No worries then. I always peruse the comments, but this is the first time I've seen a creator explain the "why" of a vid. 2 parts? I look forward to watching the second. Cheers from Tennessee

Niall Ferguson is wrong: here's why.

this is VERY well done! I really hope TIK sees this and does a reaction video!!

KZfaq forced you to censor this? That's absurd!

@@Young.Supernovas *anything* referring to the bad man with a small mustache gets corporate censored yeah

Scapegoat, though I imagine they would also have appreciated a goat to ride to safety.

I think this is more a function of denial than it is about people's actual beliefs about the future of Poland in a total war. Nobody in high places would admit the truth about the likelihood of Poland holding, because if they did, it would be seen as a repudiation of the guarantee, a policy that was a diplomatic rather than military necessity.

@@erichluepke855 They did admit it though, the British military advice was that Poland would hold an Eastern Front for "up to 3 months". They KNEW Poland had no hope against Germany yet still chose the path of getting Poland into a war with Germany to prevent German-Polish agreement and have Poland as an Eastern Front in war.

an "escape goat". Are you 12? What a terrible take. Germany's economy was extremely robust after Big H came into power.

Post war rationalizing. Disregard generals rewriting to make themselves and their nation look better

Appeasement was the only reasonable action to take at the time with the information they had at play. France and Britain was not ready to fight another war. The German-American relationship wasn't soured. The Japanese could have been swayed against aggression in the region. The British Economy would turn to dust and the colonies seized by Japan. These were reasonable fears for Britain at the time. That is why it took a figure like Churchill to take charge. He was far more willing to commit political suicide.

@@jerm70 Giving away territory that doesn't belong to you is a disgrace.

@@optimatus then you should fight instead of waiting for other country to send young men to die for you

@@optimatus So would be sending young men to die when you think a war is not able to be won. Your point?

@@imreallynoob8311 That's what Chamberlain did in 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland.

A decent man can make mistakes - lord knows Churchill is lauded as the competent counterfoil to Chamberlain, yet Churchill had one or two mishaps under his belt too. I think Chamberlain redeemed himself by declaring war on Germany, changing his foreign policy once he saw it wasn't working.

He wasn’t weak, but to say he wasn’t foolish for trusting Hitler is pushing it

Good men don’t sell countries without hearing what they have to say. British imperial pride tainted any morals he had

@@ChevyChase301 Being fair, he wasn't neither the first nor the last man who did that. Just see what happened with the east block in the cold war.

@@DarthFhenix55 look at the suez crisis. The British were barely more moral then the Germans when it came to foreign policy at this time. The British. Like Hitler. Would invade any state they wished.

It wasn’t rumbling he was told that a coup would happen if Germany declared war. The reason why their was no coup when Poland was invaded was because hitler increased his control so it was not possible.

There's other reading. Britain's senior-most military leaders collectively coordinated their briefings to Chamberlain just before Munich, advising that if Britain got into a war with Germany a that time, even along with France, that they wold lose. They pleaded for war to be delayed by even just 6 months, that this would make a big difference in Britain's readiness. France had a similar assessment that they would lose alone and had first approached USA but the Americans insisted on their neutrality. If USA had stood up and come to Munich along with Britain and France, things would probably have turned out much differently. (Yes, much of Germany's strength was on paper and there was a potential to defeat Germany militarily at that time; isn't hindsight great; but this highlights what information Chamberlain had to make his decision. And supporting a coup attempt would run the risk of a failed coup with this being an act of war - a war that the military leaders believed that they would lose.)

@@iansneddon2956 How did that delay work out for Britain?

Even though Britain and France declared war after Poland, they still did nothing like with Czech. Phoney war and all

I claim that you didn't read "Mein Kampf". It's a tedious, self-contradictory pamphlet that claims about everything not even Hitler took seriously when he dictated it to Hess. It is blatantly wrong that the Wehrmacht wasn't "motorised enough" to conduct a mobile war. We know it is blatantly wrong because barely a year later, the same Wehrmacht conducted a successful mobile war in Poland. Fortifications for Germany have never been to be breached. That's the whole point of the operational planning at least since 1935 (and, arguably, even before, since the middle of the 1920s). Following the same logic, you could say that in 1940 France had mounted a successful defence against Germany as it could not penetrate the Maginot Line. No, it couldn't; that's why it went around. What we do know: * In 1938, Chamberlain was furious when the General Staff informed him the UK was in no position to intervene militarily into an armed conflict. * From Munich to Dunkerque, Chamberlain re-armed the UK armed forces. * In 1940 when "La Drôle de Guerre" went "hot", the British and French forces weren't prepared and it took Germany 6 weeks to concquer France; even today historians are puzzled by the "Haltebefehl" that prevented the total annihilation of the British forces in Dunkerque. * Until 1942, Churchill became more and more desperate as the USA didn't commit to helping the UK and the UK struggled hard to rearm itself further. Those are the facts. It stands to reason not to buy time with Appeasement would have accelerated the Dunkerque catastrophy 1 year earlier, as the British forces in 1938 were even more unprepared than in 1940. The French defensive focus meant that Germany could wait ("Sitzkrieg") until the preparations to attack in the West were ready. The Oster plot was postponed after Munich as Hitler had succeeded diplomatically where the General Staff feared a military confrontation would be impossible; those same officers, however, were astonished how fast France fell and how catastrophically the UK forces failed in 1940. They *thought* Hitler was bluffing in 1938; however, they got confirmation about the UK forces' dismal state in 1940.

i know so little about this but it always gets referred to would love to see more channels talking about this

The Ageod wargame "Wars of Succession" covers this conflict and is loads of fun in multiplayer for those who are interested.

The war that shifted the world order from a spanish one to an english one.

@@mstebs there’s a great mod for Hoi4 called ‘Empire’ It covers many conflicts in the 18th century, in particular the War of Spanish Succession.

@@cseijifja I mean, the Spanish Empire was already entering into a period of decline by that point. The 30 years war and 80 years war had sapped so much of the Empire's strength it's not unreasonable to liken them to the world wars' effects on the British Empire.

You are righ, but at the same time you're not considering how "Go and die for a foregin country just like 20 years ago" isn't a very convicing argument even when that was the right move, people wouldn't really realize how bad the situation was until they were the ones suffering.

You're literally a fake country that had no business existing after WW1 and everyone knew it then.

@@DarthFhenix55 I am considering that. Doesn't change a thing. He still left us to the pack of wolfs. Really doesn't matter to me he thought the pack wouldn't be stronger bigger, still hungry and go after him next before he can craft proper spear.

@@DarthFhenix55 Don't go around goving guarantees you are unwilling to fullfill. That's why westeners are deemed untrustworthy and traitors in the eastern Europe. Cause you make promises you are unwilling to ever fullfill. Like USA and UK now which gave Ukraine guarantee of their borders in exchange for their nukes, but yet are to dispatch their troops to defend Ukraine.

@@troo_6656 Maybe your country should have been stronger. For the sake of peace, some countries are indeed expendable.

@@basilmagnanimous7011 Oh, brother, I KNOW and I NOTICE. The h-caust has become a foundation myth for the new West. One centered on death. With its great evil and its great victim. Redefining concepts, scrapping and replacing values. Memorials for the h-caust everywhere but how scant the memorials for their saviors--curious. All peoples have exclusive right to their lands, ethnic Europeans have no right to theirs and permitted to go nowhere. Exclusive culture for all peoples but not for the European, theirs must be denied. True nationalism for everyone but not for the European man and woman. To suggest otherwise is the great sin. And you must not question it, must not do anything other than fully embrace it, despite how little it relates to you. And it's anathema to even display unapproved images, despite being a KZfaqr simply wanting to talk about British history. Disgusting.

The greatest irony here is youtube says theres 2 replies but they don’t actually show up when you click the comment lel

@@basilmagnanimous7011 thou art an intelligent man

@@iron2684 You are both 14.

@@basilmagnanimous7011 the nationalsocialist party and movement has been growing very fast in the last years and since the end of 2019 and 2020 it has been growing almost exponentially, so soon we will be in power again and we will actually fight against our socialists and we will do it for OUR people not the immagrants wich we should get rid of by any means only the most useful 100 could stay with their families bc we need scientists and other very important jobs, when they outlive theit usefulness than they will be kicked out of the country or something else... we will make our people proud again of their Germanic blood and of their country. And i myself i will promise that i will do anything for our people and devote my life to us Germanics... it's gonna be hard but victory will be assured we learned from the last time and the movement has adopted to our time, but no way that we are gonna let our country be destroyed along with our principles, morals and culture...

Besides the fact that opting to resist german prevarication, so accepting war, would not have been an impossible situation at all, if anything it would've been a fairly easy and collective situation considering that many states in Europe would've been coalized and against a non-augmented Germany. The Czechs, their military industry and their country already would've been a huge tipping factor for the Allies (UK and France) in defeating Germany.

Yeah, we do this all the time with history. We make our own judgement calls with all of the information gained after the fact and how it all unfolded. It can't be stated enough how important it is to put yourself in the shoes of the person or group you are judging.

@@dusk6159 That's cool but they didn't know that

I don’t think chamberlain did a big mistake. It’s easy to imagine a shorter war with Germany when she was weaker but that ignores the fact that complete victory was the only solution to the nazi problem and that would require a total war even in 1933

The Allies would have been in a even better position if they didnt salivate at the prospect of a war with Germany and looked after their own business

@@98TrueRocker98 In what respect, specifically?

@@pathutchison7688 If the Allies ignored what was happening to the east of Germany they would have kept all their colonies and they wouldnt have had any destruction and death from war because Germany had no interest in western Europe

@@98TrueRocker98 let’s assume you’re right. And the reich defeated the Soviets, or at least pushed them past the Urals to the point where they were basically defeated. Now France has a Giant Nazi Germany on its border. That’s a new Cold War at the very least. It could have been a lot worse too. And the time of colonies was about done. It wouldn’t have been tenable to hold on to them for long in that world any easier than this one.

@@pathutchison7688 It would have been the same Cold War as with the Soviets, or even better because Germany had more in common with other western countries then the Soviets

What...?

There are Serbs that like Britan ? 🤨

​@@SillyUwUBilly They are mindless communists Russian puppets.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

Poland did not begged allies to defend Czechs. It was very opposite, unfortunately. Poland was trying to take advantage of Czechoslovakia when they were in Sudetenland crisis.

@@Glassius89 it is well documented that Poland announced full willingness in joining the war against Germany if France would decide to uphold their guarantee to the Czechoslovakia and multiple times communicated that in their opinion a war from two sides as 4 countries is their preferential outcome. Only as France proved completly unwilling to do anything to defend Czechoslovakia Poland demanded Zaolzie to protect the Polish people living there. Poland decided that loosing Zaolzie was acceptable cost to uphold political connections. Only as those connections proved to be completly innefective Poland decided to prioritize saving Polish people over them and demanded the territory Czechoslovakia stole during Polish-Soviet war of 1919-1921 while Poland was unable to defend it's western border.

@@Ussurin Well documented, great. When did Poland announced, it is willing to protect Czechoslovakia? Because it did not confirm when Pierre Laval was asking Beck for it in 1935. Beck did not answer. In the same year Poland established K7 (Komitet Siedmiu) which was planning urprising and dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. In march 1936 Poland asked Yugoslavia if they would oppose partitions of Czechoslovakia. In August 1936 Maurice Gamelin arrived to Poland and asked for it Rydz-Śmigły, he also did not confirm they can ally Czechoslovakia. The same happened in September 1936 in Paris. In June 1838 Leon Noёl heared the same from Rydz Śmigły. In September 1938 Poland was already telling to Germany, than if anything happens, Poles are taking Zaolzie. You can check articles "Gdy Polak i Czech się biją: Dlaczego nie udało nam się zawiązać sojuszu przeciwko Hitlerowi z Czechosłowacją?" by Andrzej Krajewski and "Zajęcie Zaolzia przez Polskę w 1938 roku. Dlaczego nasze wojsko wzięło udział w rozbiorze Czechosłowacji?" by Rafał Kuzak. The whiole diplomatic offensive before Munich agreement is described in book "Kiedy wybuchnie wojna? 1938. Studium kryzysu" by Piotr M. Majewski.

@@Glassius89 On the Munich Conference Poland was opposing the whole agreement and only after they found no support in western allies, they joined the talks to save the Poles from potential German rule.

@@Ussurin Poland did not officialy participate in Munich conference. Can you say what Pole was defending Czechoslovakia on Munich conference?

Also Hitler wanted a British alliance as this would help him attack the United States. However the situation evolved into one where that was a impossibility.

@@dapperbunch5029 Hitler's fantasies about a UK-German alliance are irrelevant. The geo-politics was that Germany was an enemy of France and UK.

@@dapperbunch5029 Hitler wanted a British rapprochement because he was an Anglophile, he had no ambitions for America since it was then as it is now patently impossible to invade the American continent. What he wanted was to ensure America would remain neutral in any European conflict.

@@serebii666 he wanted to destroy America's naval and economic influence. It would prevent the so called, "Jewish influence".

Äh... No!

No... It overlooked basic things!

Or orrrrrrr, and hear me out, maybe, just maybe, Chamberlin and those who thought like him knew Hitler wasnt looking west but east and they didnt want to go to another stupid needless war

Very interesting, and this is very late, but do you think you could share the source for those analyses by the British and the Germans? I never heard of them, and the mainstream explanation of Czech history was that fighting would be pointless, and that we had no hope.

@@jonaskosak6766 its a moot point if the Czechs would have held or not. Why? Because the Germans were desperately short on just about every resource imaginable. From oil to food to steel to chromium they relied on imports this was a major reason for Germany's desire to conquer more land to start with. With no Munich agreement there is no Molotov-Ribbentrop pact Germany would not receive grain, oil and rare metals from the USSR. Germany would not continue to receive steel from Sweden and Norway as the Brits would have dragged them into the war. Germany would not have any overseas imports. This would make German victory impossible before they even started in the worst case where they defeat the french they are still facing a war against the USSR except without the ability to hide behind the lie of a nonaggression pact.

Worst

Definitely. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

The war wouldnt have broken if the British government didnt declare it upon Germany

Like putin now.

Do you have the word Real Politik, borrowed from German...?

@@secretname4190 But the term is not exact use in the original sense of the word. But that's not uncommon with German loanwords in English...

It was popularised by Henry Kissinger, a German Holocaust survivor eho fled to the us and became a statesman / advisor with a lot of really bad geopolitical tales which lead to Nixon aiding in numerous regime changes and genocides.

"Realpolitik" and "realism" have become meaningless words used by any diplomat or politician trying to defend his own ideas about foreign policy.

Difference is the Brits were also pretty unarmed in 1938 also. It's easier to go to war when you have at least a couple hundred planes vs about 30 that they had in 1938. Source: I have none it was a total guess, but Lord Halifax said something like 'every month meant more planes were built'.

Ohh really??? May be history of your country was not so deeply harmed by Munich "betrayal" like mine that caused immediate destruction of Czechoslovakia in 1938/39 and subsequent deep mistrust of the Czech democratic elites towards the west that helped communists to persuade the postwar government to reject Marshall plan first and take the government in 1948 for next 40 years.

@iMakz lol okay Joseph

​@@TheEvilAdventurer They didn't, the government of Czechoslovakia literally collapsed and left a vacuum that either the Soviet Union would fill or Germany.

@@Imperium83 no you pulled that out of your ass

@@TheEvilAdventurer Ok, Rabbi

@iMakz Germany literally invaded Czechoslovakia both in 1938 and 1939.

@@secretname4190 German generals in France: masterfully cuts clean through the French army in the Ardennes. German generals in Russia: gets their ass whipped so badly they have to blame it on Shmadolf Shmitler and create the Russia biggest stronk myth.

@@secretname4190 while the initial push was amazing, it also never really secured the land it took, leading to smaller Russian groups who were cut off to go underground and become partisans, a huge detriment to Germany’s already overstretched logistics. once they were repelled from moscow it was mostly German generals making blunder after blunder and blaming it on moustachio. There are exceptions to this (Kharkiv is the only one I remember right now) German high command at the time of the initial push into Russia was filled to the brim with overconfidence. By the end of the war with Russia, it was full of lies to preserve their ego, lies of a clean Wehrmacht, lies that hitler cost the German army the whole war, lies of superior Soviet equipment (which is utter bullshit).

Appeasement was a good thing. It strengthened Germany to the point she fehlt capable to unleash a world war, a war that would ultimately destroy the european empires and the racist age of West Born in 16th century at very latest. All in all very good. 70 million died with a purpose...

It won't, it won't surprise them, only a truly competent presentation will challenge their mind set.

You know what they say about brits making them look the best. I mean look at napoleonic wars "Napoleone you're bad because you want to rule instead of us"

With "ifs", we can put the moon in a bottle. No one knows what would've happened without Versailles, or with a Versailles under different terms. Germany was the most powerful state in Europe anyway, it was only a matter of time before Berlin tried to turn this demographic and economic dominance into political hegemony, one way or another. To France, weakening Germany was a matter of survival, no revenge. Also, Greece lost their war against Turkey anyway. They got Smyrne, but they lost it right afterwards in 1921.

I appreciate the detailed and thoughtful critique, and will concede that I probably should have devoted at least a line or two to the conspiracy. However, the video does explicitly state that going to war in 1938 would have been more logical in hindsight. On the conspiracy, the idea that a politician should potentially send hundreds of thousands of young men to die on the vague notion that the enemies leader might be overthrown, is in my opinion a nonsense. And considering Hitler's luck when it comes to surviving assassination attempts, I think Chamberlain was absolutely right to ignore this factor.

@@OldBritannia Thank you for the reply. Just want to mention that the Oster conspiracy itself should not be considered too profoundly in such a video because Chamberlain could not have known its chances of success. It would have been quite the gamble to risk the lives of millions on some Germans promising to make a coup. What matter though is its implication. It proves the instability of the German regime and the possible unrest within the government and citizenry of the Reich. The Allies having knowledge of such instability just has to be mentioned. This is an important factor for any strategic analysis of the Allies' vs. the Axis's strength. War was not popular on either side in 1938 and that should be part of the calculus of power if one is to compare it to 1939 when the Germans were behind the war. So really I would just have enjoyed that part of the calculation mentioned when discussing why Chamberlain did what. On another note, the Hitler assassination survival luck is something that only exists in hindsight and not something that should be looked at at all. Just hoping that the German domestic front in 1938 and 1939 gets a bigger mention in the next video.

Good point, Czechoslovakia had vast arms industry

...and Krupp got Skoda.

Like the Holodomor, caused by Stalin's collectivization. Also, Britain didn't "overstate" the capabilities of the Luftwaffe. The London Biltzkreig is proof of that. In fact, the Battle of London, if a few things happened differently, would have been a German victory.

Amazing how everyone hates bankers, but they must take their money in order to operate without being toppled by a frenzied populace.

I think you misunderstand the situation fundamentally! There was no happiness drunkenness in 1919. Just a bunch of people who found themselves in a bad situation after the peace treaty. Great Britain was occupied with serious domestic problems. There were massive clashes and strikes, which led to the first use of tanks in history against the country's own population. And France, went into one of the most politically unstable periods in its history. And the legacy of Versailles weighed heavily. It was to be expected that this would be the case. And in a speech in Versailles in 1919, the British prime minister clearly predicted how things would continue with Germany, with rare political foresight: "One may deprive Germany of her colonies, reduce her army to a mere police force, and reduce her navy to the strength of a fifth-rate power. Still, when Germany feels that she has been wronged in the peace of 1919, she will find means at last , to compel restitution from its conquerors.To obtain retribution, our conditions may be severe, they may be harsh, and even ruthless, but at the same time they may be so just that the country on which we impose them feels, in its heart, it have no right to complain. But injustice and arrogance displayed in the hour of triumph will never be forgotten nor forgiven. I can think of no stronger reason for a future war than that the German people, who are sure to declare themselves as one of the most vigorous and powerful tribes in the world, would be surrounded by a number of smaller states, some of which had never before been established lasting government for itself, but each of which would contain large numbers of Germans desiring reunification with their homeland.” But that's exactly what happened because of France's vengefulness...

@@melchiorvonsternberg844 I'd draw your attention to the fact that I did preface it with "WW1 was nothing like a party." But everything you said is correct. Versailles was incredibly short sighted and punitive. I know a significant body of historians are fighting a rear guard action to defend it but the fact that WW2 happened a mere generation later tells you all you need to know. Barring breaking up Germany back into the Holy Roman Empire, it would've been far better to actually have an armistice (which Germany thought it was getting) than what happened. The results of the more lenient treatment of [West] Germany after 1945 also prove this.

@@kilpatrickkirksimmons5016 I am very pleased that there is now more emphasis on looking at facts than on justifications. More will happen. And then, hopefully, the French strategy of wanting to get this war at any price will finally be examined more closely. The Jean Jaures assassination, I think, is the key. I even make the bold claim that it was not the assassination of the Archduke but the assassination of Jean Jaures that made this war what it became...

​@@melchiorvonsternberg844 cope harder. you invaded and got smacked twice. hopefuly the allies didnt make the same mistake as in ww1 of not completly crushing germany.

@@smal750 lol... You stupid child! Your knowledge of the events is as limited as your ability to make proper analyzes. What is the situation today? All the empires that Europeans built before World War I no longer exist. Without Germany, the liberation of the colonies would not have happened! And what did Germany lose in the end? 3 provinces in the fuckin' cold East, but France and England their vast empires. Germany leads the EU, the Americans provided us with nuclear weapons over 50 years ago and France offered to share their nuclear weapons with us. And one thing you should never do... underestimate the Germans and their abilities. That could be a rude awakening!

Eight months later... as France and the UK did nothing and Germany tried to sue for peace the entire time.

What about the Czechs? Or Austria.

@@Imperium83 What a relevant name you have, 'goon', and a comment to match. Of course Germany wanted 'peace' after its successful conquests in East and Central Europe. But there were air raids and sea warfare. In France and the UK there was political turmoil between the Appeasement groups and those which had woken up to the intentions of Germany. Of course Germany's version of 'peace' involved invading neutral countries as well. The invasion of Norway caused the shift in the UK to Churchill and the Coaltion government he formed. So Goon you write rubbish and pro-Nazi rubbish at that.

That was not a failure of Chamberlain and Deladier. Such an attack was planned and in preparation. But Poland was effectively defeated in two weeks. It's impossible to organize an offensive in just two weeks. By the time the Allies were ready to attack Germany from the west, such an attack was rendered meaningless. Had the Poles held back the Germans better, it's possible that the Allies could have had time to attack the west. Although, even in such a scenario, Poland's position is hopeless and inevitable because they will still be attacked by the USSR and overrun.

@@pax6833 So your saying they had an attack ready by the end of September and didn't go before the Germans could redeploy to the west? Why the hell not take the Ruhr while it is almost undefended. The French and the British bitched out every step of the way from 1935 onwards, their only "plan" was to try not to take casualties and hope it all worked out, what scumbags

Deep by comparison with many, it remains scandalously neglected

What "failures"? Neville's policy was very much successful. It kept Britain out of a needless and retarded war

After Chechnya really

Why?

@@DrMrPersonGuy why?

@@Howleye because russia annexed them with barbaric tactics.

An aggressive revanchist warmonger is hard to understand?

@@DeltaAssaultGaming I mean Churchill's whole schtick is "lol us Englishmen are so quirky, facetious, contrarian and difficult to understand".

Definitely. A couple missed opportunities, but a hugely difficult situation.

Hitler might have believed that, but it would probably have been his death. At the time substantial parts of the German military were plotting against them thinking he was putting Germany on the course of disaster. From what can be reconstructed, one of the officers even had a gun ready to shoot him in case the war started in 1938. It's also in error because the German army in 1938 was far weaker then the one that defeated France in 1940 and was far less likely to win. But well... Hitler was often enough not the best person in making realistic plans or realistic assessments. Conspiracy theorists like him rarely are.

Are you joking ? By allowing him to start a war he prevented nothing but peace in the World .

You have to be joking, he gave Germany the Czech military industry and removed the Czechoslovak army out of existence. If he didn't the war would have ended at the latest in 1941 and the Soviets would never rule half the continent. His actions did more to harm to the democratic world then every Soviet leader after Stalin.

Nonsense. Hitler didn't know about the Oster putsch plan. But Chamberlain and Daladier did, since the German military had sent emissaries to London and Paris before the Munich conference to brief them about their plan to putsch, to be activated in the event that Hitler gave the order to march on Czechoslovakia. Furthermore, when Hitler toured the Czech fortifications along the border, he was so impressed by those fortifications that he told Goebbels "It is a good thing we didn't have to fight here because we would have bitten our teeth out". If Chamberlain had refused Hitler an agreement in Munich, (1) the Czechs would not have had any reason to abide by such an agreement and they would have resisted, (2) the Oster putsch would have taken place, throwing the Wehrmacht in disarray right in the moment of war. If it had been unsuccessful, it would have caused a crack down on the officer corps, weakening the Wehrmacht to the point that the invasion would have failed. The French army and the BEF could have quickly moved across Southern Germany for there was absolutely nothing standing in their way, which was the reason why the German military was against an attack on Czechoslovakia in the first place, they knew if Britain and France would attack, they would be defeated soundly. Last but not least, Stalin -- for all his faults and not without ulterior motives -- had tried to aid Czechoslovakia by sending troops, yet Poland and Romania denied them passage. Not to be deterred, the soviets then sent 100 fighter planes to Czechoslovakia including pilots and ground support personnel. This would have been a formidable defense against attacks by the Luftwaffe.

Not only did the Munich agreement hand over the vast fortifications build by the Czechs in the Sudetenland, and dissolve the Czech army, but it also facilitated the transfer of vast quantities of military industry and equipment that the Germans then used in order to invade France and later the USSR.

He also got cancer in his ass

Basically yeah, I am not a fan of the Military as a concept, but I understand their necessity, if you want peace prepare for war, most nations will only attack if they perceive a imbalance in power in their favor

He funded the military...