Czechoslovakia defence/forts

[TheDungen]

I live next to a mountain the height of a tall house, then.

No that's a rock or a cliff.
I think the best word for what's on the northern czech border is probably a ridge. More than a hill less than mountains (atleast if with mountains you mean stuff like the alps).

 

[Dalnar]

I think the question is really not whenever Czechoslovakia could indeed successfully defend itself historically in 1938 or not (it probably couldn't in history), but if in the GAME an early war in 1938 will cost Germany more than it will potentianlly gain from it. Especially in multiplayer, where France and Czechoslovakia players could potentially form effective Little Entente and the German player would have to adjust accordingly. On the other hand, western powers may not be prepared for early war and lack economy to sustain it. There is also the world tension aspect to consider. So many multiplayer possibilities just based on how Czechoslovakia will be portaited in HO4. Of course, for single player it does not matter that much I guess.

What I really hated about HO3, is that Munich Agreement was not much of a deal breaker, considering Czechoslovakia in the game did not even have manpower to mobilize properly and there was not much you could have done in two years as somewhat crippled minor. On the other hand, Germany could field armor much sooner than in history, which made It just another IC grab for the Germany without any real drawbacks or losses.

About the fortifications themself. Czechoslovakia did start work on them in like 1935, so when the game starts at least some (light objects in north) of them should be done. But keep in mind during Munich Crisis only like 70% of light and 20% of heavy fortifications were finished, and the southern border was the least protected. The plan was to finish them around 1950, so as you can see they certainly were not ready in 1938.

If there will be plans for Czechoslovakia national focuses, the historic one would be further investment to static army and fortifications or ahistorical alternative of more mobile warfare.

But that's just my two cents In any case, I really look forward to this game and especially MP in it.

 

[BoleslavLev]

The world tension really slows democracies (cause otherwise Germany would lost every time). But it doesn´t seem good to me that any fascist nation can expand so quickly (Daniel´s Hungary game) while as democracy you can´t do anything. Do we btw know how are commies doing? I expect them to be in the middle of the road. I also wonder if Poland will be fascist in the game - that would give some nice opportunities to it.

 

[FOARP]

I always get the feeling when reading threads like this that the only impenetrable defense line in the world in the views of some people are the ones that were never attacked but given up without a fight, and the only minor army that could defeat the Germans were the ones that never fought them. Ultimately, despite history showing us that the Germans seemed to have little difficulty storming the fortification of the era, and that no minor was able to stand against the German blitzkrieg during the early part of the war, people refuse to accept that this would have been equally true of the countries that surrendered without fighting, particularly when they come from the country concerned.

The Germans even managed to storm the main part of the Maginot line near Saarbrucken (which, FYI, is not flat terrain), so I doubt they would have had the difficulty taking the Czech fortifications that some here imagine they would have. A while back I did the maths on the Czech border fortifications and in 1938 they were of comparable density to those the French had near Sedan in 1940 - you may remember the Germans successfully stormed these as well.

Ultimately, the kind of dense, deep defensive lines that the Soviets built near Kursk and the British built in the Alamein position,backed up by vigorous counter-attacks, were the best defense that could be mounted against the German blitz, but the Czechs did not have this in 1938.

Sure, lets have decisions around forts being built, and maybe a starting level of 1 for forts on the border, but let's not kid ourselves that there is any real evidence pointing to the Czechs making an extended defense.

 

[FOARP]

No that's a rock or a cliff.
I think the best word for what's on the northern czech border is probably a ridge. More than a hill less than mountains (atleast if with mountains you mean stuff like the alps).

I've walked across the Czech border in the Bohumin area and, though hills are all about, the route itself was not rough. Yes, there are mountains (and places to ski) but it's not like the Mountains of Moria or something.

 

[Dalnar]

Yes Germans did successfuly storm some parts of Maginot line in 1940, but the question is did they have the same tools and experience in 1938 during Munich crisis ? There is a two years gap in equipment and experience that people seem to neglect. Would Germany win in 1938 in Czechoslovakia? Most likely. But at what cost? This is something that will be interesting to see in the game, if the manpower and equipment loss will compensate the potential of captured Czechoslovakian industry and equipment.

 

[FOARP]

Yes Germans did successfuly storm some parts of Maginot line in 1940, but the question is did they have the same tools and experience in 1938 during Munich crisis ? There is a two years gap in equipment and experience that people seem to neglect. Would Germany win in 1938 in Czechoslovakia? Most likely. But at what cost? This is something that will be interesting to see in the game, if the manpower and equipment loss will compensate the potential of captured Czechoslovakian industry and equipment.

About the only thing that changed between 1938 and 1940 was numbers: the German forces that broke through near Saarbrucken were infantry divisions equipped with standard German equipment of types that were in widespread use in 1938 as well.

The problem was in the entire concept of static defense positions stopping attacks directly in front of them, rather than using thick belts of mines and so-forth to blunt an attack and then counter-attacking with mobile forces, as the British did at Alamein and the Soviets did at Kursk.

 

[Harada.Taro]

This came up when i googled "minomet"

Damn, if that thing is mortar... What kind of artillery do you guys have???

Is that even historical vehicle or is it armored spearhead of Photoshop?

It's russian a 2A3 Kondensator 2P A experimental mortar 406mm gun with an effective range of fire of 25km... it's all based on a A10 tank chassis an IS3 variant. 4 were built in 1956 but a mockup paraded in 1955 at victory parade on red square. It only existed to counter the Us M65 gun.

It's purpose was to fire as the american an atomic charge like shown here

 

[amalric de g.]

About the only thing that changed between 1938 and 1940 was numbers: the German forces that broke through near Saarbrucken were infantry divisions equipped with standard German equipment of types that were in widespread use in 1938 as well.

Thats only partially true, in 1940 the germans had the hollow charges ready, Eben Email was attacked with hollow charges.

The Maginot Line in the Saarbrücken area was not ready and the french pulled three Divisions out of the Maginot to stop the german advance near Sedan. Thats why the germans could easily breakthrough.

And the Maginot Line is overrated in its defence value.

The problem was in the entire concept of static defense positions stopping attacks directly in front of them, rather than using thick belts of mines and so-forth to blunt an attack and then counter-attacking with mobile forces, as the British did at Alamein and the Soviets did at Kursk.

Agreed.

 

[TheDungen]

I've walked across the Czech border in the Bohumin area and, though hills are all about, the route itself was not rough. Yes, there are mountains (and places to ski) but it's not like the Mountains of Moria or something.

No but you can't drive a tank in a straight line across.

 

[Nicolas I]

...And I'm not sure I agree on the word hilly, hills have less than 45 degree slope if you ask me.

You should see the movie The englishman who went up a hill but came down a mountain...

 

[Nicolas I]

I've walked across the Czech border in the Bohumin area and, though hills are all about, the route itself was not rough. Yes, there are mountains (and places to ski) but it's not like the Mountains of Moria or something.

The - fictional - Moria mountains of to Tolkien were inspired by the Silberhorn in the bernese Alps.

Would you compare the Czech border in the Bohumin area to the Shire hills (Far Downs, White Downs, Green Hills, Hills of Scary, Tower Hills, North Moors) or to the Iron Hills ?

 

[Lolkar]

Please when you talk about terrain, dont forget how it looked in 1930s. There were just few good roads which were baricaded with anti tank hedgehogs. If you wanted to invade, you would need this roads for sopply. There was a lot of swamps, wetlands, etc. Czechoslovak engineers were smart, they often used small rivers to flood fields so it become one big mud sea.

 

[FOARP]

The - fictional - Moria mountains of to Tolkien were inspired by the Silberhorn in the bernese Alps.

Would you compare the Czech border in the Bohumin area to the Shire hills (Far Downs, White Downs, Green Hills, Hills of Scary, Tower Hills, North Moors) or to the Iron Hills ?

Yeah, rolling hill-side is what we're talking about. The actual road from Chalupki to Bohumin is nearly flat, though not straight. Yes, you have to cross the Odra/Oder, but it's not very wide at this point.

No but you can't drive a tank in a straight line across.

Believe it or not, but you can't do that at Sedan either.

Please when you talk about terrain, dont forget how it looked in 1930s. There were just few good roads which were baricaded with anti tank hedgehogs. If you wanted to invade, you would need this roads for sopply. There was a lot of swamps, wetlands, etc. Czechoslovak engineers were smart, they often used small rivers to flood fields so it become one big mud sea.

The Dutch said the same. How did that work out?

Thats only partially true, in 1940 the germans had the hollow charges ready, Eben Email was attacked with hollow charges.

The Maginot Line in the Saarbrücken area was not ready and the french pulled three Divisions out of the Maginot to stop the german advance near Sedan. Thats why the germans could easily breakthrough.

And the Maginot Line is overrated in its defence value.



Agreed.

The Maginot line is indeed over-rated, but it was closer to being finished than the Czech defenses, which were comparable to those at Sedan (generally thought of as a weak extension of the Maginot line).

 

[amalric de g.]

Thats true, the red line is heavy fortifications and the green line is light fortifications. As you can see, there are gaps in the line, Ausbauzustand 1938 means expanding state in 1938.

Of the planned 16,000 light installations were about 9,500 and of the 1,300 heavy fortifications were 229 fully built and equipped.

 

[Secret Master]

Mountains of Moria or something.

"Hitler, you fear to go into those fortifications. The Czechs delved too deeply and too greedily for their coal and iron. You know what they awoke in the darkness of Bohemia.... Shadow and Flame!"

Perhaps if the Czechs had allied with the White Hand, Munich could have been avoided.

 

[amalric de g.]

Never trust wizards.

 

[Mandraug]

the deep rooted idea, that we could wipe the floor with Hitler or something. That is just symptom of national butthurt

Well, whether or not Czechs argue with each other over the feasibility of wiping the floor with Hitler in '38, I'd say in the context of this forum it's a bit of a straw man argument. Nor do I think anyone here is actually defending that kind of proposition.

I personally think that a 1938 start to the war over the Sudetenland is one of the most compelling "what if?" scenarios (so this post will also be quite long, sorry). I believe Czechoslovakia is nerfed quite a bit in HOI for precisely the same reasons that this scenario is so interesting: given Czechoslovakia's historical strength, Anglo-French decision-making in 1938 has a great potential to derail the chain of events leading to the historical successes of German arms. For any game that wants WWII to develop and begin roughly as it did, while accounting for player hindsight, Czechosolvakia's strength is a very sensitive parameter: dial it down just a bit and Anglo-French players will be far more likely to make the historical choice at Munich. With Czechoslovakia's strength historical, an Anglo-French guarantee of Czech borders and the subsequent initiation of Fall Grun, triggering French and British declarations of war on Germany, would have resulted in a campaign with very uncertain results for the Germans.

Spoiler: Munich what-ifs

Now, again, I am not arguing that Czechoslovakia should be expected to single-handedly beat off the Wehrmacht. All I am saying is that Czechoslovakia could have been expected to tie down the planned German invasion force for a significant amount of time. Without getting too much into the detail, OP (and the German version of the same more recently) shows that the two main planned axes of attack (Southern Moravia and Pilsen-Prague) were covered by (light) prepared fortifications (in the latter case, by multiple lines), precisely because they were obvious choices given the terrain on the rest of the border. The gaps are where the terrain is roughest (can we settle on highlands if neither hills nor mountains will do?). Many of the points about incomplete readiness of the Czechoslovak army (esp. with regard to static defence, armoured doctrine and armour numbers) are valid, of course. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the state of the German army in autumn of 1938 also left much to be desired. While the German Panzerwaffe had armour in superior numbers, the chief tank available to front-line units at the time (Panzer II) was outmatched in armour and out-gunned by the most widespread Czechoslovak model (LT vz. 35) and had been proven ineffective against AT-capable infantry in the Spanish Civil War. These were exploitation, not breakthrough vehicles. Breakthrough would have to be achieved by the infantry, which matched even the German doctrine of 1938.

Now, it's been suggested here that the Battle of the Netherlands is a good guide to how a Battle of Czechoslovakia would have gone and that all Dutch efforts to use terrain were useless, bordering on silly. But let's just take a moment to compare the numbers. In the Netherlands, the Germans has more than a 2:1 advantage in number of divisions (or 3:1 in men: roughly three-quarters of a million to a quarter million on the Dutch side). By contrast, the Fall Grun plan called for about 40 divisions to take part in the invasion and the Czechoslovak mobilisation brought up a roughly equal number of divisions (roughly one million against one million). Certainly, that count includes low-quality units on the Czech side, but add the fortifications into the mix and any predictions on how long significant Czech resistance may have lasted become pure speculation--days, weeks, months? (It seems equally speculative to me to discuss the quality of German intelligence or the degree of infiltration of the Czech forces by the Freikorps.) Note that the Dutch had virtually no tanks and that their prepared (light) lines actually held against superior numbers for days, without reinforcement. The Czech situation in numbers and tanks was more favourable: breakthroughs would be more difficult to achieve and counter-attacks headed by armoured units, very much part of the plan, had a decent shot at working.

Certainly, the Luftwaffe (feared even by Britain) would have easily achieved air superiority against the Czech air force's bi-planes, but the airborne assaults mentioned above as a means of avoiding fortifications were far from a sure thing. On the one hand, they may have gone splendidly, as when the Germans took Eben-Emael. On the other hand, that particular attack was trained by the Germans precisely on Czechoslovak forts, after it was found that one of the Fall Grun airborne operations, which was later executed as a training exercise after the surrender of the Sudetenland, would have been a complete flop due to poor intelligence and execution on the part of the airborne units--even unopposed, it took them until the next day to assemble and stage the planned "surprise" attack against the nearest forts, at which point they found these far more defensible than originally thought.

All that said, given the diplomatic situation after Munich, Czechoslovak prospects changed drastically. Alone, it was insufficient to hold out for weeks. When the Czechoslovak leaders threw in the towel, they were thinking of their chances in a total war. They were faced with the prospect of a losing war of attrition on the front and explicit threats of bombing civilian targets, which they knew they could not stop, in the rear. Indeed, the unstoppable Luftwaffe is the main reason for surrender, to my mind. At such a point, I'd say it does them credit they chose the lesser of two evils.

With a sufficiently aggressive Franco-British prosecution of a post-failed-Munich war, the requisite level of German effort in taking Czechoslovakia would likely leave Germany's western front under-defended for too long. This scenario led top German generals (notably Beck, certainly not all of them) to vocally oppose the whole idea of a war with Czechoslovakia in 1938--they wanted it later. Tantalizingly, Churchill's account of the lead-up to the war quotes Keitel, at his Nuremberg Trial, as having said that if the Western Allies had stood by Prague, Germany would not have gone to war in 1938, as she did not have the army. Indeed, we have only to look to Churchill's "The Gathering Storm" for a cost-benefit analysis of defending Czechoslovakia that clearly concludes it was a no-brainer. While Churchill's account is hardly unbiased, I don't think he can be accused of Czech chauvinism, much less "butt-hurt."

Looking away from the specific what-if questions around Munich, and to veer away from my personal impressions, or even those of men in any actual position to judge, like Churchill, Keitel, Benes, etc., a number of simple facts points to Czechoslovakia's particular strength, compared to other "minor" nations in Europe, which seemed surprisingly under-represented in the last WWW, given Daniel's easy time of it.

Spoiler: Case for Czechoslovak exceptionalism in general

The case largely has to do with how technologically and industrially advanced Czechoslovakia was compared to Eastern European states and how seriously she took her army compared to Western European ones.

The Bren gun, the main striking force of British and Commonwealth infantry sections, was of Czechoslovak design; it has already been noted how well the Czech army was equipped in '38 with variants of the same. Tank production at the time, while certainly not nearly Germany's equal, produced technologically advanced types in greater numbers than any non-major power (AFAIK, happy to be proven wrong, but I believe that the cca. 300 LT vz. 35 are first, followed by cca. 150 Polish 7TP built by about a year later). Modern estimates of countries' real GDP place Czechoslovakia around the level of Belgium or the Netherlands, with an economy around twice as large as Hungary or Austria. Poland's economy (GDP) was bigger, of course, but also far less industrialised. I've heard claims of a UN ranking of countries by inter-war industrial output placing Czechoslovakia at 10th globally (I suppose the first 9 would be USA, GBR, GER, FRA, SOV, JAP, ITA, NED, BEL, in some order), although I can't find that reference. It would not surprise me if this were true--Bohemia inherited most Austro-Hungarian industry and experienced an industrial boom in the 20s after following trade-oriented policies at a time when others looked to autarky (and was accordingly hit disproportionately hard by the Great Depression, but the net effect was still overwhelmingly positive). So, compared to her neighbours, Czechoslovakia was an industrial powerhouse. Compared to the economically (and industrially) superior Low Countries, her industry had a far greater military orientation; hence the tank production etc.

And when it came time to mobilise in 1938, it's already been pointed out that she fielded a force of perhaps a million men, as numerous as the Polish army in 1939 (the difference being that the Czech mobilisation was completed before hostilities began, and that the Polish faced 1.5 million Germans to the Czechs' 1 million, but I digress back to Munich). To contrast that with the Hungarian army (for no particular reason), it comprised a total of seven brigades, 35k men, with an eighth added in 1939, and its invasion force for Slovakia in 1939 was counted in battalions, not divisions.

So, of what should this convince us? My conclusion is that Czechoslovakia was a minor power, but with emphasis on power. Ignoring its strengths compared to other non-major nations does the game a disservice.

It looks like the goal for the June release is just balanced major powers, and frankly I find that quite reasonable--there is enough for the dev team to work on as is. Nevertheless, I look forward to a European Minors DLC or mods to develop the relative power of European countries, at which point I expect Czechoslovak relative power to increase quite a bit. The Allies' Munich decision-making would have to be shaped by something else--something representing huge political costs at home for standing by Prague; it looks like HOI4 has the complexity to represent that well.

Spoiler: Final note: E. European Diplomacy/NFs

Finally, given the excellent Polish NF tree proposals elsewhere in this forum, I think a really interesting dynamic can be developed between the diplomatic efforts of Benes's democratic government and Beck's authoritarian one, vying to lure Yugoslavia and Romania to their particular visions of the Central/Eastern European space, just as IRL.

The aggressive Hungary, played by Daniel in WWW, would IMHO find itself facing a diplomatic s***storm, uniting most of Europe against itself. To begin with, its aggressions would trigger Little Entente treaty obligations to counter it; since Hungary is no Germany, it seems to me that France and Britain would have no qualms backing the Little Entente in their wars, especially since it would be the Czechs, Romanians, and Yugoslavs on the front lines. It has already been noted that Hitler's Germany would also be quite likely to go ballistic in defence of Volksdeutsche and Vienna against an upstart Hungary. Hungary's most natural ally, Austria, was the invasion target, leaving only Beck's Poland (which at the time had plans to co-operate with Hungary in making a Polish-Hungarian border... good-byeee Slovakia) as a potential 1936 ally. None of this was correctly captured by the simple Democracies-vs.-Fascists diplo-mechanics of the game.

Again, this is fair enough on release, but a DLC or mod to adjust the relations, aspirations, and relative power of these countries would greatly increase at least my immersion.

 

[Turboflex]

It wasn't just Keitel.

Von Manstein also testified at Nuremburg: "If a war had broken out, neither our western border nor our Polish frontier could have been effectively defended by us, and there is no doubt whatsoever that had Czechoslovakia defended herself, we would have been held up by her fortifications, for we did not have the means to break through."

Post-occupation, Hitler also went and inspected the lines and is quoted as having told Dr. Carl Burkhardt "When after Munich we were in a position to examine Czechoslovak military strength from within, what we saw of it greatly disturbed us; We had run a serious danger. The plan prepared by the Czech generals was formidable. I now understand why my generals urged restraint."

 

[amalric de g.]

Well, whether or not Czechs argue with each other over the feasibility of wiping the floor with Hitler in '38, I'd say in the context of this forum it's a bit of a straw man argument. Nor do I think anyone here is actually defending that kind of proposition.

I personally think that a 1938 start to the war over the Sudetenland is one of the most compelling "what if?" scenarios (so this post will also be quite long, sorry). I believe Czechoslovakia is nerfed quite a bit in HOI for precisely the same reasons that this scenario is so interesting: given Czechoslovakia's historical strength, Anglo-French decision-making in 1938 has a great potential to derail the chain of events leading to the historical successes of German arms. For any game that wants WWII to develop and begin roughly as it did, while accounting for player hindsight, Czechosolvakia's strength is a very sensitive parameter: dial it down just a bit and Anglo-French players will be far more likely to make the historical choice at Munich. With Czechoslovakia's strength historical, an Anglo-French guarantee of Czech borders and the subsequent initiation of Fall Grun, triggering French and British declarations of war on Germany, would have resulted in a campaign with very uncertain results for the Germans.

Spoiler: Munich what-ifs

Now, again, I am not arguing that Czechoslovakia should be expected to single-handedly beat off the Wehrmacht. All I am saying is that Czechoslovakia could have been expected to tie down the planned German invasion force for a significant amount of time. Without getting too much into the detail, OP (and the German version of the same more recently) shows that the two main planned axes of attack (Southern Moravia and Pilsen-Prague) were covered by (light) prepared fortifications (in the latter case, by multiple lines), precisely because they were obvious choices given the terrain on the rest of the border. The gaps are where the terrain is roughest (can we settle on highlands if neither hills nor mountains will do?). Many of the points about incomplete readiness of the Czechoslovak army (esp. with regard to static defence, armoured doctrine and armour numbers) are valid, of course. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the state of the German army in autumn of 1938 also left much to be desired. While the German Panzerwaffe had armour in superior numbers, the chief tank available to front-line units at the time (Panzer II) was outmatched in armour and out-gunned by the most widespread Czechoslovak model (LT vz. 35) and had been proven ineffective against AT-capable infantry in the Spanish Civil War. These were exploitation, not breakthrough vehicles. Breakthrough would have to be achieved by the infantry, which matched even the German doctrine of 1938.

Now, it's been suggested here that the Battle of the Netherlands is a good guide to how a Battle of Czechoslovakia would have gone and that all Dutch efforts to use terrain were useless, bordering on silly. But let's just take a moment to compare the numbers. In the Netherlands, the Germans has more than a 2:1 advantage in number of divisions (or 3:1 in men: roughly three-quarters of a million to a quarter million on the Dutch side). By contrast, the Fall Grun plan called for about 40 divisions to take part in the invasion and the Czechoslovak mobilisation brought up a roughly equal number of divisions (roughly one million against one million). Certainly, that count includes low-quality units on the Czech side, but add the fortifications into the mix and any predictions on how long significant Czech resistance may have lasted become pure speculation--days, weeks, months? (It seems equally speculative to me to discuss the quality of German intelligence or the degree of infiltration of the Czech forces by the Freikorps.) Note that the Dutch had virtually no tanks and that their prepared (light) lines actually held against superior numbers for days, without reinforcement. The Czech situation in numbers and tanks was more favourable: breakthroughs would be more difficult to achieve and counter-attacks headed by armoured units, very much part of the plan, had a decent shot at working.

Certainly, the Luftwaffe (feared even by Britain) would have easily achieved air superiority against the Czech air force's bi-planes, but the airborne assaults mentioned above as a means of avoiding fortifications were far from a sure thing. On the one hand, they may have gone splendidly, as when the Germans took Eben-Emael. On the other hand, that particular attack was trained by the Germans precisely on Czechoslovak forts, after it was found that one of the Fall Grun airborne operations, which was later executed as a training exercise after the surrender of the Sudetenland, would have been a complete flop due to poor intelligence and execution on the part of the airborne units--even unopposed, it took them until the next day to assemble and stage the planned "surprise" attack against the nearest forts, at which point they found these far more defensible than originally thought.

All that said, given the diplomatic situation after Munich, Czechoslovak prospects changed drastically. Alone, it was insufficient to hold out for weeks. When the Czechoslovak leaders threw in the towel, they were thinking of their chances in a total war. They were faced with the prospect of a losing war of attrition on the front and explicit threats of bombing civilian targets, which they knew they could not stop, in the rear. Indeed, the unstoppable Luftwaffe is the main reason for surrender, to my mind. At such a point, I'd say it does them credit they chose the lesser of two evils.

With a sufficiently aggressive Franco-British prosecution of a post-failed-Munich war, the requisite level of German effort in taking Czechoslovakia would likely leave Germany's western front under-defended for too long. This scenario led top German generals (notably Beck, certainly not all of them) to vocally oppose the whole idea of a war with Czechoslovakia in 1938--they wanted it later. Tantalizingly, Churchill's account of the lead-up to the war quotes Keitel, at his Nuremberg Trial, as having said that if the Western Allies had stood by Prague, Germany would not have gone to war in 1938, as she did not have the army. Indeed, we have only to look to Churchill's "The Gathering Storm" for a cost-benefit analysis of defending Czechoslovakia that clearly concludes it was a no-brainer. While Churchill's account is hardly unbiased, I don't think he can be accused of Czech chauvinism, much less "butt-hurt."

Looking away from the specific what-if questions around Munich, and to veer away from my personal impressions, or even those of men in any actual position to judge, like Churchill, Keitel, Benes, etc., a number of simple facts points to Czechoslovakia's particular strength, compared to other "minor" nations in Europe, which seemed surprisingly under-represented in the last WWW, given Daniel's easy time of it.

Spoiler: Case for Czechoslovak exceptionalism in general

The case largely has to do with how technologically and industrially advanced Czechoslovakia was compared to Eastern European states and how seriously she took her army compared to Western European ones.

The Bren gun, the main striking force of British and Commonwealth infantry sections, was of Czechoslovak design; it has already been noted how well the Czech army was equipped in '38 with variants of the same. Tank production at the time, while certainly not nearly Germany's equal, produced technologically advanced types in greater numbers than any non-major power (AFAIK, happy to be proven wrong, but I believe that the cca. 300 LT vz. 35 are first, followed by cca. 150 Polish 7TP built by about a year later). Modern estimates of countries' real GDP place Czechoslovakia around the level of Belgium or the Netherlands, with an economy around twice as large as Hungary or Austria. Poland's economy (GDP) was bigger, of course, but also far less industrialised. I've heard claims of a UN ranking of countries by inter-war industrial output placing Czechoslovakia at 10th globally (I suppose the first 9 would be USA, GBR, GER, FRA, SOV, JAP, ITA, NED, BEL, in some order), although I can't find that reference. It would not surprise me if this were true--Bohemia inherited most Austro-Hungarian industry and experienced an industrial boom in the 20s after following trade-oriented policies at a time when others looked to autarky (and was accordingly hit disproportionately hard by the Great Depression, but the net effect was still overwhelmingly positive). So, compared to her neighbours, Czechoslovakia was an industrial powerhouse. Compared to the economically (and industrially) superior Low Countries, her industry had a far greater military orientation; hence the tank production etc.

And when it came time to mobilise in 1938, it's already been pointed out that she fielded a force of perhaps a million men, as numerous as the Polish army in 1939 (the difference being that the Czech mobilisation was completed before hostilities began, and that the Polish faced 1.5 million Germans to the Czechs' 1 million, but I digress back to Munich). To contrast that with the Hungarian army (for no particular reason), it comprised a total of seven brigades, 35k men, with an eighth added in 1939, and its invasion force for Slovakia in 1939 was counted in battalions, not divisions.

So, of what should this convince us? My conclusion is that Czechoslovakia was a minor power, but with emphasis on power. Ignoring its strengths compared to other non-major nations does the game a disservice.

It looks like the goal for the June release is just balanced major powers, and frankly I find that quite reasonable--there is enough for the dev team to work on as is. Nevertheless, I look forward to a European Minors DLC or mods to develop the relative power of European countries, at which point I expect Czechoslovak relative power to increase quite a bit. The Allies' Munich decision-making would have to be shaped by something else--something representing huge political costs at home for standing by Prague; it looks like HOI4 has the complexity to represent that well.

Spoiler: Final note: E. European Diplomacy/NFs

Finally, given the excellent Polish NF tree proposals elsewhere in this forum, I think a really interesting dynamic can be developed between the diplomatic efforts of Benes's democratic government and Beck's authoritarian one, vying to lure Yugoslavia and Romania to their particular visions of the Central/Eastern European space, just as IRL.

The aggressive Hungary, played by Daniel in WWW, would IMHO find itself facing a diplomatic s***storm, uniting most of Europe against itself. To begin with, its aggressions would trigger Little Entente treaty obligations to counter it; since Hungary is no Germany, it seems to me that France and Britain would have no qualms backing the Little Entente in their wars, especially since it would be the Czechs, Romanians, and Yugoslavs on the front lines. It has already been noted that Hitler's Germany would also be quite likely to go ballistic in defence of Volksdeutsche and Vienna against an upstart Hungary. Hungary's most natural ally, Austria, was the invasion target, leaving only Beck's Poland (which at the time had plans to co-operate with Hungary in making a Polish-Hungarian border... good-byeee Slovakia) as a potential 1936 ally. None of this was correctly captured by the simple Democracies-vs.-Fascists diplo-mechanics of the game.

Again, this is fair enough on release, but a DLC or mod to adjust the relations, aspirations, and relative power of these countries would greatly increase at least my immersion.

Thanks for your well written post, it´s one of the best in this thread.