1938-Western demonstration of power

Such POD require different leaders of France and UK because I can't see Chamberlain playing such game. But generally I don't find whole idea unthinkable.
So what if in 1938 the West respond to German bluff with their own? In 1938 West is not ready for war, although Germans seemed to be better prepared it was illusion-they were not ready too.
In 1938 instead of trying to appease Hitler UK and France decide to say NO to Hitler's teritorrial demands in Sudetenland. France starts mobilization. It is bluff because neither UK or France have intention to really fight for Czechoslovakia but would it work? Hitler planned war for early 1940s, he hoped that the West will ignore Poland and Czechoslovakia to buy time, unlike people like von Neurath who predicted that France would protect its allies in the case of German agression-now he seems to be right.
How would Hitler react?
 

Thanks for the Share Stenz - I'd not heard of this before.

As for the OPs POD - my appreciation is that Hitler was playing an increasingly more dangerous game of brinkmanship and became increasingly more emboldened and harder to stop by his own people for each successive success.

I have always seen Chamberlain's 'Appeasement' of Hitler during this time as trading Hitler's demands for time for Britain and France to rearm a process that would not be complete enough until mid 1941 at the earliest.

However the idea of the Western Entente loudly sabre rattling over the Sudetenland and making a loud demonstration of mobilising might very well force Hitler to back down - particulalrly if his Military generals are telling him that he cannot win a war with all 3 nations (Hitler did actually listen to his generals)

You could have a situation where he is rebuffed and has to back down and then has to turn his gaze inwards due to plots etc.

We could then have all sorts of situations unfold. The Military and other German factions would feel more emboldened to oppose the Fuhrer and the West might possibly see military intervention even if just as a threat to be a less risky choice than OTL.
 

Archibald

Banned
I think Hitler might shit his pants and back down. 1938 German military isn't the 1940 steamroller. Hopefully the czech resists thanks to their Maginot-derived fortified line, with the Oster consipracy being the final nail in hitler coffins. Bonus point if The Great Coward Chamberlin is run over by a bus.
 
Although it's an interesting question, I think it's too hard to get you there.

You'd need to change more than just Chamberlain, as you acknowledge. Plus, although Chamberlain gets left holding the historical bag for appeasement, I think he's been excessively condemned.

Chamberlain was worried that Britain's chief ally, France, wouldn't have the stomach for a prolonged fight and wouldn't be reliable in the event of a war. Although the war didn't exactly go the way he would have predicted, this fear obviously proved correct. Plus, in 1938 he was thinking of actual physical defense of Czechoslovakia as hopeless. In 1939 there was no pretense of saving Poland. Poland was just the tripwire.

Obviously if 1938 happens differently then so does 1939, especially the armoured push into France. It's not that I think this idea is ridiculous, just that I think allied leadership and public opinion just is so far short of where it needed to be in 1938. I've also seen good arguments made before that had France blocked the remilitarization of the Rhineland earlier on, which it could have done far more easily than defending Czechoslovakia, that too would have stopped the Nazis inexpensively early on. Hindsight is perfect, I suppose.
 
I think Hitler might shit his pants and back down. 1938 German military isn't the 1940 steamroller. Hopefully the czech resists thanks to their Maginot-derived fortified line, with the Oster consipracy being the final nail in hitler coffins. Bonus point if The Great Coward Chamberlin is run over by a bus.

Chamberlain threw him self under the bus!
 
Top