France and GB have the following policies after the Anschluss

Yet I've never seen it mentioned before.

That's a cite.

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 could be argued either way regarding a Dominion, technically ireland still was and until Dev was elected was active within the Commonwealth structures, but yeah by 38/39 we were basically out the door. And tbh it doesn’t matter much about Dev, all the way back to 1922 we were flag that we would be neutral post Independence, but this could butterfly away the return of the Ports which could force Ireland to join the war.
 
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?
Do Britain and France have sufficient excess material to even do number 2?
 
Do Britain and France have sufficient excess material to even do number 2?
We are talking WW1 material and in TTL they are building more modern equipment. They can also buy from the US if need be. The purpose wouldn't be to stop Germany in CZ but to stall it and to bleed it. Every day Germany is stalled in CZ is a day more production for GB and France. Every soldier dying in CZ is one soldier they don't have to fight. Whether it is worth it depends in part on how long Germany will spend updating their plans due to change in circumstances.
 
We are talking WW1 material and in TTL they are building more modern equipment. They can also buy from the US if need be. The purpose wouldn't be to stop Germany in CZ but to stall it and to bleed it. Every day Germany is stalled in CZ is a day more production for GB and France. Every soldier dying in CZ is one soldier they don't have to fight. Whether it is worth it depends in part on how long Germany will spend updating their plans due to change in circumstances.
OTL they built new equipment too, but they still needed their WW1 equipment to outfit second line/reserve units and didn’t have a lot to spare.
 
OTL they built new equipment too, but they still needed their WW1 equipment to outfit second line/reserve units and didn’t have a lot to spare.

Germany has nothing but Panzer Is and IIs at this point (If they are going to attack real quick) and is really short on artillery. If they wait GB and France have a lot more tanks and artillery (spending is really being ramped up). Besides I said they would send them only as fast as new equipment was being produced.
 
Germany has nothing but Panzer Is and IIs at this point (If they are going to attack real quick) and is really short on artillery. If they wait GB and France have a lot more tanks and artillery (spending is really being ramped up). Besides I said they would send them only as fast as new equipment was being produced.

New equipment was produced OTL, it went to frontline units. They still needed their old stuff for second line units. Remember this is time period when there units in the Allied armies that were “armored” or “motorized” on paper but didn’t actually have any tanks or trucks because of shortages.
 
New equipment was produced OTL, it went to frontline units. They still needed their old stuff for second line units. Remember this is time period when there units in the Allied armies that were “armored” or “motorized” on paper but didn’t actually have any tanks or trucks because of shortages.

Germany is even weaker. It has nothing but Panzer Is and IIs , is critically short on artillery and has to fight CZ instead of grabbing its armaments factories.
 
Germany is even weaker. It has nothing but Panzer Is and IIs , is critically short on artillery and has to fight CZ instead of grabbing its armaments factories.
Okay, but Britain and France are still going to want to equip their own units before throwing weapons they need to their allies.
 
Okay, but Britain and France are still going to want to equip their own units before throwing weapons they need to their allies.
True, it largely would depend on whether France thinks the additional delay in CZ would be worth it or not. I would think they would rather have more Czech soldiers die stopping the Germans than French ones. The question then becomes does the delay save French lives or do the Czechs lose so fast that the tanks would have been useful in the French Army? That is a judgement call by the French. Personally I think the Czechs can hold the Germans for at least a month or two, particularly with more tanks , WW1 tanks or not. The Germans only have Panzer Is and IIs afer all.
 
Yet I've never seen it mentioned before.

That's a cite.

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.
British delusional about Ireland shocker. If you go to the source I give it gives a source for the quote from the minister in official UK government documents, I'm not sure what other source you might want
 
Frankly GB in this scenario doesn't need Canada or South Africa to win this war. Germany is considerably weaker.
That may or may not be true, but is also a little irrelevant. The British government wasn't worried about losing because of their non-participation, it was more worried about the long term consequences of major parts of the empire opting out of a major war in a very public way, not just limiting their contribution.
 
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.

How *far* would he have to back down?

Iirc, as early as June 1, Chamberlain had indicated that the Sudeten question could best be settled by a plebiscite. If Hitler agrees to that he can probably still get all or most of the disputed area
 
That may or may not be true, but is also a little irrelevant. The British government wasn't worried about losing because of their non-participation, it was more worried about the long term consequences of major parts of the empire opting out of a major war in a very public way, not just limiting their contribution
They would be under a lot of pressure not only by London but Paris and Washington to at least allow volunteers to go. Will they really balk that hard at sending a few volunteer divisions , with London and/or Washington indirectly picking up the tab?
 
They would be under a lot of pressure not only by London but Paris and Washington to at least allow volunteers to go. Will they really balk that hard at sending a few volunteer divisions , with London and/or Washington indirectly picking up the tab?
Nobody is going to stop volunteers but that's not the point. It's still the apparent end of the dominions as an integral part of the empire for international military and political purposes. If a serious war does ensue then a few volunteers aren't going to make up for the lost manpower (and especially resources in Canada's case) that comes from wholehearted governmental involvement in a war with general public support.

All I claimed was that going to war as a result of the Munich crisis would lead to less unity behind the idea of war in the British and French empires (including the home fronts), and that this might lead to more dominions staying out of the war than happened in 1939. As I said, the impact of this (implicitly including whether any dominions would actually stay out) was an unknown.
 
Nobody is going to stop volunteers but that's not the point. It's still the apparent end of the dominions as an integral part of the empire for international military and political purposes. If a serious war does ensue then a few volunteers aren't going to make up for the lost manpower (and especially resources in Canada's case) that comes from wholehearted governmental involvement in a war with general public support.

All I claimed was that going to war as a result of the Munich crisis would lead to less unity behind the idea of war in the British and French empires (including the home fronts), and that this might lead to more dominions staying out of the war than happened in 1939. As I said, the impact of this (implicitly including whether any dominions would actually stay out) was an unknown.
Outside of Ireland i don’t see any of the dominions staying out even if it’s the Munich Crisis, Ireland is still a certain for staying out of any war though.
 
Outside of Ireland i don’t see any of the dominions staying out even if it’s the Munich Crisis, Ireland is still a certain for staying out of any war though.
You might be right, we'll never know, but that wasn't the view of UK government ministers at the time, or many mainstream historians with hindsight, e.g.
Weinberg, Gerhard L., et al. “Essay and Reflection: The Munich Crisis Revisited.” The International History Review, vol. 11, no. 4, 1989, pp. 668–688.
".... the Dominions, whose independence in reality as well as theory had been enormously advanced by the Great War, were most assuredly not going to help Great Britain in any fight over the Sudeten territory. In spite of a steady flow of information from London to the Dominions in an effort to keep them fully informed, this had been made clear by Australia, Canada, the Irish Free State, and the Union of South Africa; only New Zealand appeared undecided."
 
Top