AHC prevent the Second World War

[Jiraiyathegallant]

By 1939 Germany had taken Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Memel without a shot. They had remilitarized and became the only country in Europe with a large and mobile army. Spain’s Nationalists won and Italy was made dependent on them for trade following the invasion of Ethiopia. Every smaller country in Eastern Europe fears the Soviet Union more than Germany as long as Germany is reasonably behaved.

Germany starting the war was a product of the Nazis, and even among the Nazis someone other than Hitler could have gone in a different direction.

No Hitler, and odds are overwhelmingly that Germany doesn’t go to war as there is no reason to do so.

 

[wcv215]

while yes a diplomatically astute would not create the same war, how is the buying time explanation a post hoc excuse? most of the arguments against appeasement rely on hindsight, and things that happened AFTER the fact such as the Holocaust, or the events of WW2.

If buying time was Chamberlain's real reason for Munich he wouldn't have stood in front of the global press and declared that it meant "peace in our time" like a naive doofus. It also would have been horribly stupid to destroy France’s only democratic ally on the continent, hand the large Czech military and industrial might to Germany, and not ramp up armaments after Munich. But, literally all of that happened. Chamberlain gave Hitler everythibg he wanted, expanded Germany in terms of territory, economic power, and military might, and didn’t do a damn thing to increase Britain war preparedness over what had already been done before he became PM.

Chamberlain was an idiot, and he sold the Czechs out to Germany. He deserves nothing but scorn for his stupidity and high-handed arrogance.

 

[H.R (Slash) Pickens]

It's a post hoc excuse because Chamberlain did the bare minimum after Munich and its a strong possibility that he genuinely believed he had achieved 'peace in our time'.

but... he didnt do the 'bare minimum' what else was he supposed to do? it was a shitty decision, but it was the best one he had. there's more evidence the show that he knew about Britain's own capabilities and wanted to buy time than him being naive and taking hitler at his word. the population was VERY against war, in both the UK and France. to top it off, if Chamberlain went to war in 38, it would be the British Isles alone and maybe some Indian Units/Colonial troops but we all know thats unlikely. the Dominions unanimously did not want war and would not support it.

If buying time was Chamberlain's real reason for Munich he wouldn't have stood in front of the global press and declared that it meant "peace in our time" like a naive doofus.

its called politics and trying to keep your populace happy. nobody wanted a war. most of the things that helped Britain in WW2 such as the Shadow Factories and Dowding System and the development and modernization of the Army, and RAF were under Chamberlain who was called a warmonger/fearmonger by opposition in parliament.

 

[wcv215]

but... he didnt do the 'bare minimum' what else was he supposed to do? it was a shitty decision, but it was the best one he had. there's more evidence the show that he knew about Britain's own capabilities and wanted to buy time than him being naive and taking hitler at his word. the population was VERY against war, in both the UK and France. to top it off, if Chamberlain went to war in 38, it would be the British Isles alone and maybe some Indian Units/Colonial troops but we all know thats unlikely. the Dominions unanimously did not want war and would not support it.

its called politics and trying to keep your populace happy. nobody wanted a war. most of the things that helped Britain in WW2 such as the Shadow Factories and Dowding System and the development and modernization of the Army, and RAF were under Chamberlain who was called a warmonger/fearmonger by opposition in parliament.

No, as I expanded on in my edit, Chamberlain did NOTHING after Munich to ramp up for preparations for war. Not a single goddamn thing. And as I also said, if this had been his intention selling out the Czechs was so goddamn stupid it would completely cancel out any positives. And he sold them out in exchange for NOTHING.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

There can't be war over corridor without attack on Poland as it was part of Poland and Poles kept bulk of their forces in corridor.

And Polish-German border was almost 2000 kilometers long, no way fighting is going to be limited to corridor.

Fair point.
I was thinking that if the objective was to take control of the corridor, rather than destruction of Poland then it may be possible to keep Britain and France from intervening.
If Munich can be avoided (much more likely without Hitler) or a more limited Munich agreement is made AND respected (definitely needs someone other than Hitler), Germany can still be trusted. The motive for Britain and France promising to support Poland is now gone and a German Polish war that stops after limited goals is unlikely to provoke wider conflict.
But that requires someone other than Hitler, because his expansionist ideology and violent gambles did not have rational acceptable boundaries so would not stop without forcible outside intervention.

 

[HelloThere]

Even German Empire considered ethnic cleansing of Poles from western part of Congress Poland. Anti-Polish sentiment is not something that Hitler imposed on Germans. Rump Poland would be like Korea under Japanese rule, it would cease to exist as independent state.

Yes it did. As I said, Nozis would go for 1914 borders.

And also yes, it would not be an independent state but a puppet state. But as long as Germany leaves some kind of Polish state, France and the UK won't go to war over Danzig.

 

[H.R (Slash) Pickens]

No, as I expanded on in my edit, Chamberlain did NOTHING after Munich to ramp up for preparations for war. Not a single goddamn thing. And as I also said, if this had been his intention selling out the Czechs was so goddamn stupid it would completely cancel out any positives. And he sold them out in exchange for NOTHING.

um he helped push new aircraft into the RAF, established the Shadow Factories, helped pull Britain out of the Great Depression, it was under him that the Dowding system was put into place too. Him selling out the Czechs was bad. Im not denying it. it was an objectively shit decision, but what else was he supposed to do? declare war? good luck convincing the wider populace to do that. to put it in his own words: "How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing."

 

[wcv215]

um he helped push new aircraft into the RAF, established the Shadow Factories, helped pull Britain out of the Great Depression, it was under him that the Dowding system was put into place too.

That was done before Munich, and afterward he did nothing to increase preparedness at all from what had already been done.

good luck convincing the wider populace to do that. to put it in his own words: "How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing."

And you *might* have a point if he hadn’t been oh so proud of what he’d done at Munich, and been so publicly convinced that he’d really achieved something there, despite the fact that he gave Hitler everything ge wanted and got nothing in exchange. And of course, this isn’t what was claimed initially, but rather thst he only agreed to Munich to buy time, which is complete and itter nonsense.

Now your argument just seems to be he did it not because he was an idiot but because he was a coward, which…uh… not an improvement.

 

[Ambusher11]

Yes it did. As I said, Nozis would go for 1914 borders.

And also yes, it would not be an independent state but a puppet state. But as long as Germany leaves some kind of Polish state, France and the UK won't go to war over Danzig.

Except that in that case, the Germans will almost certainly be seen as trying to subjugate Poland and not fighting merely to reunite Danzig with Germany. Also, France has been allied with Poland since 1921, way before Hitler became Chancellor of Germany.

 

[H.R (Slash) Pickens]

That was done before Munich, and afterward he did nothing to increase preparedness at all from what had already been done.

Spitfire entered service in August of 1938, and he also sacked the head of the RAF in 1938 because he was not re-arming and not doing enough to modernize the RAF. Not to mention the military advisors in Britain believed that Germany was far more militarily powerful than it was. In other words, the biggest problem was bad intelligence. However, given that this was the intelligence Britain was working with, it does explain their actions. He also sped it up after Munich, got more battleships, and kept raising more troops. Government spending also rose to give or take 40% on defence after Munich also, and the French also began re-arming too.

And you *might* have a point if he hadn’t been oh so proud of what he’d done at Munich, and been so publicly convinced that he’d really achieved something there, despite the fact that he gave Hitler everything ge wanted and got nothing in exchange. And of course, this isn’t what was claimed initially, but rather thst he only agreed to Munich to buy time, which is complete and itter nonsense.

Now your argument just seems to be he did it not because he was an idiot but because he was a coward, which…uh… not an improvement.

He gave Hitler what he wanted because what else was he supposed to do? go to war? My argument was and still is that while throwing the Czechs to the wolves was scummy, and SHOULD get flak for that, it was the best bad option, and was all that he could really do short of actually going to war over it.

 

[HelloThere]

Except that in that case, the Germans will almost certainly be seen as trying to subjugate Poland and not fighting merely to reunite Danzig with Germany. Also, France has been allied with Poland since 1921, way before Hitler became Chancellor of Germany.

France won't move against Germany without the UK in lockstep. As you can see IOTL with Munich 1938. As long as Germany makes it clear that they don't plan to make Poland the first of many conquests, there will be grumbling and strongly worded letters.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

France won't move against Germany without the UK in lockstep. As you can see IOTL with Munich 1938. As long as Germany makes it clear that they don't plan to make Poland the first of many conquests, there will be grumbling and strongly worded letters.

German-Soviet alliance would cause more than grumbling.

 

[wcv215]

He gave Hitler what he wanted because what else was he supposed to do? go to war? My argument was and still is that while throwing the Czechs to the wolves was scummy, and SHOULD get flak for that, it was the best bad option, and was all that he could really do short of actually going to war over it.

Which once again, you still aren't actually defending your initial claim, which is that Munich was an attempt to *buy time*. Rather you're arguing he had no other option than to let Munich happen, which is not even remotely the same thing. If you think it was just an attempt to buy time, then why do you feel the need to argue that it was forced on him?

Which is also wrong, because it wasn't forced on him. Chamberlain believed he had laid a foundation for peace, that it wouldn't lead to war. That's what the "peace in our time" claim was about. The absolute best you can say about Chamberlain is that he was an idiot. But he was also a moral coward, and a scumbag for how he treated the Czechs. Far from being someone that should be rehabilitated he should be seen even worse than he already is.

 

[H.R (Slash) Pickens]

Which once again, you still aren't actually defending your initial claim, which is that Munich was an attempt to *buy time*. Rather you're arguing he had no other option than to let Munich happen, which is not even remotely the same thing. If you think it was just an attempt to buy time, then why do you feel the need to argue that it was forced on him?

he had no choice because he was rearming, and needed more time to re-arm, and thus had to let it happen because of the aforementioned incomplete modernization and rearmament of the British Military.

Which is also wrong, because it wasn't forced on him. Chamberlain believed he had laid a foundation for peace, that it wouldn't lead to war. That's what the "peace in our time" claim was about. The absolute best you can say about Chamberlain is that he was an idiot. But he was also a moral coward, and a scumbag for how he treated the Czechs. Far from being someone that should be rehabilitated he should be seen even worse than he already is.

if he thought he did, and that there was "peace in our time" and that Hitler wasn't going to attack anybody else, why did he continue rearmament, and in fact began pushing even harder, and trying to go faster, and then guarantee Poland? your arguments do not track with what he did post Munich and even pre Munich. Chamberlain deserves criticism but he wasnt "worse than he aready is" if anything that goes to his successor Churchill.

 

[Ambusher11]

France won't move against Germany without the UK in lockstep. As you can see IOTL with Munich 1938. As long as Germany makes it clear that they don't plan to make Poland the first of many conquests, there will be grumbling and strongly worded letters.

And are the Germans going to know that France isn't going to fight Germany if they invade Poland (and that Britain isn't going to intervene on the side of France)? I doubt it. They're likely going to wait until they're prepared for a general war (which will probably not be until the early-mid 1940s) before they invade Poland.

 

[Garrison]

if he thought he did, and that there was "peace in our time" and that Hitler wasn't going to attack anybody else, why did he continue rearmament, and in fact began pushing even harder, and trying to go faster, and then guarantee Poland? your arguments do not track with what he did post Munich and even pre Munich. Chamberlain deserves criticism but he wasnt "worse than he aready is" if anything that goes to his successor Churchill.

Chamberlain didn't push harder after Munich, most of the major changes were either in place prior to that or weren't introduced until after the Nazis marched into Prague, at which point Chamberlain wasn't given a lot of choice about taking measures, the Polish guarantee was something he was forced to do.

 

[wcv215]

he had no choice because he was rearming, and needed more time to re-arm, and thus had to let it happen because of the aforementioned incomplete modernization and rearmament of the British Military.

Which of course he didn't do. He continued the prior policies, but did nothing more than that.

f he thought he did, and that there was "peace in our time" and that Hitler wasn't going to attack anybody else, why did he continue rearmament, and in fact began pushing even harder, and trying to go faster, and then guarantee Poland? your arguments do not track with what he did post Munich and even pre Munich. Chamberlain deserves criticism but he wasnt "worse than he aready is" if anything that goes to his successor Churchill.

Rearmament continued at the same pace it had before, it did not speed up, and Chamberlain did not push harder. And the Polish guarantee wasn't issued until 31 March, 1939. Sixteen days after Hitler had violated the Munich Pinky-swear and marched into Czechoslovakia unopposed. My arguments track perfectly with what he did pre and post Munich. You're the one arguing he actually did tons of stuff, that apparently was so super duper ultra mega secret that there is no evidence it ever existed at all.

 

[H.R (Slash) Pickens]

Which of course he didn't do. He continued the prior policies, but did nothing more than that.

Policies that HE started.

Rearmament continued at the same pace it had before, it did not speed up, and Chamberlain did not push harder. And the Polish guarantee wasn't issued until 31 March, 1939. Sixteen days after Hitler had violated the Munich Pinky-swear and marched into Czechoslovakia unopposed. My arguments track perfectly with what he did pre and post Munich. You're the one arguing he actually did tons of stuff, that apparently was so super duper ultra mega secret that there is no evidence it ever existed at all.

my sources? what about yours too? I can provide mine if you really want it. (more down below)

Chamberlain didn't push harder after Munich, most of the major changes were either in place prior to that or weren't introduced until after the Nazis marched into Prague, at which point Chamberlain wasn't given a lot of choice about taking measures, the Polish guarantee was something he was forced to do.

Chamberlain still did it, and my point also still stands that he was re-arming and needed more time. its not exactly easy when what your doing is widely unpopular among pretty much everybody. He technically was under no obligation to guarantee Poland. He could have pussied out and simply went: oh no! anyways lets talk and not actually take such measures.

 

[wcv215]

my sources? what about yours too? I can provide mine if you really want it. (more down below)

Yes, I want a source that says that Neville Chamberlain forced Munich upon the Czechs as a means of buying time for Britain to rearm, complete with a thorough explanation of why we shouldn't just trust the man himself when he claimed that it was done to achieve "peace in our time" and as an agreement of two peoples who would never go to war with one another again. Ie, why should your claims about his motivations trump the ones that HE CLAIMED?

As for my sources? Chamberlain's own words. His speeches upon returning to Britain as he basked the acclaim for surrendering to Hitler on every point.

 

[H.R (Slash) Pickens]

Yes, I want a source that says that Neville Chamberlain forced Munich upon the Czechs as a means of buying time for Britain to rearm, complete with a thorough explanation of why we shouldn't just trust the man himself when he claimed that it was done to achieve "peace in our time" and as an agreement of two peoples who would never go to war with one another again. Ie, why should your claims about his motivations trump the ones that HE CLAIMED?

As for my sources? Chamberlain's own words. His speeches upon returning to Britain as he basked the acclaim for surrendering to Hitler on every point.

Wishful Thinking or Buying Time? The Logic of British Appeasement in the 1930s by Norrin M. Ripsman and Jack S. Levy in International Security, Vol. 33 (2008) Finance and the End of

Appeasement: The Bank of England, the National Government and the Czech Gold by David Blaazer in Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 40 (2005) The French Navy and the

Appeasement of Italy, 1937-9 by Reynolds M. Salerno in The English Historical Review, Vol. 112 (1997).

Interwar (Chapter 1) - Fighting the People's War

Fighting the People's War - January 2019

www.cambridge.org

Joseph Zacek, „The Czechoslovak View,“ in Reappraising the Munich Pact: Continental Perspectives, edited by Maya Latynski, (John Hopkins University Press, 1992.)

Going to need more than his words. taking what he says at face value is not exactly the best thing to do. see Hitler who said he would not [Insert verb here] yet did so anyways.