"Munich Agreement What If?" Topic

What if there had been no Munich Agreement and Britain and France declared war on Germany to stop Hitler? Would WWII have looked any different? Would the Allies still have won? Interesting!

Probably the same situation with France and Britain doing nothing much at all (as when Germany invaded Poland).

For all that the British/French get crucified for the various agreements they signed with Hitler, they were actually (if unknowingly to a certain extent by many) playing for time to build up their armed forces, build radar stations, invest in manufacturing, etc.

Take a look at the stats for the UK/France military each year from 1933 (Hitler takes power) to 1939 when the war started. Warships, aircraft, tanks, etc. Unfortunately, they never foresaw the collapse of the French high command.

The generation of leadership for both countries dreaded war, but behind the curtains they were preparing for it. Every day, month and year delayed helped them (they though/hoped).

Dan

This one's been done. Turtledove, I'm pretty sure.

No question the western allies gained something by the extra year. But no question Hitler did too. Not at all sure who benefited the most.

But in absolute fairness to the French and British leadership, Munich was not--for them, at least--a bad deal. They conceded ethnic German areas of Czechoslovakia to an ethnic German state, and in return Hitler agreed not to claim ethnic German areas of France and Poland, and to leave 90% of Czechoslovakia independent. But today we speak of Munich as though France and Britain had agreed to the destruction of Czechoslovakia. It was only afterward when Hitler trashed the agreement that it was evident you couldn't make deals with the man. What's obvious to us wasn't obvious in 1938.

The Czechs didn't get a say in the agreement. They weren't even invited to the conference. They had to give up all their frontier fortifications. They also had to give up territory to Poland and Hungary. Czechoslovakia was informed by Britain and France that it could either resist Nazi Germany alone or submit to the prescribed annexations.

It also thwarted a planned coup in Germany. This plan would only work if Britain issued a strong warning and a letter to the effect that they would fight to preserve Czechoslovakia. Agents were sent to Britain to tell Chamberlain that an attack on Czechoslovakia was planned, and of their intention to overthrow Hitler if this occurred.

The proposal was rejected by the British Cabinet and no such letter was issued. Once the Munich Agreement was sign, the planned coup was cancelled. That's a lot to give up for some extra time to build up. It gave Germany extra time too.

The Soviets were also willing to support France and Britain in 1938. Munich shook their faith in the French and British, so that they didn't trust them and were willing to make a deal with Hitler in 1939.

Grelber

It is strange that no one mentioned that the USSR was ready to immediately enter the war with Germany, according to the agreement concluded with Czechoslovakia, in case of violation of its borders. As the first echelone troops were prepared and redeployed to the border: one tank corps, 30 rifle and 10 cavalry divisions, 7 tank brigades, 1 motorized rifle brigade, 12 aviation brigades. There was a preparation of troops of the second echelon.
Since the French and British wanted to avoid an armed conflict with Hitler, the USSR was ready to side with Czechoslovakia alone. But for this, future allies had to assist in the organization of a corridor through the territory of Poland for the passage of Soviet troops. Poland, of course, was not interested in this, since it wanted to occupy the Cieszyn region of Czechoslovakia (very industrially developed).

I agree. After the Munich agreement, the leadership of the USSR lost faith in the possibility of creating some kind of "anti-Hitler coalition" and began to resolve its own security issues alone.

Judging by the Soviet disasters in Finland and Barbarosa had they taken on Germany without British and French support over the Czech Problem then Hitler may well have taken Moscow in 1938! Cheers!

If they had declared an ultimatum to Germany most probably Hitler would have stopped leaving Czechoslovakia alone.

We know, with hindsight, that France and Britain were not ready and that the soviet army was weakened by the purges but we should take in account Germany was not ready either at that time.

In "Hitler's Army" by Command Magazine there is a chapter on a what if.

In brief, nobody is really ready, Czechoslovakia is screwed no matter what.

Essentially it boils down to an earlier WWII with more archaic equipment in the front lines and fewer of everything being thrown into battle.

"The War That Came Early" series by Turtledove is what Robert is alluding to – not bad reads

Agree with Patrick – no one was ready; would be an interesting conflict to game

Poland, of course, was not interested in this, since it wanted to occupy the Cieszyn region of Czechoslovakia (very industrially developed).

And didn't trust the Russians. That was always the major problem to Soviet involvement. The Poles would never have allowed Soviet troops on their soil.

Those who defend Munich by saying it gave the Allies an extra year to prepare overlook the advantages the peaceful conquest of Bohemia and Moravia gave the Germans. It gave them an additional year to develop the army and air force. It allowed them to acquire intact the industrial operations of Bohemia and Moravia. It allowed Germany to stockpile more raw materials. It allowed them to build up their defenses on the French border. Abandoning the Czechs cost the Allies any chance of support from states such as Romania and Yugoslavia, and it played a role in the pact between Hitler and Stalin.

It does not really matter that the Germans would have probably overrun the Czechs before the French and British could have intervened if they had gone to war. In a general European war beginning in 1938 Germany would have been a much poorer nation. It could well have ended up facing an alliance which had them surrounded. There is also the possibility that the Germans would have blinked. Either Hitler wised up or a coup could have been launched against him.

Plus its not like the French and British were fully mobilized and ready to attack Germany when Hitler invanded Poland in 1939.

As to Poland, this is an interesting wild card. The Poles clearly did not want to allow the Soviets into their country. They also had border issues with the Czechs. If a general European war did erupt in 1938 I find it hard to believe the Poles could have stayed out of it, especially if the Soviets and Romanians enter the war. So do they choose to fight with Hitler or fight against him? If they fought along side the allies Poland would have been in a stronger strategic position than when they were trying to defend their border in 1939.

@ Bill N

All true, and all apparent with hindsight. To Britain and France Germany looked all too strong and had been parading that strength to good effect for several years. WW1 had ended less than 20 years before and both countries had been bled white. Neither the British or the French people wanted another war. The Germans were asking for control of an area that was ethnically German. So not a completely outrageous demand. While the Soviets were keen to help defend the Czechs, the distrust of the Poles meant they were never going to get an agreement to allow their forces passage, so they would have been sidelined in any conflict. Under those circumstances it would have taken a miracle for any other result to occur.

Poland had few times proposed so called preventive war against Germany.

In 1932 Poland could defeat Germany alone if only France allowed for it. Poland asked only for moblization of French army (not any real military operations) and French approval. French refuse due to mostly financial reasons.
Poland had no hope that Great Britain would support such Polish operation, as GB (and USA) was then supporting Germany to keep balance.

link

link

Just before Munich (where Poland was also not invited) Poland proposed to Czechoslovakia joint military operation against Germany if Czechoslovakia give up USSR alliance and ignore France/GB verbal protests. Romania (ally of Poland and Czechoslovakia) would then guard against USSR (weakened by purge).

Poles could not let any Soviet units inside the Poland as SOviets in 1938 just finished genocide against Polish minority in USSR during so called "Polish Operation of NKWD"
link
Citing wiki, between 1937-38: "as the Soviet statistics indicate, the number of ethnic Poles in the USSR dropped by 165,000 in that period. The Polish minority was almost completely annihilated." Holodomor also counted. In 1938 Stalin appeared more dangerous than Hitler.

There were a lot of bad blood between Poles and Czechs (killing Polish POWs in 1920, assimilation/czechization etc en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie), but the generals of both countries were not stupid and solution was obvious. Czech GHQ want to cooperate with Poland, but government of Czechoslovakia refused Poles as they hoped for GB/F protection AND USSR alliance.

Most sources I have read suggest that in both cases if France let Poland intervene (with cooperation of Czechoslovakia):
- Hitler regime fall
- Germany again demilitarized
- communist anarchy in Germany and France
- 1942+ USSR attacks Eastern Europe link
- everybody in Gulags at Seine would then blame those stupid Poles (and Czechs) for dismantling the only machine which could save the Europe.

There was no simple solution for Europe after 1934.

There was no simple solution for Europe after 1934.

Bingo ! And as we all know WWII had its roots in WWI. Some say … same war with a 20 year break. But as we also know some alliances had changed, etc. E.g. Japan and Italy …

The central European states were all busy eating each other so it was difficult to spot the 'good guys' in the feeding frenzy. WW2 was not fought to protect Poland but to restrict Germany. Poland was just the line in the sand.

Agree w/mkenny--and Legion4. Poland, Czechoslovakia and France had each in their own way set themselves up in 1919-1920 for what was to come, grabbing ethnic German territories and insisting on a separate Austrian state against the wishes of the inhabitants. They didn't deserve what would follow, but, as you say, no good guys.

"- 1942+ USSR attacks Eastern Europe"

To use Suvorov's fabrications (real name Rezun) as serious arguments is a great folly. After analyzing his work by real professional historians, taking this fake seriously is just silly;)
His whole theory is based on lies and fraud.

Suvorov insisted that attack would be in 1941. I have used 1942+ which is the year most historians agreed.

Re: Cuprum
Its understandable that You in Russia have reasons to dislike Suvorov.

But really noone outside the Russian Federation believe that USSR (directed by peace-loving Stalin who just annihilated several minorities) needed nearly 16 000 tanks and 10 000 aeroplanes (paid by unbelievable blood and hunger of citizens of USSR) for defensive purposes only. And if USSR doesnt want to border with III Reich, then it should not cooperate with Hitler invading Baltics and Poland in 1939. Not enraging Finland and Romania would also be helpful in the defence.

Official 1936 Soviet Coat of Arms appears quite ambitious:

The map being "redrawn" after WWI, with the fall of both Austria-Hungary and Ottoman-Turk empires. That helped set the stage for the next war. And it still reverberates today in some cases. Basically thanks to some now long dead European politicians, etc.

But again as always hindsight is 20/20 …

Suvorov is a talented propagandist and manipulator. And no more. There is no question of love or dislike.

Can you tell us exactly what minorities Stalin destroyed?
May I ask about the specific numbers of incredible blood and hunger (and it is very desirable with an indication of the sources of these figures).

The USSR experienced one foreign intervention and was preparing for the next. How much military equipment, to confront once again the ten-interventionist countries simultaneously?
In addition, you know, for example, what was the resource of a Soviet tank engine at that time?

The USSR tried to cooperate with France and England against Hitler. But they either led him by the nose, or simply ignored him. At the same time making deals with Hitler. The USSR, in your opinion, should have been in the role of a statistician and a whipping boy? He was the last to make a deal with Germany, and in 1938 he was ready to fight with her, but neither France nor Britain wanted to fight with Hitler, but made a deal at the expense of another independent state.
The Soviet Union did not irritate Hungary and Slovakia, but for some reason this did not save him from the attack these states.

The ideology of the communists (of all countries, not only the USSR) is a world revolution. Nobody hid this. The reflection of this idea you see on the globe. Now, just recently, the ideology of the West was globalization under the control of the United States (well, if you really look at things). How is one idea worse than another? And no one was shy, by the way, for the sake of this use a weapon)))

Now, just recently, the ideology of the West was globalization under the control of the United States (well, if you really look at things).

Hmmm … not so sure about that … ?

How is one idea worse than another?

Off the top of my head … e.g. South Korean Capitalism vs. a North Korea Communist dictatorship.

I will admit being a former US Army Officer, my take on things may be biased.

And no one was shy, by the way, for the sake of this use a weapon)))

I'm not sure I understand what you mean ?

I will not argue, but this is how I see the role of the "world gendarme", which the United States assumed. In Russia, there is a joke that appeared after the "War in the Gulf": "The inscription on the American bomber – do you have problems with democracy? Then we fly to you!"))))
I personally often see economic and political expansion under the slogans of defending democratic values. By the way, Russia is now doing the same thing, but only on a smaller scale))) But this is a big conversation and it is subjective, so it's not very suitable for this forum.

If my memory serves me, South Korean capitalism began with dictatorship and massacres on the island of Jeju. In addition, I would not call North Korea a communist state. I do not remember either Lenin or Marx about the hereditary socialist monarchy))) I do not know what it is, but not socialism and not communism.

I am a former sergeant of the USSR Army. I am glad to welcome))) Protecting your country and its interests is a worthy profession.

I mean Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Syria. Perhaps I forgot to mention something)))

It's good to exchange ideas and experiences with you Sergeant. By hearing the comments of one's former "enemy", it is enlightening to see how the "other side" thought or thinks, etc. As I said my view on things may be biased.

Protecting your country and its interests is a worthy profession.

I agree … and even some of my countrymen don't see it that way. But we being former soldiers may have a better understanding of the military and geopolitics, etc.

I mean Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Syria. Perhaps I forgot to mention something)))

You pretty much covered it, save for Panama and Somali.

I'd rather us talk like this here or over a vodka or beer than any other option. I salute you … soldier …

Can you tell us exactly what minorities Stalin destroyed?

Wiki:

The Polish operation served as a model for a series of similar NKVD secret decrees targeting a number of the Soviet Union's diaspora nationalities: the Finnish, Latvian, Estonian, Romanian, Greek, and Chinese. Concerning diaspora minorities, the vast majority of whom were Soviet citizens and whose ancestors had resided for decades and sometimes centuries in the Soviet Union and Russian Empire, "this designation absolutized their cross-border ethnicities as the only salient aspect of their identity, sufficient proof of their disloyalty and sufficient justification for their arrest and execution" (Martin, 2001: 338).

link

Other then those 7 nations:

8. Koreans:
link

9. Cossakcs (as a separate etnos):
link

10. Norwegians:
link

11. Kurds:
link

12. Kazakh
link

Before the famine, around 60% of the republic's population were Kazakhs, but after the famine, only around 38% of the population were Kazakhs.

All of those operations were before war.

May I ask about the specific numbers of incredible blood and hunger (and it is very desirable with an indication of the sources of these figures).

Up until World War II, the Gulag system expanded dramatically to create a Soviet "camp economy". Right before the war, forced labor provided 46.5% of the nation's nickel, 76% of its tin, 40% of its cobalt, 40.5% of its chrome-iron ore, 60% of its gold, and 25.3% of its timber. And in preparation for war, the NKVD put up many more factories and built highways and railroads.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

The Soviet_famine_of_1932 was caused by a combination of factors, specifically low harvest due to natural disasters combined with increased demand for food caused by the industrialization and urbanization, and grain exports by the Soviet Union at the same time.

link

PDF link

To sum it up: Stalin took all the grain from USSR citizens to buy factory machines from Western Europe. Western Europe was happy to buy a lot of cheap grain and export old machines, perfectly knowing that this cheap grain means mass hunger in USSR.

Road of Bones

The road is treated as a memorial, as the bones of the people who died while constructing it were laid beneath or around the road.As the road is built on permafrost, interment into the fabric of the road was deemed more practical than digging new holes to bury the bodies of the dead.

link

How much military equipment, to confront once again the ten-interventionist countries simultaneously?

USSR had 16 000 tanks.
All countries bordering with USSR in 1939 had 2 000 tanks.
Hell, all the world except USSR had 11 000 tanks.

The Soviet Union did not irritate Hungary and Slovakia, but for some reason this did not save him from the attack these states.

Red Terror or bombardment may be irritating a bit
link
link

Slovakia even took part attacking Poland in 1939 – and we Poles do not blame them as they were just puppet regime.

Do not defend Soviets (Party = КПСС). Ненужные усилия. Soviets killed millions. Soviets killed more Russians than Mongol Empire. Thanks to brave Russian people from the "Memorial" we know the fate of some of them.

Do Soviets plan on invading Europe? Sure they do. Do they prepare? That's obvious. You don't produce 60% of world tanks paying with lives of Your subjects unless You plan to gain new subjects.

Most of bolscheviks were greatly familiarized with industrialized Germany. More than with Russia. They treated Germany as their homeland, Promised Land. Communists didnt expect to revolt undeveloped Russia, they expected to revolt Germany first. If communists could trade whole Russia for a Germany they would do it without slightest hesitation, as they believed, rightly, that in Germany there was beating heart of the world industry. They would do everything to bring revolution into Rhineland, including leaving whole Russia.

Many people in both Russia and Germany expected that Russia would now "return the favor" by helping to foster a communist revolution on German soil. European communists had long looked forward to a time when Germany, the homeland of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, would undergo such a revolution. (…) The communism of Marx and Engels had had a sizable following among German workers for decades, and there were quite a few German revolutionaries eager to see revolutionary success in Russia and have help from Russian colleagues in a German revolution.

Communists didnt care for Russians. You should not care for them.

Oh, Пожалуйста, примите извинения за Эдмунда Дзержинского.

Oh my God! All anti-Soviet agitation and myths of all times and peoples in one head)))
Sorry, but I don't even consider it necessary to respond to those who use Wikipedia as a source of information, and fakes "Memorial" for real research)))

Especially for you I will clarify one point – I do not deny Stalin's crimes (as well as I do not deny the merits). No one has done so much to discredit the ideas of socialism, like Stalin. But do not throw everything in one pile. Under Lenin and Marx, under socialism, the state should die off (I'm clarifying that its influence and functions should be transferred to local self-government), and not strengthened. Otherwise, it would be GULAG and North Korea with a hereditary monarchy.

And I am not a nationalist, but at the same time I consider myself a patriot. And therefore I do not wish prosperity only for Russians – I wish prosperity for all my fellow citizens regardless of their nationality))) Even Poles))) and we have a lot of them in Siberia, including my friends)))

Legion 4

Glad to meet you))) I shake your hand!

Of course, everyone has their own views and life experience. He cannot be completely impartial. But the world is not black and white, and in order to understand the position of another person, efforts must be made))) Besides, ideological and national confrontations lead to various manipulations, falsifications and frauds. And it continues from time immemorial. It is quite interesting to look for real facts in this pile of dung.

In Russia there is a saying: "A bad world is better than a good quarrel!". I think most nations have similar sayings. And although clash of interests cannot be avoided – but I hope prudence will prevail.

A drink and a chat in good company – what could be better)))

"Now, just recently, the ideology of the West was globalization under the control of the United States (well, if you really look at things)."

Quite agree with your point regarding this massive push toward 'globalization'. I would suggest, however, that the underlying motivation and leadership of this program is by no means limited to any particular nation, nor is it confined to any particular national interest. The scheme is IMO far broader in scope.

FWIW.

B

Cuprum +1

Blutarski

As I understand it, the end result of globalization is the elimination of nation states, as such, as interfering with global business. So you can only talk about the dominance of a country or a union of countries during the process itself. But I have serious reasons to believe that, as a result, the world will be divided between giant corporations (if capitalist relations are preserved). And within any corporation, democracy is impossible. And it seems to me that as a result, the world will come to global totalitarianism.