And how would you rank the various opportunities to stand up to Hitler in terms of best odds to stop them?
With hindsight, when was the best time for Britain and France to stand up to Hitler?
- Thread starter Jiraiyathegallant
- Start date
I voted the remilitarization of the Rhineland, as it seems the Germans would have backed down when challenged in that crisis, and there's some hope that the humiliation of that could weaken the Nazi government enough to potentially lead to its eventual collapse without any major war. So that's why it's my 1. I'd pick Sudetenland crisis 2, as the Czech fortifications could probably have tied up a lot of German forces for a fairly long time, leaving Germany extremely vulnerable on the Western Front. Fighting over Austria could perhaps have worked out well if Italy was on board, but the British and French had already burned those bridges by that point, so I'll put Anschluss third. I'd put the war over Poland fourth. The scenarios where they wait even longer seem too highly speculative and too complex in the possibilities to address in detail, but I think a lot of them will turn out pretty badly and I personally think the ones where things turn out well are among the less likely.
The earlier the better, really. Letting him get away with violating treaties just convinced Hitler that nothing would be done while he stomped all over Europe.
Also, this is the point where the German military is the weakest and least experienced. Granted, neither Britain nor France are really in top-notch shape in the spring of '36 either, but I don't think they really have to be to tell the Nazi regime to sit down and shut the fuck up at that point.
Also, this is the point where the German military is the weakest and least experienced. Granted, neither Britain nor France are really in top-notch shape in the spring of '36 either, but I don't think they really have to be to tell the Nazi regime to sit down and shut the fuck up at that point.
With hindsight? In 1932 drop leaflets over Germany, "vote for Hitler and these will be gas".
I voted Rhineland. Germany is very weak and it was a bluff that they would have pulled back from and possibly cause the Nazi regime to fall from the embarrassment or at least that “victory” would have emboldened the west to stand up to them the next time if they tried something like that again. Anything from the Rhineland to Poland I don’t think their is the internal support to stand up against Germany. The breaking of Munich shows the British and French populations what they should have seen all along that there was no peace to be with the Nazi.
Deleted member 94680
Sudetenland. That way, a nice clean Heer coup removes the Nazis for you and it remains an “internal” matter. Rhineland and Anschluss were popular enough domestically that the nation may well rally around the Nazis. Sudetenland would be “shaky” enough to push and the brownshirts get swept away and you can deal with “rational” actors after Adolf and Co. have gone
The Rhineland. Pull the rug out from under Hitler early and his government will collapse without a shot being fired or a penny being spent by Britain and France.
Would an internal collapse after the Rhineland not be just as effective? Would the German army really be willing to fight considering that the entente still had its WWI surplus and Germany did not having surrendered it and had not yet produced replacements in significant numbers?
Didn’t Stalin promise to send a 1,000,000 troops to back France and GB if they declared war on Germany after sudentland?
Deleted member 94680
In the right stopping the Nazis and a general European conflict? I would say so.
anytime before the invasion of France wouldw Work.
Hell if the French invaded while the gsrmans are in Poland it's game over. If at anytime the west did more than Jack or shit.. its game over. Hitler kept winning with a pair of 3's 7 high up to Poland and even then he took a pair of 7s with a 10 and lambasted the French and the rest of Europe.
Now this is with hindsight.
Let's say it's Weimar and they are deathly afraid of the soviets or even an aggressive Poland.. Eh..
Hitler and the nazis were in a league of their own in bat shit nuts catagory. Okay not completely alone.. Stalin was right up there with them.
So yes anytime before total war would assuradly work. Legal pretext - Treaty of Versailles. As much as i also detest that Treaty, if to stop the nazis.. By all means enforce it. Anschluss - if both parties agree I would not stop if it was an open free vote. Austria didn't have a national identity outside of being Germans of Austria which back then didn't mean much more than being Bavarian or Prussian. If it's agreed fine.
Hell if the French invaded while the gsrmans are in Poland it's game over. If at anytime the west did more than Jack or shit.. its game over. Hitler kept winning with a pair of 3's 7 high up to Poland and even then he took a pair of 7s with a 10 and lambasted the French and the rest of Europe.
Now this is with hindsight.
Let's say it's Weimar and they are deathly afraid of the soviets or even an aggressive Poland.. Eh..
Hitler and the nazis were in a league of their own in bat shit nuts catagory. Okay not completely alone.. Stalin was right up there with them.
So yes anytime before total war would assuradly work. Legal pretext - Treaty of Versailles. As much as i also detest that Treaty, if to stop the nazis.. By all means enforce it. Anschluss - if both parties agree I would not stop if it was an open free vote. Austria didn't have a national identity outside of being Germans of Austria which back then didn't mean much more than being Bavarian or Prussian. If it's agreed fine.
France was in political turmoil during the Rhineland crisis, so I don't think they could've stopped the Germans from crossing into the Rhineland and the British public didn't see much aggression in the act. To quote George Bernard Shaw, to the British people, 'it was as if the British had reoccupied Portsmouth'.
On the surface, I think Sudetenland would've been the best time to topple Hitler, especially if the British were somehow aware of the Oster conspiracy.
I don't think it would've been possible for the British and French to 'bide their time' and let Poland be consumed by the Reich without declaring war. Hitler was eventually going to turn his gaze westwards and lay claim to Alsace-Lorraine.
However, there is another aspect to this question to consider.
The Nazis kept their armament program secret by instigating a bond fraud scheme called MEFO in which a bogus company called MEFO issued bills of exchange with an extendable six-month term. These became known as Mefo bills. A particular arms manufacturer would present an invoice for, say, fifty million Reichsmarks: MEFO would give them a piece of paper (a Mefo bill) promising to pay them RM 50 million plus interest in six month's time.
Between 1934 and 1938, Mefo bills worth a total of 12 billion Reichsmarks were issued to pay for rearmament. To put that into context, Germany's national debt in 1932, the year before Hitler took power, was only 10 billion Reichsmarks. By 1938 the official, admitted national debt was 19 billion Reichsmarks -- but the RM 12 billion in MEFO bills has to be added on top of that. The scheme tripled Germany's national debt in just six years, but more than half of the increase was off the books.
By 1939, the scheme threatened to destroy Germany's economy. Hjamalr Schact was dismissed after he proposed Germany cut back on it's arms manufacturing industry to avoid bankruptcy. Hitler was able to stave off the debt by looting Austria's national bank in March 1939 and planned to further stave off debt by looting Poland's national bank, as well.
That basically means Germany's economy was predicated towards war not only for ideological reasons, but economic necessity. Eventually, the loot from Poland was going to run out and Hitler would've declared war on France in an attempt to stave off debt and that could've happened at any time after September 1939. Britain and France would've been working on a slowly closing window.
However, that also means if Germany was prevented from annexing Austria in 1938, maybe as a result of Italian opposition, Germany's economy would've destroyed itself by 1939-1940. Maybe if Poland was aware of the invasion beforehand and transferred everything valuable in their national bank to Britain, Germany wouldn't have anything to loot.
Yeah, but Poland refused to let Soviet troops cross into Polish territory to enter Czechoslovakia. Can't say I blame the Poles.
On the surface, I think Sudetenland would've been the best time to topple Hitler, especially if the British were somehow aware of the Oster conspiracy.
I don't think it would've been possible for the British and French to 'bide their time' and let Poland be consumed by the Reich without declaring war. Hitler was eventually going to turn his gaze westwards and lay claim to Alsace-Lorraine.
However, there is another aspect to this question to consider.
The Nazis kept their armament program secret by instigating a bond fraud scheme called MEFO in which a bogus company called MEFO issued bills of exchange with an extendable six-month term. These became known as Mefo bills. A particular arms manufacturer would present an invoice for, say, fifty million Reichsmarks: MEFO would give them a piece of paper (a Mefo bill) promising to pay them RM 50 million plus interest in six month's time.
Between 1934 and 1938, Mefo bills worth a total of 12 billion Reichsmarks were issued to pay for rearmament. To put that into context, Germany's national debt in 1932, the year before Hitler took power, was only 10 billion Reichsmarks. By 1938 the official, admitted national debt was 19 billion Reichsmarks -- but the RM 12 billion in MEFO bills has to be added on top of that. The scheme tripled Germany's national debt in just six years, but more than half of the increase was off the books.
By 1939, the scheme threatened to destroy Germany's economy. Hjamalr Schact was dismissed after he proposed Germany cut back on it's arms manufacturing industry to avoid bankruptcy. Hitler was able to stave off the debt by looting Austria's national bank in March 1939 and planned to further stave off debt by looting Poland's national bank, as well.
That basically means Germany's economy was predicated towards war not only for ideological reasons, but economic necessity. Eventually, the loot from Poland was going to run out and Hitler would've declared war on France in an attempt to stave off debt and that could've happened at any time after September 1939. Britain and France would've been working on a slowly closing window.
However, that also means if Germany was prevented from annexing Austria in 1938, maybe as a result of Italian opposition, Germany's economy would've destroyed itself by 1939-1940. Maybe if Poland was aware of the invasion beforehand and transferred everything valuable in their national bank to Britain, Germany wouldn't have anything to loot.
Yeah, but Poland refused to let Soviet troops cross into Polish territory to enter Czechoslovakia. Can't say I blame the Poles.
Im gonna say Anschluss.
The demilitarization of the Rhineland was intended to be permanent, but I figure sooner or later Germany would want the privilege of being able to place military there back. I get why a lot of people picked that and why western powers were worried about it, but it wouldn’t necessarily be a interpreted as act of aggression since it’s Germany acting on German soil, and a retaliation against that could easily be skewed by Hitler to justify his perception of other countries as a threat to Germany, by arguing the whole thing is a plot to keep Germany weak and infringe on its sovereignty.
However, the remilitarization of the Rhineland would reinforce arguments against Hitler when Anschluss comes around, since in combination it shows that they’re gearing up for war.
Anschluss is a clear show of expansionism by the Reich and the tactics by which they’d be willing to do it, not to mention a HUGE “no-no” in the Paris treaties. The Nazi coup against Schuschnigg and the obviously rigged referendum should have been massive warning signs. Granted, Britain and France weren’t too keen on the Austrofascists, and it’s hard to imagine they’d want to side with them, but I think they’d consider them preferable to Hitler gobbling up a whole country. It would be a lot harder for Hitler to stand up to objections, since even with the rhetoric of “uniting the Germans”, the coup and referendum would be enough to justify action against Germany and get the rest of the world behind it.
So I think the Rhineland is an important factor, but Anschluss could be the real canary in the coal mine to prompt a strong response against the Nazis.
The demilitarization of the Rhineland was intended to be permanent, but I figure sooner or later Germany would want the privilege of being able to place military there back. I get why a lot of people picked that and why western powers were worried about it, but it wouldn’t necessarily be a interpreted as act of aggression since it’s Germany acting on German soil, and a retaliation against that could easily be skewed by Hitler to justify his perception of other countries as a threat to Germany, by arguing the whole thing is a plot to keep Germany weak and infringe on its sovereignty.
However, the remilitarization of the Rhineland would reinforce arguments against Hitler when Anschluss comes around, since in combination it shows that they’re gearing up for war.
Anschluss is a clear show of expansionism by the Reich and the tactics by which they’d be willing to do it, not to mention a HUGE “no-no” in the Paris treaties. The Nazi coup against Schuschnigg and the obviously rigged referendum should have been massive warning signs. Granted, Britain and France weren’t too keen on the Austrofascists, and it’s hard to imagine they’d want to side with them, but I think they’d consider them preferable to Hitler gobbling up a whole country. It would be a lot harder for Hitler to stand up to objections, since even with the rhetoric of “uniting the Germans”, the coup and referendum would be enough to justify action against Germany and get the rest of the world behind it.
So I think the Rhineland is an important factor, but Anschluss could be the real canary in the coal mine to prompt a strong response against the Nazis.
Why not the reintroduction of conscription? Germany was certainly weaker then than at the time of the Rhineland crisis the next year. To quote an old post of mine about the Rhineland crisis: "Although it is clear in retrospect that the French overestimated German military strength, that doesn't mean that an occupation of the Rhineland would have been a walkover. Hitler was not bluffing. The Aachen, Trier, and Saarbrucken battalions were under orders, not to flee, but to pull back into previously prepared positions, where their job was to "halt the enemy advance" for as long as possible before pulling back again to designated defensive areas. J.A.S. Grenville, in _A History of the World in the Twentieth Century_ (1994), comes to the same conclusion: "It is a myth that all that was required to humiliate Hitler was a French show of strength...German troops were to withdraw as far as the Ruhr and there to stay and fight. But in view of earlier French political and military decisions it was obvious that the only French counter-moves would be diplomatic." (p. 224) Hitler knew that France had not marched in March- April 1935 during the conscription crisis--and the Reich was considerably stronger eleven months later. " https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...nto-the-rhineland-fails.433566/#post-16280876
As noted above you need to get the constellations of France, Britain, and the US to align and smack Germany down over the Mefo bills etc. For various domestic reasons in the three countries they could never get coordinated. Sudeten is probably the closest with the bonus of internal German actors being really worried about war.