Chamberlain didn't give Sudetenland to Hitler.

Anaxagoras

Banned
IIRC, Hitler in later years concluded that Chamberlain had tricked him. He thought that by avoiding way in 1938, the British were given enoughtime to build up the RAF and perfect their air defense system. Of course, he simply could have been deluding himself regarding German war-making abilities in 1938.

By the way, discussions about modern political attitudes towards Islamic terrorists are off-topic and shouldn't be in this forum anyway. Take it to the discussion forum.
 
Hitler would have to attack Czechoslovakia first instead of Poland and the result is overwhelming victory for Hitler. After Czechoslovakia and Poland, Hitler would have attack France or Britain. If there is no non-aggression agreement between USSR and Nazi Germany, Hitler would attack USSR immediately after Poland and the result is Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus and Ukraine would be invaded by Germany. If British didn't invent radar, British also would be invaded by Germany.
This isn't a NOOBWI.
 
If there was a no to the Sudentland, Hitler would have gotten pretty mad. I could see a blitzkrieg on Czeckoslovakia, though a probably more difficult one. England would have definitely declared war on Germany, and in turn Italy and Japan would declare war on England. France, like in OTL, would have considered themselves safe even though they only had WWI defenses.

IMO, WWII will be much bloodier for the Allies because the USSR will NOT become involved. Russia will probably move to conquer the Middle East unless of course Germany, Japan, or Italy attack it.
 

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
Waving a piece of paper and bleating about "Peace in Our Times" is what sealed Chamberlins fate. Sadly you can hear some leftists basically singing the same tune as regards Islamic Terrorists.

What the fuck? You're trolling in a non-political forum for no reason at all. Shape up.
 

Hendryk

Banned
Waving a piece of paper and bleating about "Peace in Our Times" is what sealed Chamberlins fate. Sadly you can hear some leftists basically singing the same tune as regards Islamic Terrorists.
The Ann Coulter school of history isn't taken seriously in here, or anywhere else for that matter outside of a narrow ideological circle. Best read up on history before you make a fool of yourself about Chamberlain, or in fact about "Islamic Terrorists" (since when is that word capitalized anyway? Is there a trademark on it?).
 
Unready Britain
Unready France
Soviets right after the Purges
Czechoslavia

vs

Unready Germany

Even if the old Entente buddies aren't prepared, neither are the Germans.

True. And now all you have to do is go back in time and tell Britain, France, etc. that Germany - which has just spent the last few years in a big propaganda campaing of how ready it is - is just as "unprepared" as they are.

Or, IOW, they didn't know. And weren't willing to risk it even if they suspected.

Look, you're running country "A". You know you aren't ready for a big war and the only way you can see to stop country "B" is to, well, fight a big war. Now country "B" may be just as unready as you are - but you don't know for sure. So your choices are to:

a) Fight now, knowing you're unready and hoping they are too.
b) Fight later, knowing that then you will be ready, even if
you're giving "B" a chance to ready themselves too (that is, if they
aren't already).

Given Britain and France know they can outproduce Germany in war materials, any "contest" where they delay the war helps them and hurts Germany. Delaying it as long as possible (even if it means "appeasement" in Czechoslavia - who's other choice in your scenario apparently is to be the battlefield for Europe...which I suspect they don't consider to be an upgrade from appeasement) is therefore in your interest.

Hindsight is a wonderful way to make decisions...unfortunately, it only works long after the decision has to be made.
 

burmafrd

Banned
Anyone who thought that Chamberlin was fit in any way to deal with Hitler needs to go back to school. Bottom line is that the leadership of both France and England was weak, and hitler took advantage of it.
That is the OVERWHELMING verdict of historians, and well supported.
Those disagreeing are probably the revisionist "only what I say now matters" types. ASB and Harry Turtledove fanatics only need apply.

BY the way, IAN, I happen to be just accross the border from a main stage of the current fight against terrorism and I get a chance to speak to soldiers almost every day who have come from Iraq and Afghanistan. So frankly I bet I know more about it then YOU do.
 

Hendryk

Banned
Anyone who thought that Chamberlin was fit in any way to deal with Hitler needs to go back to school. Bottom line is that the leadership of both France and England was weak, and hitler took advantage of it.
That is the OVERWHELMING verdict of historians, and well supported.
You can't even spell his name right, and you claim expertise?

For the rest, best to follow Ian's advice: if you have ideological points to make, Chat's the place for it.
 
True. And now all you have to do is go back in time and tell Britain, France, etc. that Germany - which has just spent the last few years in a big propaganda campaing of how ready it is - is just as "unprepared" as they are.

Or, IOW, they didn't know. And weren't willing to risk it even if they suspected.

Look, you're running country "A". You know you aren't ready for a big war and the only way you can see to stop country "B" is to, well, fight a big war. Now country "B" may be just as unready as you are - but you don't know for sure. So your choices are to:

a) Fight now, knowing you're unready and hoping they are too.
b) Fight later, knowing that then you will be ready, even if
you're giving "B" a chance to ready themselves too (that is, if they
aren't already).

Given Britain and France know they can outproduce Germany in war materials, any "contest" where they delay the war helps them and hurts Germany. Delaying it as long as possible (even if it means "appeasement" in Czechoslavia - who's other choice in your scenario apparently is to be the battlefield for Europe...which I suspect they don't consider to be an upgrade from appeasement) is therefore in your interest.

Hindsight is a wonderful way to make decisions...unfortunately, it only works long after the decision has to be made.

trolleyfan

A good point but there's one other factor you [i.e. the politicians of the time] are aware of. That is Czechoslovakia, a potentially important region, both strategically and industrially is being changed from a potentially important ally to a partially German controlled status, with the rest becoming defenceless to the Germans. Basically delaying facing the crocodile by feeding it up a bit. [Will admit that there was still a fair bit of doubt that Hitler was intent on war come what may].

Steve
 
If there was a no to the Sudentland, Hitler would have gotten pretty mad. I could see a blitzkrieg on Czeckoslovakia, though a probably more difficult one. England would have definitely declared war on Germany, and in turn Italy and Japan would declare war on England. France, like in OTL, would have considered themselves safe even though they only had WWI defenses.

IMO, WWII will be much bloodier for the Allies because the USSR will NOT become involved. Russia will probably move to conquer the Middle East unless of course Germany, Japan, or Italy attack it.

Ghydain

Japan is in no way desperate enough, nor in a geographical position to attack the western allies at this point. Don't think they have even signed the pact with Germany yet, although could be wrong. Italy, in a position where Germany was a lot stronger comparatively, already having Bohemia, delayed declaring war until France was on the verge of defeat, so I can't see them joining the conflict at this stage. Especially since they have a fair number of 'volenteers' still tied up in Spain.

Therefore I don't think Germany will suddenly find itself assisted by allies. Possibly Poland, which historically took a small chunk of Czechoslovakia, although I doubt it in this situation and if it did it might find Stalin on its back.

A much weaker Germany will be able to overwhelm the Czechs if the western allies do nothing but declare war. However given the natural and man-made defences available to the Czechs there will be heavy fighting and German losses while they will get little if any of the substantial levels of equipment they gained after the occupation of the rump Bohemia OTL.

As such the Germans are in a significantly worse position militarily and economically and would very likely quickly run out of steam.

Steve
 
Not well versed in the Beck Coup, although I suspect it might have been more than an attempt to exonerate defendants at Nuremburg.

The question is: How does the UK respond to German aggression against Czechloslovakia? You have the Runcilman note which makes it appear that the Czechs are abusing the Germans and you have a screaming SdP which is going to confuse the situation on the ground as well.

The Czechs will fight; the SdP can not do to Czechloslovkia what Seyss Inquart did to Austria. However, the nature of this fighting is likely to be a problem. The Czechs have excellent defensive lines in the Sudentenland (although the former Austrian Border is less defended). But Germany can't bomb the stuffing out the Sudentenland either, as its inhabited by the German Volk that Hitler is trying to go to war over.

Personally, I think that Chamberlain, if faced with a Shooting War in Czechloslovkia, would attempt some kind of Munich-like agreement to "restore peace to Europe". For up until Munich, Chamberlain would still think Hitler a man of his word and someone that can be dealt with. All this is going to do is wash the UK of any obligation to Czechloslovkia.

Even if the UK and France sit out this war, tensions will rise very high as a result. Germany is a dangerous country to neighbor and its possible that Poland and the Low Countries might be marginally more prepared for a war as a result.
 
Not well versed in the Beck Coup, although I suspect it might have been more than an attempt to exonerate defendants at Nuremburg.

As far as we know it was a real plan. There is considerable doubt whether it a) would have really happened and b) would have succeeded, though.
 
@Blitzkrieg in Czechloslovkia.

I wonder about that one as well. This would involve German aircraft attempting to bomb the same regions inhabited by the Germans they wanted to include in their state. I'd imagine that bombing Prague would probably be more palatable to Hitler, actually.

So I wonder about how air power is going to be used in this conflict. I suspect that Czechloslovakia is poor country for tanks, and it might be needed, but this could have the effect of Germany killing Germans--and that would not be good.

In any case, the Czechs will probably lose, but draw a high price from Germany--perhaps too high a price. Depending on whether the war is a 24 month battering or a six week blitz, Hitler's political position would be on the line. A German variation of the winter war can't be good for German stability, and the Nazis could go down one way or another.
 
Top