Quote:
Originally Posted by Narona
I studied it. Plus, I also watch a lot of documentaries with real recordings from that times, with a lot of interviews.
Recently, I watched the part when Hitler was reclaiming the parts of czechoslovakia in which some german people were living, just before the WWII.
At that time, neither Chamberlain nor Daladier did anything to stop him.
After the last meeting between Hitler, Chamberlain, Daladier and Mussolini (mussolini, pointed in the documentary, who was helping Hitler. What he proposed when he took a map and a paper in his pocket was something made and given to him by hitler before the meeting); Daladier knew what they had done (aka nothing to save the czechoslovakia and accepting all that Hitler wanted, while trying to appease him because they chickened like cowards, while they had accords about protecting some allies). When he arrived in France, he thought "will i be acclamed by the french? or will they realize what we have done?". At the moment when they opened the door of the plane, he saw that the French didn't understand anything and were acclaiming him. He then commented about the French to the person beside him: "Les cons" (translation: "idiots/morons").
And now the good part. An official german said that if at that time the English and the French had tried to crush the Germans (at that precise time, it was clearly said they had the means to do it, whether you believe it or not.), they would have won, because at that time Hitler and his army were not that ready and prepared.
So yeah, they concluded that if the English and French had made something instead of bending over at Hitler, the WWII would have been very different.
|
See the thing is, they didn't have the means. Britain was completely unprepared for war. France had adopted a purely defensive strategy. Neither had any way of deploying forces to confront Germany, whether you believe it or not. It's not just a matter of having x number of troops. You need a way to get those troops to where they're needed, and neither Britain nor France had that capacity. It's easy enough to say that if France had deployed a large force to the Rhineland when Germany remilitarized it, they would have been able to force them out without much of a fight. On paper that's entirely true. However, France couldn't deploy more than a token force before the Germans dug in enough to turn it into a fight and Britain would take even longer and of course would need French permission. They knew that, so they didn't try to act.
If they had acted sooner, yes, WWII would have looked very different, France likely wouldn't have fallen for one. However, it still would have been bloody. Also, you have to remember, we know what happened. They didn't. It's easy to look back and say it should be obvious that Hitler wasn't going to stop. However, the leaders in Britain and France didn't have the benefit of hindsight. What they did have was memory of the deadliest war in European history just 20 years earlier. Further, both Britain and France used the appeasement period to build up and modernize their forces. It's not like they were delusional about it.
Here's a link about the British build up in the mid 30s. Note the massive jump in military spending in 1937, 1938, and then when war finally breaks out in 1939. Haven't found as much for France though.