the weak Hungarian troops were defeated by the glorious Czech army...Would you like to know what about Czechoslovak armies, which was one of the most organized in Europe?!! In september 1938 Czechoslovak army had: 1,28 million soldiers, 217000 horses, 26000 automobiles, 767000 modern rifles, 188000 modern pistols, 40000 modern machine-guns, 900 modern mortars, 780 anti-altirely canons (this is number without weapens in border fortes), 2270 field-pieces, 350 light tanks, 70 armoured automobiles, 70 small tanks, 17 armoured trains, 950 planes, 230 anti-air machine-guns, 250 anti-air canons.
There was existed fighting between Czech troops and Hungarian occupation units – in 1939. U dont know it? Well, than it has no sense to continue before you refill knowledges…
I don't have problems with the facts. I just asked for any source to state that4) hmm… I can say you how many soldiers crossed Ruthenia-Slovaks borders and how the Slovaks regarded to him (disarmament, derision, were humiliated etc.). I have no problems with facts as you have.
5) Oh really? I think that the fact, that Ruthenia (under Hungarian control) was the most poorest territory in Europe say by itself how Ruthenes were „happy“ under Hungarian government. And what about WWI and Ruthenes in Hungarian units? No matter – Ruthenes, Czechs, Slovaks, Polish, Jews or others, all were arested for illegal cross of USSR borders and some of them also for espionage against USSR. Horthy by saying it, did not simplify it, naturally why should did it?
This is only partially true. The official language was "Czechoslovak" - nonexistent as it was. The people speaking minority languages were considered as a minority of the Czechoslovak nation - also nonexistent.6) The Czechoslovak nation DOES NOT EXIST!!! Well it seems, that it will be only note where I agree with you. „Czechoslovaks“ was always used as TERM for all citizens living in one state Czechoslovakia! Czechoslovaks fought there, Czechoslovaks did something, Czechoslovaks decided this etc., but as you said - its not nation, its only term. Ambition to change term to nation had to be syntheticaly made, but did not happen (Hitler did not get chance to execute it).
I always try to stick to the facts. Supported facts, that is.Uff. Yes you said it correctly: „try to stick to the facts“. And you should keep it first of all.
I will more apreciate if you should help me to follow organization of Hungarian army - aimed at Rusyns unarmored units, Jewish worker units.