# What If Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier Had Stood Up To Hitler At Munich in 1938?



## BAYLOR (Sep 20, 2015)

We all know how both men gave into Hitlers demand to surrender The Sudetenland section of Czechoslovakia to German and the Nazis at at Munich in 1938 to forestal war and as Chamberlain  said "Guarantee Peace in our Time " after the agreement.  Both men knew that their countries were not ready for war and doing what they did would buy them more time.  Germany wasn't ready for war at that time either. The territory contained all the Czechs critical border defenses with which they were render defenseless. not long after Hitler took what was left of country not long after. 

What if Chamberlain and Daladier stood up to Hitler and told him point blank the they would go to war with Germany over Czechoslovakia? How would Hitler  have reacted if faced with such opposition? Would it have emboldened opposition to Hitler at home?  What WWII had started in 1938? Would there have even  been a world war at all? 

Thoughts?


----------



## Gramm838 (Sep 22, 2015)

The war would probably still have started as the German generals - and probably Hitler - would have called Chamberlains' bluff and gambled that Britain was physically remote from Czechoslovakia and so couldn't intervene, and the French probably wouldn't intervene


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 22, 2015)

Gramm838 said:


> The war would probably still have started as the German generals - and probably Hitler - would have called Chamberlains' bluff and gambled that Britain was physically remote from Czechoslovakia and so couldn't intervene, and the French probably wouldn't intervene




But in that scenario wouldn't the Czech Military in the belief  that England and France were behind them  have tried to make a fight of it ? They might not have prevailed against Germany but but it would have taken them a while to get through the Czech  defenses and  they done some damage to the german war machine.


----------



## Mirannan (Sep 25, 2015)

What would have happened? Well, we (the English that is, not necessarily the people here who may never have existed) would be speaking German and I would never have been born - my great-grandfather was Jewish.

Why? In 1938, Britain was hopelessly unprepared. The radar stations and fighter direction network weren't finished and the Spitfire was present in handfuls - not to mention an even worse lack of pilots than we had in the real timeline. And the Army was even shorter of equipment then than it was in 1939.

Chamberlain is unfairly maligned, IMHO.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 25, 2015)

At the time of Munich weren't some of Hitler Generals, fearful of war, plotting his removal?


----------



## Gramm838 (Sep 25, 2015)

Mirannan said:


> What would have happened? Well, we (the English that is, not necessarily the people here who may never have existed) would be speaking German and I would never have been born - my great-grandfather was Jewish.
> 
> Why? In 1938, Britain was hopelessly unprepared. The radar stations and fighter direction network weren't finished and the Spitfire was present in handfuls - not to mention an even worse lack of pilots than we had in the real timeline. And the Army was even shorter of equipment then than it was in 1939.
> 
> Chamberlain is unfairly maligned, IMHO.


You are forgetting the major issue that was probably at the forefront of the German military minds when considering any action against Britain...the Channel.

They would had to have done what happened in 1940 anyway - smash France out of the war to gain access to the coastline, but they would still have had to take their chances at getting across the Channel. Irrespective of whether they invaded into Kent, or Essex, they would have found it impossible to support the landings.

The outcome of any war that started in 1938 would have been essentially the same as what happened after 1939.


----------



## AnyaKimlin (Sep 25, 2015)

We'd been disarming since the end of WW1 whilst Germany had been rearming.   We'd have lost the war long before the US bothered to get involved.  We'd all, US included, probably be speaking in German, Italian or Japanese now.

Chamberlin's mistake wasn't the appeasement it was not getting his arse in gear and rearming before he did. At least when the war did start we were in a slightly better position to actually fight it.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 25, 2015)

AnyaKimlin said:


> We'd been disarming since the end of WW1 whilst Germany had been rearming.   We'd have lost the war long before the US bothered to get involved.  We'd all, US included, probably be speaking in German, Italian or Japanese now.
> 
> Chamberlin's mistake wasn't the appeasement it was not getting his arse in gear and rearming before he did. At least when the war did start we were in a slightly better position to actually fight it.




Chamberlain does get unfairly blamed for what he did. He knew deep down inside that Hitter wasn't going to stop at Sudetenland, knew that war was inevitable.  Did what  he had to do to buy The Uk Time to rearm.


----------



## AnyaKimlin (Sep 25, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> Chamberlain does get unfairly blamed for what he did. He knew deep down inside that Hitter wasn't going to stop at Sudetenland, knew that war was inevitable.  Did what  he had to do to buy The Uk Time to rearm.



Think most history teachers in the UK have been teaching that version for the last 30 years or so.

But it's what the media does.  It's similar to the way Ramsay MacDonald was treated over decisions he made and we're watching it happen with Jeremy Corbyn now.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 25, 2015)

Gramm838 said:


> You are forgetting the major issue that was probably at the forefront of the German military minds when considering any action against Britain...the Channel.
> 
> They would had to have done what happened in 1940 anyway - smash France out of the war to gain access to the coastline, but they would still have had to take their chances at getting across the Channel. Irrespective of whether they invaded into Kent, or Essex, they would have found it impossible to support the landings.
> 
> The outcome of any war that started in 1938 would have been essentially the same as what happened after 1939.



Germany had a tiny Surface fleet and no real way to launch an invasion of England .

Would they have still defeated France ? Well if the Czechs had decided to fight germany that might have pulled away men and materials from the  french  campaign. It might have cause Germany to delay that operation  given might  french military more time to get their act together. The French did have a very large and fairly powerful army and though they were not as good at armored warfare as the Germans , their tanks were the equal of the Panzer 2's and 3 that they Germans had.  A different outcome is a possibility here.  One thing that might still been a problem was Germany had a better air force then France.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 25, 2015)

AnyaKimlin said:


> Think most history teachers in the UK have been teaching that version for the last 30 years or so.
> 
> But it's what the media does.  It's similar to the way Ramsay MacDonald was treated over decisions he made and we're watching it happen with Jeremy Corbyn now.



Back then what Chamberlain did looked very bad in the eyes of the media .


----------



## AnyaKimlin (Sep 25, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> Back then what Chamberlain did looked very bad in the eyes of the media .



It did but what he did actually won the war.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 25, 2015)

AnyaKimlin said:


> It did but what he did actually won the war.



He did but the whole thing effectively ended his political career and on top of that, he was dying and knew it.


----------



## AnyaKimlin (Sep 25, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> He did but the whole thing effectively ended his political career and on top of that, he was dying and knew it.



I guess. But I don't know too many people who were taught history even in the 70s who were taught he did the wrong thing.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 26, 2015)

AnyaKimlin said:


> I guess. But I don't know too many people who were taught history even in the 70s who were taught he did the wrong thing.



Chamberlain had no other good options in this situation . He simply did the best he could.


I think if Churchill had been in this situation , he would have had to do the same thing.


----------



## BAYLOR (May 18, 2016)

Harry Turtledove wrote a series dealing with a scenario where Chamberlain and Daladier made a far different choice .


----------



## Lew Rockwell Fan (May 19, 2016)

The mistake was not returning the Sudetenland. Many people had advocated that for some time and he was widely praised for it at the time. The mistake was guaranteeing Polish sovereignty. That was fundamentally a lie. The UK didn't have the capacity to prevent the invasion of Poland. But Polish leaders foolishly counted on Chamberlain's promise. If they had realized help was NOT coming, they could have gotten better terms. Hitler didn't originally plan on war with France or the UK. The objective should have been to encourage Hitler and Stalin to bleed each other to death while building strength. It could have been managed. French an Brit pols should have been more realistic about Eastern Europe.


----------



## BAYLOR (May 29, 2016)

Lew Rockwell Fan said:


> The mistake was not returning the Sudetenland. Many people had advocated that for some time and he was widely praised for it at the time. The mistake was guaranteeing Polish sovereignty. That was fundamentally a lie. The UK didn't have the capacity to prevent the invasion of Poland. But Polish leaders foolishly counted on Chamberlain's promise. If they had realized help was NOT coming, they could have gotten better terms. Hitler didn't originally plan on war with France or the UK. The objective should have been to encourage Hitler and Stalin to bleed each other to death while building strength. It could have been managed. French an Brit pols should have been more realistic about Eastern Europe.



Britain and France were too busy trying to by themselves the  time to rearm.   But then again, Germany at that time really wasn't ready for war.  After they took Czechoslovakia , they  pressed into service Czech Tanks and got control of the Skoda factor  which enable them to get the necessary armaments to wage war.


----------



## galanx (Jun 2, 2016)

The problem was not what Britain could have done, which was negligible, but what France could have done- but wouldn't. At that time, Germany would have had to devote so much of it's army to attacking Czechoslovakia that the French could have taken the Rhinland easily; a prospect that gave the German generals the fits.

Would Hitler have beaten Czechoslovakia? Yes. Would Germany have eventually pushed  France back? Yes- but what would have happened in the meantime?


----------



## galanx (Jun 2, 2016)

Lew Rockwell Fan said:


> The mistake was not returning the Sudetenland. Many people had advocated that for some time and he was widely praised for it at the time. The mistake was guaranteeing Polish sovereignty. That was fundamentally a lie. The UK didn't have the capacity to prevent the invasion of Poland. But Polish leaders foolishly counted on Chamberlain's promise. If they had realized help was NOT coming, they could have gotten better terms. Hitler didn't originally plan on war with France or the UK. The objective should have been to encourage Hitler and Stalin to bleed each other to death while building strength. It could have been managed. French an Brit pols should have been more realistic about Eastern Europe.



I think the Poles realised where England and France were, and knew that help was not coming. They may have thought the prospect of war with the Western Powers would have caused Hitler to back down, but realistically no Polish government would have given up Danzig.

As for Britain and France sitting back and letting Germany and the Soviet Union fight it out, Hitler knew he couldn't allow a two-front war for the second time. His aims were to give France a sharp defeat, leaving them unable to retaliate, while offering peace and non-interference with the Empire to Britain. Only with that secured could he turn on Russia.

But he did attack Russia without defeating Britain, didn't he? Because by that time he relised he couldn't force Britain to surrender, or even negotiate peace, and hoped to follow the Napoleonic idea of knocking out the only possible land ally while building up a self-sufficient economic zone.

Pat Buchanan's dream of Germany and the USSR exhausting each other while Britain and France built up their strength is just that.



> ‘It is a pity that our friends lie in between,’ said Gimli. ‘If no land divided Isengard and Mordor, then they could fight while we watched and waited.’
> 
> ‘The victor would emerge stronger than either, and free from doubt,’ said Gandalf.


----------



## The Ace (Jun 2, 2016)

I'm not one of Churchill's biggest fans, but he summed up the situation nicely, speaking to Chamberlain shortly afterwards;

"You had to choose between war and dishonour, you will have both."

You have to look at the character of the main players; Chamberlain was decent and honourable - his flaw was believing that Hitler was as trustworthy as he was, while Hitler was an inveterate gambler - he was bluffing on an empty hand, but his opponents never came close to realising it.  Daladier simply wanted to avoid another war at any cost - it's easy to see why.

Britain and France together _might _have dealt with Germany if they'd been able to mobilise quickly enough (history shows that they probably wouldn't have been able to), and while the Poles and Czechs may've been able to open a second front, what would Stalin have been doing at this time?

I can just imagine him rubbing his hands in glee as his enemies start kicking lumps out of each other and, as they start to keel over, mounting a massive drive to Paris, smashing everything in his path.

German or Russian ?


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jun 2, 2016)

The Ace said:


> Chamberlain was decent and honourable - his flaw was believing that Hitler was as trustworthy as he was,


Or perhaps he didn't believe Hitler at all but wanted to buy time?
Winston Churchill was banned from speaking on BBC during 1930s because of his confrontational undiplomatic rants. (Some were anti muslim too, in similar vein to Enoch Powell). The fact that probably Churchill was right about most of it is a separate issue.

Churchill, Paisley and Powell might have been right about lots of things, but all had in common an ability to say what they thought in an antagonistis & Confrontational style and hang the consequences.

UK was already gearing up for war before Chamberlain went but wasn't ready. Perhaps Chamberlain was an idiot for how he waved the paper and the speeches he made.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 3, 2016)

The Ace said:


> I'm not one of Churchill's biggest fans, but he summed up the situation nicely, speaking to Chamberlain shortly afterwards;
> 
> "You had to choose between war and dishonour, you will have both."
> 
> ...




What if Churchill at been at Munich instead of Chamberlain? Wouldn't circumstances have forced him down the same road as Chamberlain?


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 24, 2016)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Or perhaps he didn't believe Hitler at all but wanted to buy time?
> Winston Churchill was banned from speaking on BBC during 1930s because of his confrontational undiplomatic rants. (Some were anti muslim too, in similar vein to Enoch Powell). The fact that probably Churchill was right about most of it is a separate issue.
> 
> Churchill, Paisley and Powell might have been right about lots of things, but all had in common an ability to say what they thought in an antagonistis & Confrontational style and hang the consequences.
> ...



Here's another question, what if Churchill had been at Munich instead of Chamberlin? How would he have handled things?


----------



## Narkalui (Sep 28, 2016)

I've had a think about this. I think Waylander is right, Hitler was bluffing with with a 9 High, Chamberlain thought Hitler had aces. I think Churchill might have called Hitler's bluff, the result would still have been war in 39 but Hitler wouldn't have had the Sudetenland.

The real time to stop Hitler in his tracks was when he remilitarized the Rhineland in (33? 34? Can't remember now)...


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 17, 2017)

Narkalui said:


> I've had a think about this. I think Waylander is right, Hitler was bluffing with with a 9 High, Chamberlain thought Hitler had aces. I think Churchill might have called Hitler's bluff, the result would still have been war in 39 but Hitler wouldn't have had the Sudetenland.
> 
> The real time to stop Hitler in his tracks was when he remilitarized the Rhineland in (33? 34? Can't remember now)...



If the French had sent Troops into the Rhineland, that might have slowed Hitler down a bit,maybe enough to embolden his Generals to overthrow him.


----------



## Dave (Sep 17, 2017)

BAYLOR said:


> Back then what Chamberlain did looked very bad in the eyes of the media .





AnyaKimlin said:


> It did but what he did actually won the war.





BAYLOR said:


> He did but the whole thing effectively ended his political career and on top of that, he was dying and knew it.





AnyaKimlin said:


> I guess. But I don't know too many people who were taught history even in the 70s who were taught he did the wrong thing.



Just a small point, and quite late I know, but I've been reading the memoirs of Captain William Armstrong, the pilot (and a cousin of my grandmother) who flew Dr. Eduardo Benes, President of Czechoslovakia, to his meeting with Stalin in Russia in 1943. While he has the greatest sympathy for Czechoslovakia, and he thinks how they were treated was atrocious, he believes that Britiain needed those two years to rearm. He actually discussed this with Benes while they were waiting for the bad weather to change. So, the idea is not something dreamed up by history teachers in later years, and this argument was taking place even during the war itself. 

Also, it was clear, even in 1943, that after the war Czechoslovakia and Poland were going to fall under communist influence and there was little that the West could do. The idea that this only became apparent after the Yalta conference is also wrong. We were too slow to open up a second front in Europe through Italy and probably made too many costly mistakes there. If we had done that we could have liberated parts of eastern Europe before the Russians.


----------



## Edward M. Grant (Sep 18, 2017)

Dave said:


> Also, it was clear, even in 1943, that after the war Czechoslovakia and Poland were going to fall under communist influence and there was little that the West could do.



From what I've read, Stalin was astounded when the Western leaders just let him keep half of Europe after the end of the war. He was ready to back down if they forced the issue, because we had nukes, and he did not.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 18, 2017)

Edward M. Grant said:


> From what I've read, Stalin was astounded when the Western leaders just let him keep half of Europe after the end of the war. He was ready to back down if they forced the issue, because we had nukes, and he did not.



If that's the case then, we were pretty damned stupid.


----------



## Edward M. Grant (Sep 18, 2017)

I suspect it's more than Stalin was better at spying on the West than the West was at spying on Stalin.


----------



## hej (Oct 3, 2017)

First, he would have to surmount the tremendous anti-war sentiment.

Second, he would have had to send a woefully underprepared military.

Even when the UK did mobilize, it still had to flee the German war machine (Dunkirk).

Too, afaik, the US did not have even the foundation of lend-lease set up to send the UK materiel.

Until Germany ran into the Soviet buzz saw, I don't see how a Western victory would have been remotely possible.

My hunch is that we would still malign Chamberlain, albeit for different reasons.

I do not think the British would be speaking German. The channel was too great an obstacle for the Germans to surmount, imho.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 11, 2019)

Edward M. Grant said:


> I suspect it's more than Stalin was better at spying on the West than the West was at spying on Stalin.



Ironically for Stalin, he refused to believe his spy network when they told him Germany was going to attack the Thew Soviet Union.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 11, 2019)

There is something  that Chamberlain and  Daladier  might have down which would have been risky but, could perhaps have forced Hitler  to back down .

Before the conference  , Daladier should have mobilized France's  Army and massed it at the  Germany's border . Now , what Chamberlain might have considered doing is take  Royal Navy and bring it to within  firing range of Germany's  coast , And  place  whatever units  of the RAF that they had on  Frances airfields  and have them and the French Air force  fly sorties  over Germany.  And then both men should then have told  the Czech's  to mobilize their entire  military for an all out assault on Germany souther flank  Then go to the Munich Conference.  In the face of a potential attack from three directions , Land ,sea and Air ,  Hitler would have backed down, he would had no choice but to do so and very likely , his Gmerals would have removed him from office and probably prevent WWII and all the horrors and loss of lives.


----------



## Dave (Nov 11, 2019)

Would never have happened. No one wanted war. They had had a world war that had only finished 20 years earlier. It had removed a whole generation of men from the country and caused huge changes to society. Women couldn't marry. Women had to take the jobs of men. Whole villages lost the men. Schools lost their boys. Families lost sons, brothers and fathers. It was meant to be the war to end all wars. It had achieved little politically for all the human cost. They also knew that any new war would be fought with explosives and gas that could be dropped from the air on civilians, and tanks and other machines. So, you had anti-war demonstrations and politicians were aware that there were no votes in warmongering. They were trying everything they could to prevent a war, under the genuine belief that it could be avoided. It is easy from hindsight to say that was futile, but what if it had not been?


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 11, 2019)

Dave said:


> Would never have happened. No one wanted war. They had had a world war that had only finished 20 years earlier. It had removed a whole generation of men from the country and caused huge changes to society. Women couldn't marry. Women had to take the jobs of men. It was meant to be the war to end all wars. It had achieved little politically for all the human cost. They also knew that any new war would be fought with explosives and gas that could be dropped from the air on civilians, and tanks and other machines. So, you had anti-war demonstrations and politicians were aware that there were no votes in warmongering. They were trying everything they could to prevent a war, under the genuine belief that it could be avoided. It is easy from hindsight to say that was futile, but what if it had not been?



Dave , I know it would have not happened for all of those reasons    but,  if that approach had been taken, I think Hitler with that many dagger pointed at him,  would have blinked. 

Another  flight fancy,  what would have been equally interesting to contemplate   is , what  Churchill had been the Prime Minter instead of Chamberlain at that time?  yes I know that would happened because Churchill at tha time was on the outs with his now political  party was relegated to the back bench    Churchill  and Hitler face to face , not  would have been something witness .  Hitler could not have intimidated or pushed around Churchill like he did Chamberlain.  Churchill would hasten him for lunch.


----------



## Dave (Nov 11, 2019)

This speculation is pointless. Hitler was well aware that no one wanted another war. He used the appeasement to let them give an inch and then take a mile, because he knew that he could. Churchill was sitting on the backbenches of the UK Parliament precisely because he was the isolated voice warning of the need to rearm against Germany when no one else wanted to hear that. Even if a time traveller came back from the future and told them what would happen, I expect that it would all be played out in exactly the same way again.


----------



## CupofJoe (Nov 12, 2019)

I think Chamberlain was one of the first to suffer from a bad Photo-Op.
That speech on the steps of the plane was designed to go in to news-reels that day and over the next couple of weeks to try and calm a nation afraid of what a new war might bring.
So a lot of people had that image and his words in their head when everything fell apart and Britain went to war.
Politically I think he did what he had to do to buy time. The visual and the public memory ruined him a year later...


----------



## olive (Nov 12, 2019)

He probably had a plan B. I don't think he would build a basic strategy on the belief of 'they won't see my bluff for sure' at that level. Not because he is Hitler, because he is a soldier, more than that a militarist. He probably had already prepared for a war, but played the bluff -if it was a bluff- to get stronger under a set of circumstances noone wanted a war. It's win/win. But may be looking back, he looks unprepared at that moment in that time compared to what was to come, because looking back, we know the story today from the other end. It's been digged deep, written and written on it and that makes the general look more myopic in a sense.

But generally, the idea that an enormous event like WWII would have turned a different way or that may be wouldn't even have happened if one or two people acted differently at some point -inlcuding Adolf Hitler- sounds pretty naive to me.

I understand that this is naturally very important for Europeans and Americans, but from outside, it looks like this war is often treated as something happened because of some 'evil powers rising' rather than the simple circumstances that caused it which can be found in almost every period in some way. We are living it today in different terms. And there is this huge culture built on it as if it is something different over all in the end.

The way people talk about it, sometimes it feels like most people believe that it wouldn't have happened, if Adolf Hitler hadn't been born. That's ridiculous.

Forget about the immediate reasons and circumstances, after hundreds of years of colonialism and modern state established on top of that is it really surprising these wars have happened, if not something worse? There is this 'race' that has started around 15th century, Reformation/Counter Reformation, Scientific Revolution, Enlightenment, French Revolutions, Industrialism...and with the establishment of modern state through that process Nationalism was born.

Almost every text written about the WWII points to some 'Fascism' rising as if it is something alien, dropped from the sky. It's the rise of Nationalism. Nationalism is not some, natural modern phase of tribalism, it is the religion of modern state invented by the standards it brought.

National languages, national armies, national histories...they don't exist until 200 years ago. The unification of language especially, I think played a big role because of its unique quality in cultural processes. And the region we call Germany today has the least unified language culture in the history of Europe in Early Modern Europe. Think of student movements in the beginning of the 20th century, how they started but then what they have become. Of course there are countless variables and factors. It's just an example related to Germany.

Unfortunately, the human culture we produced depends on wars to get ahead in every period. The techonological and scientific acheivements depend on wars. With stones or nukes or cyber weapons.

Well, you all know this. In short, World Wars were inevitable with or without Adolf Hitler or Nazis. And we got off cheap actually. But the WWII being treated as some extraordinary event happened because nobody stopped a group of 'evil' people is doing a disservice to human history in my opinion. This is us. This is humans and their culture. The States, governments do not run on some individual human morality or any set of ethics. A historical figure being seen as 'decent' has no hold on any historical event. The agreements, unions...they are all delusions. The concept of power does not have a room for anything but itself. Right wing politics. It's the only thing that is same from every angle.

If we survive long enough as species, it's going to happen over and over again. On this or some other planet. What do you think is likely to happen some time after colonisation of Mars is completed?


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 12, 2019)

olive said:


> He probably had a plan B. I don't think he would build a basic strategy on the belief of 'they won't see my bluff for sure' at that level. Not because he is Hitler, because he is a soldier, more than that a militarist. He probably had already prepared for a war, but played the bluff -if it was a bluff- to get stronger under a set of circumstances noone wanted a war. It's win/win. But may be looking back, he looks unprepared at that moment in that time compared to what was to come, because looking back, we know the story today from the other end. It's been digged deep, written and written on it and that makes the general look more myopic in a sense.



Disagree with you. He had been a corporal not a trained officer, although he was not as crazy and stupid as the German generals would have us believe as they tried to justify their actions in WW2, but I really think he *didn't* have a plan B. Or, to put it another way, if the allies had responded with declarations of war, I'm sure he'd have (been forced to) accept it and WW2 would have began. (Although I guess the war would have _probably_ been more-or-less the same, UK blockading, French and BEF waiting on the border for German attack. Hitler making a pact with the USSR, dissemble Poland etc.)  It was the politician Hitler that was running the show. He'd 'bluffed' a lot earlier and got what he wanted and his hubris was growing and would build to a crescendo in years to come. That was a huge factor in his decisions.

The German military was clear it was _not_ ready for war against France and the UK, hence the muscial chairs with OKW / OKH in 1938 when they criticised his political approach.

This was a political calculation not a military decision. There was feeling from a substantial quarter of the allies that Versaille had been far too harsh and that it should be dialled down - especially with the UK, see the Navy treaties and response to Rhineland and Austria. Also there was little appetite for another war, the Munich agreement was celebrated at the time amongst many. He was banking on that, he liked the odds and made the bet. You do make this point, however as there was no plan B, an aggressive France and UK could have made WW2 play out very differently.

Fundamentally he was an opportunist who always preferred the radical solution. He made the same bet the year afterwards when the next 'opportunity' came up with Danzig and Poland. He lost it.



olive said:


> But generally, the idea that an enormous event like WWII would have turned a different way or that may be wouldn't even have happened if one or two people acted differently at some point -inlcuding Adolf Hitler- sounds pretty naive to me.



I see you ascribe to the Tolstoyian 'calculus of history' school!

I think in some(most? nearly all??) senses you are correct, but I do think on occassion individuals do have an enormous impact on how events unfurl. So yes, changing a few decisions in 1938 would likely have done little to change the course of events...but Hitler being killed on the Western Front in 1918, would have surely led to a different Germany in 1934. Or would 'history' have churned out a cookie-cutter, mesmeric, 'let's expand East, boo to world Jewry' dictator? There might be an argument that there would always have still been conflict in Europe _at some point_ - after all Germany was still rife with Prussian militarism and the German Army was a huge part of German society at the time - but who knows how radically different such conflicts might have been.



olive said:


> there is this huge culture built on it as if it is something different over all in the end.



This is probably a whole discussion, but in simplistic terms I think you can argue it was a major 'Good War' for the allies and that is different from many other conflicts in the past. Not all, but many. If you delve deeper into what happened on both sides this moral question becomes murkier and less black and white, but I still think it necessary that the allies won.



olive said:


> The way people talk about it, sometimes it feels like most people believe that it wouldn't have happened, if Adolf Hitler hadn't been born. That's ridiculous.



This is a good point - very reminiscent of Von Manstein or Guderian writing after the war that he and his men were fine, it was Hitler and the evil SS that did everything bad. However I'd contend that if Hitler hadn't been around, the conflict or whatever happened in it's place could have been profoundly different.



olive said:


> National languages, national armies, national histories...they don't exist until 200 years ago.



Okay, big topic. Don't really agree with you - there are plenty of nations that are thousands of years old that have all of the above. Yes many of them are different from the modern definition of national states, but they are definitely there. I'm sure the Chinese would vigoursly argue against you!



olive said:


> Unfortunately, the human culture we produced depends on wars to get ahead in every period. The techonological and scientific acheivements depend on wars. With stones or nukes or cyber weapons.



This is interesting. Unfortunately we are a warlike, aggressive species more-or-less, so it is impossible for us to know if science and technology would have fared better in a world dominated by peace. Also it seems to be an argument perfectly made for the military industrial complex! My first guess is actually no, (purely to start a discussion ), we'd have done just as well in a peaceful world - maybe even better, but would have focussed on different areas of science and tech.



olive said:


> But the WWII being treated as some extraordinary event happened because nobody stopped a group of 'evil' people is doing a disservice to human history in my opinion.



Not quite sure what you're trying to say here. But I'll say WW2 is extraordinary in the following senses: The greatest loss of human life due to one conflict, the amount of destruction and the geographical extent of it. We've not had a war like it in the past at all - it's unique and hopefully it stays that way. That's what makes it extraordinary. That the bad guys were beaten is a huge plus (I don't see how you can put the word evil in quotation marks when talking about Nazis or the Japanese military circa 1930/40)


----------



## CupofJoe (Nov 12, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> We all know how both men gave into Hitlers demand to surrender The Sudetenland section of Czechoslovakia to German and the Nazis at at Munich in 1938 to forestal war and as Chamberlain  said "Guarantee Peace in our Time " after the agreement.  Both men knew that their countries were not ready for war and doing what they did would buy them more time.  Germany wasn't ready for war at that time either. The territory contained all the Czechs critical border defenses with which they were render defenseless. not long after Hitler took what was left of country not long after.
> What if Chamberlain and Daladier stood up to Hitler and told him point blank the they would go to war with Germany over Czechoslovakia? How would Hitler  have reacted if faced with such opposition? Would it have emboldened opposition to Hitler at home?  What WWII had started in 1938? Would there have even  been a world war at all?
> Thoughts?


There is a really good book [which I can't remember the name of] which takes at its premise that WWII started with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931-32. After that point Japanese expansionism was set on a collision course with the USA and the UK as they expanded further west and south in to colonial [or near colonial] territories. It was only a matter of time before the shooting started.
It also took the position that WWII was won by the Allies in 1939 when the Soviet forces beat Japanese forces in the Battles of Khalkhin Gol. Their success meant that they didn't need any significant actions in the far east again [until the very end of the war] and could focus completely on the Nazi attacks in the west. If even 10-20% of the Red army had been fighting the Japanese, Would Moscow have fallen? Would Operation Barbarossa got to the oil fields? Who knows.
Now I think it is as [im]plausible as any other timeline, but I work with Chinese and they view WWII fighting in Europe as almost a sideshow to what was happening in the East. They have the war running from the early 30s to 1945 [or even later if they are particularly patriotic].


----------



## olive (Nov 12, 2019)

Venusian Broon said:


> Disagree with you. He had been a corporal not a trained officer, although he was not as crazy and stupid as the German generals would have us believe as they tried to justify their actions in WW2, but I really think he *didn't* have a plan B. Or, to put it another way, if the allies had responded with declarations of war, I'm sure he'd have (been forced to) accept it and WW2 would have began. (Although I guess the war would have _probably_ been more-or-less the same, UK blockading, French and BEF waiting on the border for German attack. Hitler making a pact with the USSR, dissemble Poland etc.)  It was the politician Hitler that was running the show. He'd 'bluffed' a lot earlier and got what he wanted and his hubris was growing and would build to a crescendo in years to come. That was a huge factor in his decisions.
> 
> The German military was clear it was _not_ ready for war against France and the UK, hence the muscial chairs with OKW / OKH in 1938 when they criticised his political approach.
> 
> ...




OK. Defining it as plan B is not correct. But don't you think he knew that there wouldn't be an agressive unified France and UK against him and that vision is something far more than just a bluff of 'nobody wants a war'? These two countries have already started the race and going head to head.
This is what I meant by the race. Everybody is against each other in some development race.

Opportunist? Single minded you mean. Like a virus. Doesn't think it could lose, just try to inavde and spread.



Venusian Broon said:


> see you ascribe to the Tolstoyian 'calculus of history' school!



I don't really subsrcibe to any schools consciously, I promise.  I tried to give a context for why I see it that way. But yeah I am not optimistic about my species.

I'm voicing my impressions built on interaction with people from Western countries.



Venusian Broon said:


> I think in some(most? nearly all??) senses you are correct, but I do think on occassion individuals do have an enormous impact on how events unfurl. So yes, changing a few decisions in 1938 would likely have done little to change the course of events...but Hitler being killed on the Western Front in 1918, would have surely led to a different Germany in 1934. Or would 'history' have churned out a cookie-cutter, mesmeric, 'let's expand East, boo to world Jewry' dictator? There might be an argument that there would always have still been conflict in Europe _at some point_ - after all Germany was still rife with Prussian militarism and the German Army was a huge part of German society at the time - but who knows how radically different such conflicts might have been.



OK. That makes sense. You mean without him may be there wouldn't have been a Holocaust, but a war would have likely to happen.

I already agree with the first part, that's what I am saying. But the reason I haven't opted out the Holocaust specifically, because every dictator, nationalist-alt right politics play on created domestic and foreign enemies. It has to. That doesn't change. It's the same story today. That fear is the catalyst for that politics to work. They need demons. So any other similar conflict would have had a similar consequences for some minority or group.

In this case, Jewish people were a suitable target for a soverign country politics who was dropped out of "the race". It's simple divisive politics. Anti-semitism is an ancient sickness in everywhere around the world, but from German nationalism point in that climate they were painted as the reason for why they can't move forward in the new age as a nation.




Venusian Broon said:


> It is probably a whole discussion, but in simplistic terms I think you can argue it was a major 'Good War' for the allies and that is different from many other conflicts in the past. Not all, but many. If you delve deeper into what happened on both sides this moral question becomes murkier and less black and white, but I still think it necessary that the allies won.



Well, it is different and I am glad they won, lol. Needlessly to say. Bu I was trying to say that it is not so different from what is going on today, even though we are living the least violent period of human history.




Venusian Broon said:


> This is a good point - very reminiscent of Von Manstein or Guderian writing after the war that he and his men were fine, it was Hitler and the evil SS that did everything bad. However I'd contend that if Hitler hadn't been around, the conflict or whatever happened in it's place could have been profoundly different.



Hmm. OK. But again not so sure about the last part. Without inventing domestic enemies -which means immediate threat- you don't have the triggers to provide for the set of politics required for a war. We are living in this today, lol. Everywhere.



Venusian Broon said:


> Okay, big topic. Don't really agree with you - there are plenty of nations that are thousands of years old that have all of the above. Yes many of them are different from the modern definition of national states, but they are definitely there. I'm sure the Chinese would vigoursly argue against you!



LOL Yes, from a linguistic point Chinese would be a unique example in world history and you found it.  But that's China. For early modern Europe, from cultural history point, there are no languages, but just vernaculars. There are no nations or national armies. They are very young concepts. Nationalism is not some kind of developed tribalism. We have tribes, lol. Tribes are very different.



Venusian Broon said:


> This is interesting. Unfortunately we are a warlike, aggressive species more-or-less, so it is impossible for us to know if science and technology would have fared better in a world dominated by peace. Also it seems to be an argument perfectly made for the military industrial complex! My first guess is actually no, (purely to start a discussion ), we'd have done just as well in a peaceful world - maybe even better, but would have focussed on different areas of science and tech.



That's nothing interesting, it is a fact. And I hate this with vengeance, but yes, the technology introduced in the 20th century is the result of research made before and during the WWII. against Germany, then against Russia. Technology does not develop to make people's lives easy and keep them live, it develops via military technology to destroy lives and then get transformed into every day technology piece by piece according to the created industries and major economies; calculated profits.

Richard Feynman has a speech...well he has several, not sure exactly which one I think this was given 1952? That popped in my mind writing this.



Venusian Broon said:


> Not quite sure what you're trying to say here. But I'll say WW2 is extraordinary in the following senses: The greatest loss of human life due to one conflict, the amount of destruction and the geographical extent of it. We've not had a war like it in the past at all - it's unique and hopefully it stays that way. That's what makes it extraordinary. That the bad guys were beaten is a huge plus (I don't see how you can put the word evil in quotation marks when talking about Nazis or the Japanese military circa 1930/40)



Everything you count up there is about the scale. But the causes, reasons...politics. Oldest story. That's why it is not an 'extraordinary' event. Of course it is horrifyingly huge. And when you paint something that dark, a lot of things look a bit better in contrast while they are not. That's what I mean. It's become some fantasy evil while it is the most basic human reality. Racism and fascism... It's pretty much alive. It has never died. It changed make up.

Overall, it looks you agree with me more than you disagree though, lol.


----------



## Dave (Nov 12, 2019)

olive said:


> But don't you think he knew that there wouldn't be an aggressive unified France and UK against him and that vision is something far more than just a bluff of 'nobody wants a war'?


His plan was for Britain to join him and France would give up. He certainly said as much and he must have even actually believed it was possible. There was considerable support for Fascism in the UK especially among the aristocracy and elite. There were many people with financial links to German industry. Even the Royal Family was Hanoverian. While the support for Fascism was much less than he was probably lead to believe, there were a lot of people visiting from England telling him otherwise, and the appeasement could have been seen by him as tantamount to agreement. So, while this was obviously a mistaken belief, the _Germany Calling_ broadcasts were an attempt to increase public sympathy, and they still must have believed it was possible even as late as 1941 when Rudolf Hess flew secretly to Scotland.


----------



## olive (Nov 12, 2019)

Thanks, Dave. That makes sense. I completely forgot about British Royal Family roots.


----------



## Dave (Nov 12, 2019)

That would never have happened either though. There was also a great deal of support for Communism. Many people from Britain had gone off to fight against Fascism in the Spanish Civil War. Also, in that typically British way, there were many people who didn't really care either way, but did see him as a 'jolly rotten fellow.' Where communities had strong ties, such as in the London East End, people would stick up for their neighbours, and they didn't care if they were Jews or not, but just in a British 'sense of fair play'. Once the war began, the fear and propaganda just made it even less likely.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 12, 2019)

I read an interesting claim recently that the heads of the German army were looking to remove Hitler, and were planning a coup the moment Chamberlain rebuffed him. 

When Chamberlain came to an agreement with Hitler, it threw the plotters into disarray, because Hitler's position and policy had been both strengthened and vindicated in the eyes of the German people, making it more difficult to go against him.


----------



## olive (Nov 12, 2019)

Well, Britain has been out of the traditional religious norms of continental Europe -before becoming an Empire- for centuries. There has to be a difference. Sense of class would be stronger than any other, I guess.  Also it is an island(s) country over all. That would play some role. It's different than sharing land borders at four sides. 

I can't decide from today's culture and feeling the places give. I have been to Germany and Austria, well it is Germany and Austria, lol. Austria feels like a relaxed small Germany you can walk in a few days. Rigid, ordered. I've only been to London in the UK. People are generally, strangely closer -not necessarily in a good way- and too far away at the same time. Wall built in a wall built in a wall built in wall... 

But the US is completely different. Americans are in the open kind of people. Everything feels like in the open in the US. From sh** to good to the bad. People are closer in a wider sense. I don't know how to explain. It's very different two cultures; European in general and the US. I've only been to blue states and I was told by American friends where not to visit strictly, lol.


----------



## Star-child (Nov 12, 2019)

I oppose the notion of examining a single change in history: Chamberlain pushes back, Hitler goes home and gets food poisoning at a celebratory meal. You can't change history in isolation.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 12, 2019)

Dave said:


> His plan was for Britain to join him and France would give up. He certainly said as much and he must have even actually believed it was possible. There was considerable support for Fascism in the UK especially among the aristocracy and elite. There were many people with financial links to German industry. Even the Royal Family was Hanoverian. While the support for Fascism was much less than he was probably lead to believe, there were a lot of people visiting from England telling him otherwise, and the appeasement could have been seen by him as tantamount to agreement. So, while this was obviously a mistaken belief, the _Germany Calling_ broadcasts were an attempt to increase public sympathy, and they still must have believed it was possible even as late as 1941 when Rudolf Hess flew secretly to Scotland.



Oswald Mosely  come to mind.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 12, 2019)

Star-child said:


> I oppose the notion of examining a single change in history: Chamberlain pushes back, Hitler goes home and gets food poisoning at a celebratory meal. You can't change history in isolation.



History can turn on the smallest  and seemingly insignificant of events.


----------



## Star-child (Nov 13, 2019)

BAYLOR said:


> History can turn on the smallest  and seemingly insignificant of events.


Exactly. Which is why this sort of "do-over" thinking is a bit pointless.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 13, 2019)

Star-child said:


> Exactly. Which is why this sort of "do-over" thinking is a bit pointless.



Because what scenarios  can lead to interesting discussions on history.  ive  done are then a few what topics.

i


----------



## Temperance (Nov 13, 2019)

The problem that the Allies have is war with what material exactly?

A large chunk of their strength existed on paper, WW1 stock that hadn't been looked at in a generation. There are still sealed arsenals near Plymouth that haven't been touched since 1918, the doors were sealed. But these counted as wartime material.

The British were stuck in Churchill ten year rule, even after Munich Chamberlain had of a time getting increased spending through.

so no integrated air defence network, no expeditionary force, no spending on US industrial base that starts coming online in 1940.

And the German almost certainly knew this.


----------



## CupofJoe (Nov 14, 2019)

Temperance said:


> The problem that the Allies have is war with what material exactly?
> 
> A large chunk of their strength existed on paper, WW1 stock that hadn't been looked at in a generation. There are still sealed arsenals near Plymouth that haven't been touched since 1918, the doors were sealed. But these counted as wartime material.
> 
> ...


But Britain was working on an integrated air defence system. Chain Home [& CH Low] and Fighter Command were designed to work together. It came together in 39 and 40 but it was build built and tested from 38.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 18, 2019)

olive said:


> Overall, it looks you agree with me more than you disagree though, lol.



Errm... I'd prefer to have a discussion and think ideas through rather than speak as if the world is 'black and white', like a troll. Lol 

I'd expand on some interesting points later, as I'm deep in critting someone elses novel and that's sucking up my time right now, but I don't really subscribe to some of your ideas, but that might just be me  misunderstanding what you've written, Lol.


----------

