Would WW2 be shorter if Nivelle Chamberlain had taken a firmer hand against Hitler esp..?

Question

when Hitler wasn't too sure how far his panzer will take him in the western front?

Answer 1

Like “brian t” and “lugfabio”, I am going to focus on Munich. Chamberlain did take a firm hand against Hitler after Munich, but by then it was too late. Munich was the last occasion on which Hitler could have been stopped. And, if he had been stopped at Munich, the chances are that WW2 would not have happened.

This is one of the great “What If’s?” of History. Even the “Why?” and “What?” of historical Munich are complicated. The “What If” scenarios of Munich are many times more complicated. But I’ll try to summarize my thoughts on what would have happened if Chamberlain had been firm against Hitler at Munich.

I am broadly in agreement with “lugfabio”; especially if you change “Laval” to “Daladier”; and “Monaco” to “Munich”; both of which I’m sure that he intended. Here is my summary: -

1. The Czech army in 1938 was strong (40 divisions), well equipped, and had good prepared defenses against Germany, except on its Bohemian frontier with Austria (which had just become German following the Anschluss). If supported by its allies, France and Russia; and if they were joined by Britain; and if Italy remained neutral (very likely); the Czechs could have stopped the then ill-prepared Wehrmacht in its tracks.

2. Hitler was bluffing in 1938, and would have backed down at Munich if he had been firmly opposed by both Chamberlain and Daladier.

3. Mussolini was not sure which side to support: if Britain and France had stood firm against Hitler’s demands, Mussolini would probably have backed them.

4. The USSR was also allied with Czechoslovakia. Stalin was far from ready for war, but he was (rightly) suspicious of Hitler, and would probably have backed a firm stand by Britain and France. But, the USSR wasn’t invited to participate in the Munich meetings, so nobody knows how Stalin would have reacted.

5. Britain and France had both starved their armed forces of money and equipment throughout the 1930’s. Neither country was in any shape to fight in 1938.

6. But Hitler’s armed forces in 1938 were not so formidable either, except for propaganda purposes. The Luftwaffe was probably better than anyone else’s air force, but that was about all. The Panzers were under-armored, under-gunned and mechanically unreliable. The German Infantry divisions were still WW1 era in equipment.

7. In 1938, Germany alone (as it almost certainly would have been) could not have beaten Czechoslovakia, France, Britain and Russia – ill-prepared though most of them were. Hitler would have been forced to back down.

8. This public humiliation would have given the German General Staff, led by Ludwig Beck, the chance they had been waiting for to rally the German public and oust the Nazis from power.

9. But, as “brian t” emphasizes, public opinion in both Britain and France was so anti-war, so desperately pacifist, that neither Chamberlain nor Daladier (as democratically elected leaders) enjoyed any solid backing from their own people to confront Hitler and take Europe back to the brink of another major war. Chamberlain and Daladier chose to be “followers” (of their own publics’ opinion) rather than “leaders”. And the world paid the price for their failure to lead.

Answer 2

If Chamberlain and Laval would had been firmer it would be possible we could have had a shorter, if any world war.
Because :
1) Germany was not ready yet for war, In that moment the famous Panzerdivisionen, Armored corps, were in forming and they did yet have tiny PZ I and some PZ II, all light Tank not able to go against heavy french tanks. The conquest of Czech republic allowed Germany to use Czech Technology and most of all both TATA and SKODA factory, with the best mechanical technology of their time. Normal infantry divisions yet moved on horses and train mostly. Aviation was in great delay and BF 109 E was yet a prototype, while Ms 406 was ins service. U Boot were neither at sea....
2) Probably Hitler was aware of Germany not prepared, and he would have not declared war in 1938, and all could be closed with a German humiliation. This would have hit badly the Hitler Nationalistic Government
3) Italy was not yet in Axis. In Monaco Mussolini was pro peace and tried to balance between Germany from one side and UK and France from the other. A different way of acting would have not send him (and Italy ) in the German arms.
Nevile and Laval so sacrificed Czechoslovakia for one year of peace and for a long war after. But probably they couldn't do differently. Population was blindly for peace. Laval understood well the mistake. when he went out of the plane , coming back in Paris, and saw at airport a crowd cheering for the peace he said, with low voice "Idiots"...

Answer 3

Neville Chamberlain went into the Munich conference a prisoner of public feeling against another war and with the doubtful support of France and Russia.

Chamberlain was also a prisoner of the British unpreparedness for another European war. Chamberlain was well aware that he could not take a firmer hand against Hitler with Britain unprepared militarily and with France lukewarm about the idea of war.

It would have also taken months for the British Empire to have mobilised and marched into a well defended and German fortified middle Europe in which Germany could concentrate the entire miitary machine against a weak British force as was evident in 1940 in France.

Historians call Chamberlain's policy 'appeasement'. However, Chamberlain needed to buy time to rearm Britain and her Empire for a prolonged war against Germany. Chamberlain also recognised that without the support of the United States or Russia, that any war in Europe would be fought alone by Britain and France.

Answer 4

Difficult to say but the French and British probabnly made a mistake in sitting back and waiting for Hitler to attack.
The French were confident the Maginot Line would protect them but failed to appreciate that Hitler could just violate Belgium neutrality and attack from that direction where the line did not exist.
Once he started the Allies had no answer to the combination of fast armoured advance supported by dive bombers which was the German method of warfare.

Answer 5

A few historical corrections / clarifications are needed. #1. The GOP was the anti-war party back in the late 1930's and early 1940's. FDR was trying to get the country ready for war as calmly as he could without the right-wing going nuts. #2. Hitler actually declared war on us before we began military action against him. #3. Stalin killed more people than any one man in history and we did next to nothing to him. Beyond all that, can someone answer me this; how is fighting a war in Iraq supposed to ensure that we won't be attacked here at home? Is this not a "global war on terror"? And if it does keep us safe, why did it not keep the British people of London safe during the July 7 terrorist bombings?!? You know, the same Britian that is second only to the US in numbers of troops in Iraq. And by the way, there are actually politically moderate, non-liberal Americans who have served their country in uniform and are opposed to the war in Iraq. I'm just one.

Answer 6

The only change would likely have been that the war would have started sooner. Hitler was determined to expand, and was only using "diplomacy" to get as much as he could before the shooting started.

The only thing that could have shortened the war would have been if the French and British had used similar tactics to the Germans, and equally effectively at that. Only then would there have been a chance for Germany to be defeated early.

Answer 7

Considering that the armament production of the French and British was even more woefully behind Germany in 1938 than in 1939, my guess is that the war would have lasted a year longer with the same outcome.

Answer 8

I doubr it. I don't think the UK was strong enough to take on Germany in 1939.

Answer 9

I don't think so...it took long enough to defeat the Germans anyway. It would not have been any quicker, earlier.

Answer 10

I don't think it would have made any difference at all.