France and GB have the following policies after the Anschluss

Although France and GB aren't willing to go to war over it they realize it makes Germany a bigger threat so they do the following
1) Start rearming. 1938 defense spending is half again what it was in OTL.
2) Strengthen Little Entente ship one WW1 era tank for every new tanks made, one WW1 artillery piece for every 2 new artillery piece, one WW1 era AA gun for every two made to them.
3) Warn Germany future demands will not be met. Any more demands will result in war.

What happens?
 
I don't think Hitler would stop with Austria and would eventually roll the dice. My guess is instead of the Sudetenland he might try with Poland right off the bat. Since war is gong to happen might as well go for broke.
 
^ I agree with John here. Hitler isn't gonna stop, and he surely knows (his underlings surely do) that he can't even think about going after Russia (his ultimate target) without getting the British and French off the board.
 
in practical terms don't they cancel shipbuilding other than u-boats, or maybe what's near completion?

and try to strike an earlier deal with the Soviets?
 
in practical terms don't they cancel shipbuilding other than u-boats, or maybe what's near completion?

and try to strike an earlier deal with the Soviets?

The first I think they can do but I don't think Stalin would go for it. Both the Entente and Little Entente are rearming, Czechoslovakia isn't being sold out and France and GB are standing tough. I think Stalin tells Hitler to get lost. He might even go for France right away. Try to knock out France real quick and then deal with the Little Entente. If he think he is going to fight France either way it might make sense to knock out France first. The German Army is going to take casualties either way. If they take out the French, they likely will still be strong enough to take on the Little Entente. If they go the other way they might take too many casualties to take on the French and the French will have more time to prepare.
 
Last edited:
in practical terms don't they cancel shipbuilding other than u-boats, or maybe what's near completion?

and try to strike an earlier deal with the Soviets?
The problem is that the conditions that led to the M-R Pact didn't exist until after Munich. Earlier than that the idea of a deal with the Soviets wasn't even on the table.
 
in practical terms don't they cancel shipbuilding other than u-boats, or maybe what's near completion?

and try to strike an earlier deal with the Soviets?

The problem is that the conditions that led to the M-R Pact didn't exist until after Munich. Earlier than that the idea of a deal with the Soviets wasn't even on the table.
yeah I was unclear, not talking about a M-R Pact, that encompasses dividing up Poland and other territorial issues, but rather restarting their trade, which the Soviets were shopping for naval plans and guns worldwide for example, fairly good odds they could strike such a deal.
 
Although France and GB aren't willing to go to war over it they realize it makes Germany a bigger threat so they do the following
1) Start rearming. 1938 defense spending is half again what it was in OTL.
2) Strengthen Little Entente ship one WW1 era tank for every new tanks made, one WW1 artillery piece for every 2 new artillery piece, one WW1 era AA gun for every two made to them.
3) Warn Germany future demands will not be met. Any more demands will result in war.

What happens?
The only WWI tanks left were Renault FTs that the French had been keeping in warehouses for the previous two decades. The vast majority were in no shape for real combat. The British lost all their tanks in the Hundred Days and didn't bother to build more after the war ended. Otherwise, the Poles have plenty of artillery, enough to arm all the reserve divisions they could hope to field. Their problem was tactical and operational mobility, because they relied on railroads that the Luftwaffe could shut down. Obsolete AA guns wouldn't help deal with the threat posed by low-flying tactical bombers.

Otherwise, that is basically what the British and French tried to do when the Sudeten Crisis happened, but an earlier start to the war would have meant a plan for three years of Phony War instead of the two year plan that the Germans so rudely interrupted with their summer holiday. The British and French would not have had the ability to carry any sort of offensive into German until 1941 at the very earliest, and some extra funding in 1938 wouldn't have moved the timetable up by an entire campaign season.
 
Pretty much what everyone says: war with Germany over the Sudetenland in 1938 if France and UK honour their promise. Nobody else in Eastern Europe joins the war on the allied side, the extra military spending has no significant effect compared to OTL war in 1940 since it happens close to the outbreak of war in 1938.

The unknowns now are
1. German versus allied strength in the summer of 1939 compared to the summer of 1940: Possible it is less likely France is defeated in 1939 than 1940 but if it is then British air defences are weaker.
2. Internal unity of the allies, particularly the British empire: several of the dominions had made it clear they would not go to war over the Sudetenland and Britain would be more likely to make peace after the defeat of France as Hitler wouldn't so clearly have demonstrated that treaties were meaningless
3. The possibility of a German military coup toppling Hitler, I'm sceptical but it is possible

Basically 1938 is too late for higher defence spending to have much effect on events in 1938-40 as it takes a few years for the resulting equipment to reach the armed forces, and the reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936 meant the end of any meaningful Eastern European alliance. Even weak German fortification of their Western border meant they could hold off the French while defeating the Eastern allies, especially given French doctrine and plans. The only potential Eastern European ally this wasn't true of is Russia.
 
Although France and GB aren't willing to go to war over it they realize it makes Germany a bigger threat so they do the following
1) Start rearming. 1938 defense spending is half again what it was in OTL.
2) Strengthen Little Entente ship one WW1 era tank for every new tanks made, one WW1 artillery piece for every 2 new artillery piece, one WW1 era AA gun for every two made to them.
3) Warn Germany future demands will not be met. Any more demands will result in war.

What happens?
On the first point, I have to agree with others that a higher millitary spending is coming far too late to be usefull if the war erupts in the next year.
The millitary shipments are not truly that usefull. For one, unless Hungary joins or Hitler invades Poland, Yugoslavia and Romania, both of whom would at least somewhat benefit from these shipments, are highly unlikely to join the war. Meanwhile, the Czechoslovak army frankly doesn't need highly outdated equipment, with only the AA guns being of some use. What the Czechoslovak army would find much more usefull would be modern fighter planes.
Now for the most interesting part, how is Adolf going to react?
Well, I would frankly expect him to still try the Sudeten card. After all, the Western powers have only given him a stern talk, and while they might be spending somewhat more on their armed forces, there is no guarantee that they will actually be willing to confront him over the fate of Czechoslovakia.
So, the lead up to Munich is where the things are going to change. Probably no Runcimer mission, or one with very different conclusions. If both the British and the French take a full pro-CZ/no concessions stance from the beginning, Hitler is likely to either a) escalate his demands quickly, b) take the OTL, more drawn out approach, hoping that the Sudeten situation gets bad enough, to move the WAllies to support his claims.
So, would Hitler go to war, even if it meant conflict with both CZ and WAllies? I would say yes. In OTL, Hitler was rather dissapointed that the situation was dealt with peacefully. He wanted a war, and while he would have preffered a limited one with Czechoslovakia, he was more then willing to fight the Western powers, if they refused him.
After all, he does not have many options. If he backs down, it will be a clear sign of weakness to the German people, their leader failing in his promiss to unify and """liberate""" the German people. Let's also not forget about German financial problems.
However I would not expect a war to actually happen. The Oster conspiracy is almost certainly in full swing here. Perhaps this time, they actually receive some direct assurances from the British government. The light division that was supposed to remain next to Berlin during army deployement, was under the command of pro-coup officers, as was the Berlin police force. The coup plan was prepared and ready to be launched, if a clear signal from the West was given that Hitler's expansion would not be tolerated. So coup goes off, Hitler gets shot in an "unfortunate accident", and everything gets blamed on the SS. The main question is how the coup will go, with many possibiities present.

I would say that taking an actual hard line against Hitler is much more important thaen either rearment, or giving weapons to LE. It puts Hitler in a corner, where he either has to back down and face humiliation and likely internal problems, or try to fight and most likely suffer a coup.
 
With more support how long would CZ been able to hold out for with its pre-Munich Agreement borders?
 
With more support how long would CZ been able to hold out for with its pre-Munich Agreement borders?
Around 2-3 months was the OTL limit (assuming a purely deffensive strategy). As for with more support, it really depends. If its only material, you might a few weeks, especially if the aid is in planes. Frankly, an actual French offensive would be the most effective support, considering the relative weakness ofcthe Westwall, which would force a part of the German force to move West.
 
I think people are overestimating the Germans at this point
1) They wouldn't have had the practice in maneuvers that they got in CZ. Just moving big armies takes practice to do well. They would still have the practice they had for Austria but not CZ.
2) They don't get all that Czech production. Czech tanks made up a good portion of Heer tanks.
3) They will take casualties invading Czechoslovakia and it will cost them supplies.
4) The FTs might not be the best tanks but even poor tanks are better than no tanks. It might take the French a couple months or so for them to get the tanks up and running but many should be at least semi=adequate within that time.
5) The Germans would have Panzer Is and IIs with very few IIIs and IVs (if any). assuming war breaks out early 1939.
6) Some of the increased budget would almost certainly go into training and most likely their would be at least a military exercise or two.
 
Last edited:
yeah I was unclear, not talking about a M-R Pact, that encompasses dividing up Poland and other territorial issues, but rather restarting their trade, which the Soviets were shopping for naval plans and guns worldwide for example, fairly good odds they could strike such a deal.
In much the same way as the M-R Pact itself the trade deal wasn'r on the cards until the Summer of 1939. In 1938 Germany needs all its armaments to equip the Wehrmacht.
 
Although France and GB aren't willing to go to war over it they realize it makes Germany a bigger threat so they do the following
1) Start rearming. 1938 defense spending is half again what it was in OTL.
2) Strengthen Little Entente ship one WW1 era tank for every new tanks made, one WW1 artillery piece for every 2 new artillery piece, one WW1 era AA gun for every two made to them.
3) Warn Germany future demands will not be met. Any more demands will result in war.

What happens?
If Britain for example reacted by introducing the Military Training Act of May 1939 a year earlier say April 1938 and began plans then for a continental force and a return to the continent rather than a year later after the invasion of the rest of Czechoslovakia.

That's an extra year of planning, training and increased production and over half a million extra 20-22 year olds completing their 6 month training in addition to the 240,000 who had done so by 3rd Sept 1939 OTL and allow for a much earlier expansion of the TA from 13 to 26 Divisions allowing for a earlier standing up of the continental force of 32 Divisions.

As for point 2 - I don't think that outside of the French Renault FTs there were any WW1 tanks in significant numbers - but with an earlier ramp up the 8 French Battalions still using at the out break of war them could have seen them replaced and those 400 odd FTs sent to the Czechoslovakians?

As for guns - not sure about the French but the British only really had 18 pounders that were being converted to 25 pounders so I cannot see much coming from them and they were for teh first few years woefully short of AAA so again not sure what could be spared - especially if expanding earlier.

One thing both Britian and France could do is send lots of Money - allowing the Czechoslovakians to build even more tanks.

As for point 3 - I think an unambiguous threat against further brinkmanship on the part of Germany - which is likely to be the Sept 1938 Munich Agreement - under such a POD might very well see Hitler back down as the German army was still out numbered - especially if the Entente is France (100 odd divisions), UK (5-10 - possibly more with an earlier Military training act), Czechoslovakia (33) and Poland (36 plus IIRC) - verse about 38 Infantry Divisions and a small number of Panzer units and other formations (possibly more in reaction to an earlier British French rearmament).

And then what happens?

For example the Czechoslovakian Pz35 and Pz38 tanks made up a significant portion of Germans Panzer strength for the Polish invasion and subsequent Western campaign and these and other Czechoslovakian armaments / resources would initially be denied to the German war machine.

And other nations that 'stood on the side lines' might be in the face of a more aggressive little Entente be more willing to side with it.

And Britian and France might feel even more emboldened to use their combined might to 'keep Germany in its place'

Its an interesting POD that takes place before the 'pendulum of military might' swung into Germanys favour and obviously what Britian and France 'should have done' and might very well have prevented WW2 as we know it from taking place.

What a wonderful idea.......(Cryhavoc101 suddenly winks out of existence because ITTL his parent do not meet)
 
2. Internal unity of the allies, particularly the British empire: several of the dominions had made it clear they would not go to war over the Sudetenland...
That's a very surprising claim. Cite? There were only four "Dominions" (Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand). Which of them said so? And why? They all joined Britain's declaration of war over Poland.
 
That's a very surprising claim. Cite? There were only four "Dominions" (Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand). Which of them said so? And why? They all joined Britain's declaration of war over Poland.
It's pretty well accepted in the historiography, although there is debate over how seriously the warnings were taken and whether dominions would actually have stayed out. There are a host of sources, many of them books, but if you want an online source (which hopefully also makes clear that there were five dominions at the time):
Beck, R. (1989). Munich's Lessons Reconsidered. International Security, 14(2), 161-191. doi:10.2307/2538858
"....he [Secretary of State of the Dominions Malcolm MacDonald] believed that the case of Czechoslovakia merited special consideration. If Britain accepted the "alternative of the new commitment to Europe in effect guaranteeing Czechoslovakia, [we might] find ourselves engaged in a European war to prevent Germans living in the Sudeten districts of Czechoslovakia from being united with Germany. On this issue, the British Commonwealth might well break in pieces." While New Zealand and Australia would almost certainly follow the British lead, and while the support of Eire was then thought likely, Canada and South Africa would never enter a war to prevent certain Germans from rejoining their fatherland."

Just as one effect of Munich is to unite the British people behind the need for war to stop any further German advance, the same thing happened for the dominions
 
It's pretty well accepted in the historiography....
Yet I've never seen it mentioned before.
There are a host of sources, many of them books, but if you want an online source (which hopefully also makes clear that there were five dominions at the time):
Beck, R. (1989). Munich's Lessons Reconsidered. International Security, 14(2), 161-191. doi:10.2307/2538858
That's a cite.
...the support of Eire was then thought likely...
That seems delusional - expecting Ireland under de Valera to join a British war? They might assume continued use of the treaty ports, but expecting a declaration of war? Ireland was nominally a Dominion, but not willingly, so I didn't count it.
 
It's pretty well accepted in the historiography, although there is debate over how seriously the warnings were taken and whether dominions would actually have stayed out. There are a host of sources, many of them books, but if you want an online source (which hopefully also makes clear that there were five dominions at the time):
Beck, R. (1989). Munich's Lessons Reconsidered. International Security, 14(2), 161-191. doi:10.2307/2538858
"....he [Secretary of State of the Dominions Malcolm MacDonald] believed that the case of Czechoslovakia merited special consideration. If Britain accepted the "alternative of the new commitment to Europe in effect guaranteeing Czechoslovakia, [we might] find ourselves engaged in a European war to prevent Germans living in the Sudeten districts of Czechoslovakia from being united with Germany. On this issue, the British Commonwealth might well break in pieces." While New Zealand and Australia would almost certainly follow the British lead, and while the support of Eire was then thought likely, Canada and South Africa would never enter a war to prevent certain Germans from rejoining their fatherland."

Just as one effect of Munich is to unite the British people behind the need for war to stop any further German advance, the same thing happened for the dominions
Frankly GB in this scenario doesn't need Canada or South Africa to win this war. Germany is considerably weaker.
 
Top