Churchill fully supported "appeasement" until 5 October 1938.

@@JamesRichards-mj9kw Don't bother telling them this the old boomers still don't get it.

I don't think he said it like that dude.

@@TheBottlenose33 Nope. He said 'crocodile' and he was talking about neutral countries in 1940, long after Munich.

Churchill was not exactly non biased, and Chamberlain died of cancer before Churchill dumped all the blame on him.

He said feeding the croc hoping he eats you last.

For your future use --- the actual quotation is "“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last.” ~ Sir Winston Churchill, Reader's Digest, December 1954"

Many of the government papers will be at the national archives. I don’t know where his personal papers, but Google or another commenter may be able to tell you.

@@DanielsPolitics1 I believe that many of the relevant papers were 'sealed' for various reasons and are still not available to study. Hence the uncertainty about Chamberlains thinking at the time. As we all know the PM must act on what he knows and what 'intelligence' tells him. At the time Germany was thought to be better armed than it was in fact, whilst the PM would have known the true state of UK unpreparedness. , and the lead time to get new weapons into production, (Spitfire, Hurricane and Escort ships, etc) and to train new armies. We can see how difficult that can be when looking at US Intelligence reports on the Soviet Bloc during the 1950-60's where it is now known that Russian equipment often only existed on paper, or was non operational. More recently Saddam Hussains weapons of 'Mass Destruction'. where government policy was influenced by faulty reports.

@@solentbum If there was concern about Germany being better armed than they were, wouldn't have been to sacrifice Czechoslovakia in war letting them attrite German forces than to carve it up piecemeal?

​@@user-gl5dq2dg1jdepends whether they thought CZ would attrit the Nazis significantly, or just be a delay that led to immediate invasion of France. vs let the carve-up happen and get a delay to arm up while the Nazis were busy reorganising the conquered territory and _maaayyybe_ let the Nazis and Soviets upset each other enough to start shooting.

@@user-gl5dq2dg1j There was of course the problem of French reluctance, and USA isolationism, simple geography plus the Japanese in China . Even the Oxford Union 'King and Country' debate of 1933 would have affected decisions about going to war.

The invasion of France began in May 1940.

@@alphamikeomega5728 yes of course.

Oh, and by the way, the labour party back then had a lot of sympathy for the Nazi party.

Keep in mind how long Chamberlain had been in Parliament - since 1918 - and that he’d been Chancellor of the Exchequer since 1931. He knew to the last penny what the Budget was for the Army during those years, so any claim that the poor state of the Army in 1938 was a surprise to him, is ludicrous.

One careful look at Czechoslovakia on the map would have shown Chamberlain that it wasn’t Czechoslovakia that Hitler was after…as much as the massive Skoda and Mlada Boleslava armament factories, arguably the biggest in Europe. It was only after Hitler obtained this massive infrastructure, that put Hitler on a sure war footing. To allow Hitler to obtain these factories without a shot being fired..was in a word, a disaster. Czechoslovakia had a standing army of 1 million well trained men, well equipped. Frances army had more divisions than Germany. There is very little doubt that had Hitler been challenged in Sudetenland, he would have faced a serious obstacle that would have set him back for years…not that this would have happened, as there were entire groups in the high ranks of the German military, ready to depose him at the first sign of a challenge. Czechoslovakia was No Poland, and Hitler would have won had they stood against him even alone…but he would have been bloodied beyond repair….and Chamberlain should have sensed this..instead of being driven by fear of another conflict. As Churchill famously said: “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and now you will have war.' - To Neville Chamberlain'…and boy was he right.

Logic and reason don’t come into it. Why have we allowed the racist leftwing vermin to constantly promote hatred towards whites? There’s nothing rational about that’s. Humans are largely emotional and irrational creatures

If you're alluding to the Ukrainian debacle, no, there's little connection. Germany had the might to do as it pleased for quite some time, there's zero chance (even if they wished to, which they don't) of Moscow expanding this war. Course one could say that'll depend on NATO actions.

@@feedyourmind6713 no, I believe the frightening rise of fascism in most Western countries is the bigger indicator of where we are heading.

@ayela562 Not sure true Fascism is abounding. Fascist policies, no doubt.

@@ayela562 Anything that’s not on the left is fascism…. Give me a break

Exactly. It's not like the UK and France were rearming and Germany was twiddling its thumbs. It was expanding its military and might even further, with lots of extra captured resources and slave labour. It also allowed Germany time to commit atrocities on a grander scale.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. In the 1930s, the SovietUnion was the bogeyman of Europe, as the communists had caused a civil war that had killed millions of people. Afterwards the communist government stole everybodies land and property and killed any political opposition. Hitler on the other hand came to power with the help of reasonable conservative people and was a staunch opponent of communism. So what could possibly go wrong?

The Right Cowardly Neville Chamberlain

Chamberlain was only the PM for the British part of the Anglo-French alliance. Daladier was his Fench counterpart. In the event of a continental land war against Hitler to protect Czechoslovakia, France would be the country providing the vast majority of the fighting force. Britain simply did not have any military presence in Europe at the time. So in the negotiation with Hitler, Daladier was the more important part of Anglo-French alliance and it was Daladier's attitude that decided war or peace for the talk in Munich.

I found truth is not the highest value of many politicians.

I think the Treaty of Versailles was not a good end or new beginning to the world order . It was a treaty that was going to cause problems regardless .

There was no "evil".

@@MarkHarrison733There isn’t really evil I guess. But he’s a pretty reasonable person to call evil. Regardless he lost disastrously and shot himself in a bunker.

Looking at the behaviour of Hitlers agents in the early days such as their attempts to capture and bring down Albert Einstein for predicting and preaching what would be coming with Hitler in charge were signs that foretold how dangerous Hitler was. Awesome that Einstein was rescued and hidden and protected as the nazis went to great lengths to get rid of him and anyone else smart enough to try to warn the Germans that lapped up Hitlers lies

⁠yup, look at how many people wants to appease Russia right now instead of defend its victims. Meanwhile China has just about taken over the 9-dash line and no one is stopping them.

If Putin had leftist inclinations I guarantee the West would've started battling him early 2000s. Fascists get an initial pass by the West whereas leftists are actively engaged from the start

For anyone slightly aware of history and somewhat sane of mind, it should be clear that appeasement is what causes this war in Ukraine.

Sudetenland / Crimea

@@auto_revolt Indeed.

True, but Chamberlain did admit in his memoirs that he'd been duped by Hitler.

Even with 20/20 hindsight.....what if the Allies would have gone to war in late 1938? Hitler's decision to annex Czechoslovakia (in March 1939) was breach of the treaty of Munich and also the proof that there was no way to stop him without a war (or, at the very least, the threat of war). So, the British and French public was far more willed to accept the need to go to war in September 1939 than they would have been in October 1938. Militarily speaking, Germany would have been in a much less favorable situation in an October 1938 war. But what if they would have managed to defeat Czechoslovakia faster than expected? Would the British and French public been willed to continue the war? What would have been the situation of Poland? They took a small part of Czech territory in October 1938 - would they have done the same in a alternate timeline with a war in late 1938, thus allying with Germany? Lots of things that could have gone horribly wrong.......so, while going to war in 1938 would most likely have been the lesser evil compared to September 1939, we will never know what would have happened.

There is no need for twenty-twenty hindsight. All you need is see the things from Czechoslovakian side of border at that time. Czechs knew what was coming, but sadly nobody was willing to listen. I recommend a book 'Countdown to war' by Geoffrey Cox. He was stationed as a reporter in Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938 and writes about the whole topic and the way Britain deliberately looked away and listened only to Germany.

I do understand how misleading hindsight can make things. But man, when someone writes down that they want to conquer most of Europe in a manifesto presented as a memoir, and then launches a coup, seizes dictatorial power, and immediately and aggressively (to put it mildly) rearms his nation, it's really hard to give Chamberlain the benefit of the doubt. I don't necessarily blame everyone involved, things are messy and apparently his book wasn't widely read, but they were literally, literally, told exactly what was going to happen. And then when it started, they continued to imagine that it wouldn't. It is wise to doubt the promises politicians make to you. It is moronic and unforgivable to not heed the overt, unsubtle, undisguised threats they make.

@@tomaskoupil5994 I still wonder what would have happened if the Czecks said FU to Chamberlain and Hitler and said we will fight for our own country.

Mrstefano, west should also defend taiwan and this is a very important issue.

Hitler did not attack us, why attack Hitler? -anti war people in the 1940s

Most of the populous of Luhansk and Donetsk are Russian speakers and want to be in the Russian federation. In the end inevitably there will be a negotiated peace. In my opinion those two territories will be in the Russian federation, Ukraine will be in the E.U but it won't be in NATO and then the sanctions will be lifted. But it will probably require Putin to resign, die or be overthrown. Stalin died, Khrushchev was overthrown.... Hmmm. Where is that super fast acting cancer the CIA created in the 60's ? or the legendary death ray beamed from space. :)

@@RaghulS-hj6vt USA (along with Philippines, Japan and Indonesia) should sign a defence pact and make a binding commitment to defend Taiwan.

How would you have stopped it?

@@julianshepherd2038 there was no stopping the war at that point; the right course was to defend Czechoslovakia

@@julianshepherd2038 IMHO Hitler would stop it himself, if he has seen resolute alliance of Britain, France, Czechoslovakia and with high probability also of Poland. Interesting fact is, that during Munich crisis German army was not mobilized. That suggests that Hitler was counting on disunity and political weakness of his opponents, but also indicates that he would not dare to risk war in autumn 1938. What would happen later is of course purely speculative exercise...

Reocupy the Rhineland

@@andrewsoboeiro6979 Defend it with what is the point being raised though. France was a shambles and risked a lot of political/revolutionary issues (even during the actual war, there was work stoppages organised by communists/socialists and the army was having issues even with a year of preparing). The British were also in no way, shape or form ready for war with both parties running on a non war election. Both armies/nations were planning a total industrial war mentality and their plans were set and ready for a 1942 war due to that, a war in which they would have more than enough trained men (important point, conscripts cant do much) and the equipment and vehicles to push it. They knew they could win the war and expected to win it, the problem was that the French simply ignored their field commanders/had serious doctrinal issues which the Germans got extremely lucky in exploiting, any other plan and the Germans would likely have lost the war without France falling. Even the German commanders planned a war which would quickly see them obviously losing but take minimal losses, then 1 madman came to Hitler with "a great idea!" which was looney against France if France actually listened to its recon forces.

War doesn't determine who is right, only who is left.

That’s easy to say…. but pretending that the consequences of losing are no greater than those of victory, is utterly dishonest. If it is quoted in context, it shows how unfit Chamberlain was to face an aggressive Germany.

@@peterwebb8732 absolutely. If winning is so bad, try losing. Ask Poland.

What a bloody idiotic thing to say. Tell that to a Jew or an Israeli.

That's exactly what a man that gave in to the world's most infamous dictators. He might have been trying to avoid war but it didn't work. The Allies were both winners and victors.

Well said.

Why should Britain have sacrificed anything for Czechoslovakia?

@@seanlander9321 Smh. Before getting into the "why", your question seems to indicate that you feel Britain should not have sacrificed anything for Poland either; extrapolating from that then, Britain should have been unwilling to sacrifice anything for Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium, the Netherlands etc. etc. Am I correct in that assessment of your feelings on the subject?

@@robertdickson9319 Very much so. The sacrifices Britain made for Europe were a complete waste and a thankless task. Quite frankly if Europe had remained as a German colony, Britain would have been much better off and a whole lot of trouble and loss would have been averted

@@seanlander9321 If that is your belief, the "why" reasons for helping Czechoslovakia are basically irrelevant - but in a nutshell, by taking over Czechoslovakia the Germans acquired a great deal of financial, economic & military wealth that helped fuel their rearmament & kept the German economy afloat for the next 2 years. Essentially it would have far easier to defeat Germany in 1938 than it proved to be in 1940. I would argue that while some in Britain may think it was "a complete waste & thankless task", I think that the majority of Europe, especially the Europe of 1945, would disagree. The sacrifices of Britain (in addition to other countries) basically enabled the greatest period of peace & prosperity in European history. If you feel that the fruits of the past 75 years, both from a British & European perspective, were not worth it then there is not much I can say to that to change your mind. Many people in 1938 felt the same way you do today - allow Germany a free hand in Europe. Britain can survive alone. Certainly Hitler wanted that as it would have made his desire to conquer Russia far easier to attain. Any further British independence after that, however, would have likely come with a price - maybe you would be willing to make that Faustian bargain but I don't think it would be the popular choice.

Very true,just look at China or Russia

@@Dief1957 yup, look at how many people wants to appease Russia right now instead of defend its victims. Meanwhile China has just about taken over the 9-dash line and no one is stopping them.

It doesn't work but if fuels modern capitalism

@@igorGriffiths What do you mean fuels modern capitalism

@@Dief1957 capitalists will do business with their countries enemies and endanger national security for profit, no morals in capitalism

I agree!! I went to the museum a few years ago and was thoroughly impressed!! Such a gem!

@@Dotthel Nice, I myself had the pleasure of visiting their london museum a few weeks ago and found it amazing

I have found it is increasingly a museum set up to eulogise Churchill.

All he wanted was the return of Germany's territory.

@@JamesRichards-mj9kw sure, bud

@@major_kukri2430 France invaded Germany in 1939, and the USSR invaded Poland and Finland in 1939.

@@major_kukri2430 He said on 19 July 1940, "I asked from Poland something no other German statesman could have dared. I asked for the return of the old German provinces, then only with a plebiscite. If Churchill and the warmongers felt half the responsibility toward Europe that I did they never would have started the war. On September 2, 1939, war still could have been avoided. The British and the French wanted war, however they wanted a three-year war in order reap profits from their war investments ... After 18 days the Polish campaign ended. Then I issued an appeal to responsible men. I warned all against war, particularly the French against the pursuance of a war which would be horrible. This only served to incite the Franco-British warmongers, who saw their war profits most endangered. They began, however, to call it danger to civilization and culture."

@MarkHarrison733 ok. Then what was he doing being in literally every other country? I'm not buying that he only wanted old German territories when somehow he was in North Africa, eastern Europe, and committing a full-on genocide. Remember, u have decades' worth of hindsight.

A pretty minimal proportion, though. What other countries opened up for the Kindertransport? (That's a fairly genuine question)

@@andrewflindall9048 True, Britain took in 20,000 Jews before the war started overall, more than anyone else iirc from my college days. Just as an anecdote I also knew an old man - who's dead now so I can say this - who admitted to me with some pride I might add to firebombing Jewish shops with his friends in Glasgow when they were growing up in the 1940s as teenagers. They were working class boys and they must have felt very hostile to new Jewish businesses opening shops in their area and thought they had to do something. Which just goes to show how much anti-Jewish sentiment there was in British society at the time. When I heard all this I remember it coming out of nowhere and just finding the whole story perculiar

I missed that part somehow. I thought it was true. What's the true story?

@@michaelhowell2326 The true story is that the Sudetenland was part of Bohemia (old name of Czech lands) from very early mediaeval times. Even later, when Bohemia got ruled by Austria-Hungary, the region was still part of Bohemia. Look up any map from that period, it simply wasn't part of Germany. Germans got there as settlers, invited by the rulers of Bohemia, to help settle and populate this mountainous area. Look up map of Austro-Hungarian empire and you will see that it isn't part of Germany.

No-one says that the Sudetenland was taken away from Germany. Who said that? I'm interested in WW2 and have never heard that on anywhere. I've read Ian Kershaw's two book biography on Adolf Hitler and he never says that the Sudetenland was "taken from Germany". Most KZfaq videos and documentaries say that the Sudetenland had millions of Germans and the Germans wanted it to be part of Germany as the majority of the population was German. The Sudetenland was never part of the Kaiser's German Reich. There's a reason why Posen became part of Poland instead of staying part of Weimar Germany. Same principle, as Posen was majority Polish so why should it stay part of Germany? The problem with Munich wasn't giving the Sudetenland to the Germans, it was giving it to Hitler. So which KZfaq channels repeat that "Nazi lie"? and which videos?

@@tomaskoupil5994 But it was part of German Austria, and once the Austria-Hungarian Empire collapsed, the Austrians were prohibited from uniting with Germany, and Germans in Sudetenland went under the newly formed Czechoslovakia. So indeed, the Germans in Sudetenland were deprived of the right to have self-determination and join Germany.

@goldbullet50 that doesn't mean Germany had any sort of claim on that land. Germans living there or not

Interesting idea. I have no idea of it's possible merits, but in principle, it goes to show how extremely difficult it is to acess decisions even after the fact. So passing judgement on Chamberlain and others is really impossible. Yet, we all have to decide things everyday, and tend to want to think it matters one or the other way what we decide. Hence perhaps our want to evaluate historical decisions - particularly by others!

@@andersgrassman6583 Baldwin was Prime Minister during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War. Attlee threatened to bring down the government when Chamberlain tried to increase the size of the RAF.

Two things can be true at the same time. Chamberlain understood Hitler better than we give him credit for, as is clear from the private correspondence he had with his sister. His appeasement of Hitler was to buy time given Britain's woeful unpreparedness for war, which is why he stepped up rearmament.

British rearmament did not stop the British-led Allies from loosing all of (the continental) Europe to the totalitarian powers. German rearmament which was way faster did prevent it. It was way faster because of the unwillingness of the appeasers to acknowledge the fact that the war was on the horizon, so they made the rearmament half-hearted until it was late. Irrational people that either view the world as a zero-sum, or lose-lose game whatever happens, rarely understand carrots, as they think that by sacrificing the carrot one just makes a gambit and will spring a trap. Stick, on the other hand, is more in-line with their thinking and therefore is infinitely more effective. If you want to stop a dictator, show him a big stick and a willingness to use it, as it was done in CW1. If you want to dictator to win, try to make a deal with him and try hard to think that he holds the interests of his nation dear to his heart (spoiler he's not, at least not as the outsiders view them)

Of course you like the same lies!!!

Well, the parallel would've been if France and Britain had provided war materiel to Czechoslovakia for it to fight for its independence. This is not war footing, but just enough to make Hitler think twice about declaring direct war on both of them. Evil men hellbent on conquest, like Hitler and Putin, only listen when they're stopped and beaten soundly with full force. If Hitler had experienced such forceful resolve from the Allies early on, he would've thought twice about being so aggressive by 1939 and 1940.

@@pdruiz2005 it’s been said Hitler didn’t conquer Europe, allied leadership lost Europe.

@@AFGuidesHD Rubbish.

The war in Ukraine has nothing to do with a desire to "steal land". It is solely about demilitarizing Ukraine, forcing neutrality upon it and creating a buffer zone between Washington Pact forces and Russia. The Russians did not appreciate the US installing Anti-Russian stooges in Kiev back in 2014. After 8 years of waiting and empty promises from the US , Russia decided to invade to force the situation. Would the US tolerate a militarized, openly Anti US regime in Mexico and/ Canada ? Of course not !

Would WWII been as devastating, if GB and France had not declared war on Germany over Poland, which they couldn't even defend in any capacity?

Correct, France and the Soviet Union had a mutual assistance treaty with Czechoslovakia formed in 1935. This was viewed by Hitler as a security danger to Germany.

We do not need them over in the Pacific

@@jacktattis That's why SEATO exists.

Very well said. Thank you.

What do you mean by allies though. We may be sympathetic to Ukraine at the moment but no country is going to declare war on Russia as we aren't formal allies with Ukraine.

The Czechs weren't a British ally, they were a French and Soviet ally.

Source?

@@robertcottam8824 Every biography of Attlee.

@@JamesRichards-mj9kw Such as? I have a ‘Reader’s Pass’, allowing me access to all primary sources, recorded in the ‘Anglophone/sphere’, published since 1679, available (free) and accessible within 14 working days. That’s how academia works. If you inform me as to where you found this Attlee bombshell, I’d be delighted to check from say, Hansard or any published diaries etc. If you are interested in serious study, then you too can acquire such a pass. They are free and available to ALL UK residents over the age of twelve. It’s that simple - in theory. But the will to do could be difficult to summon. Thus: Where I can I find this Attlee revelation when I visit my nearest library on Monday? Pip pip. NB: I have a copy of ‘Citizen Clem’ (2017) John Bew’s excellent biography of Attlee in my own private library. In fact, I have it in front of me as I type. There’s nowt to which you allude in it. 🙈 There’s nothing in Hansard either. I just checked…

@@robertcottam8824 Even wikipedia mentions it in detail: Throughout the 1920s and most of the 1930s, the Labour Party's official policy had been to oppose rearmament, instead supporting internationalism and collective security under the League of Nations.[46] At the 1934 Labour Party Conference, Attlee declared that, "We have absolutely abandoned any idea of nationalist loyalty. We are deliberately putting a world order before our loyalty to our own country. We say we want to see put on the statute book something which will make our people citizens of the world before they are citizens of this country".[47] During a debate on defence in Commons a year later, Attlee said "We are told (in the White Paper) that there is danger against which we have to guard ourselves. We do not think you can do it by national defence. We think you can only do it by moving forward to a new world. A world of law, the abolition of national armaments with a world force and a world economic system. I shall be told that that is quite impossible".[48] Shortly after those comments, Adolf Hitler proclaimed that German rearmament offered no threat to world peace. Attlee responded the next day noting that Hitler's speech, although containing unfavourable references to the Soviet Union, created "A chance to call a halt in the armaments race ... We do not think that our answer to Herr Hitler should be just rearmament. We are in an age of rearmaments, but we on this side cannot accept that position".[49] In June 1936, the Conservative MP Duff Cooper called for an Anglo-French alliance against possible German aggression and called for all parties to support one. Attlee condemned this: "We say that any suggestion of an alliance of this kind-an alliance in which one country is bound to another, right or wrong, by some overwhelming necessity-is contrary to the spirit of the League of Nations, is contrary to the Covenant, is contrary to Locarno is contrary to the obligations which this country has undertaken, and is contrary to the professed policy of this Government".[52] At the Labour Party conference at Edinburgh in October Attlee reiterated that "There can be no question of our supporting the Government in its rearmament policy".[53]

Well said.thank you.

As Chancellor of the Exchequer since 1931, he knew how starved for resources the British Army was, years beforehand. It was not as though he only learned about it in 1938.

In the end the Empire outright ended as a result of WW2, and the Commies eventually had all of Asia that had lingering consequences apparent to this day. Oh so f-ing clever. If you are presented with a war, you should face it and go to war, or otherwise if you choose to submit, you should follow it through to the end. Half-arsed compromises at what's essentially wartime would only lead to the submission and war at (roughly) the same time, and on the worst possible terms, to boot.

I think mostly because Britain was battle fatigued from ww1

Not enforcing the military restrictions of the Versailles treaty was part of the appeasement, not the reason for it.

What was the position of the Baldwin government on this ? Of Anthony Eden ? Of Lloyd George ? Would they have supported France if France had taken military action ? Wik says that "Eden's statement firmly ruled out any military assistance to France."

they weren't ready for war. its not about the Czechs or Polish, but domestic mobilisation, defences, and industry. They were not prepared for this in the 1930s.

Britain was certainly not ready for war in any shape or form in 1939. No way. Where do you get your history from ? I got mine from talking to people who had been in the army or air force at the time. My father joined the Royal Armoured Corps in 1941. They had nothing much to fight with except very lightweight unreliable tanks with ineffective guns. The hills round me are peppered with RAF training aircraft crash sites as they could not navigate accurately in poor weather. No way were we ready for war.

Nuts! Putin was appeased 3 times. Once in 2008 in Georgia Invasion, in the Syria Civil War, were Russian Interests are defended because assad regime supports them and 2014 with the annexation of Crimea. And as history repeats itself the appeasement didnt work. Only thing you can argue helped was to give more time to prepare caus UA couldnt hope to defend in 14 than in 22, they have been training and preparing since then

@@balian9177 Crimea wasn't so much appeasement as a successful Russian "fait accompli"; they had taken Crimea before anyone really had time to react.

'Neville Chamberlain had an excellent record as PM' 😂😂🤣🤣😂😂

​​@@deek0146ut like Hitler's annexations, people who were paying attention (not, like, reading classified intelligence or are just perpetual cynical cranks, just people who were watching what was happening in the open) knew it was coming. And I'm not a military expert, so I can't speak to what level of general preparedness existed in the region, but it wasn't an instant done deal situation, and if there had been any level of actual Western military response to the crypto separatists and transparently disguised Russian soldiers, it wasn't something Russia would have been ready to fight over.

That foresight from Churchill was to allow the Japanese to invade Australia while keeping our troops in Europe. That is why Curtin opened our country to the USA. Britain NO Churchill had let us down

That's how weird Hitler can be. He preferred to go to war just to get something that he can get for free through peaceful means.

The Soviet Union (to give them their correct name) could never have been seriously involved. A peculiar nature of the treaties of the 1930s is that most of the pointed eastwards, particularly the French ones. According to a French military strategist Capt. Andre Beaufre, the French spent the interwar period signing all kinds of crackpot treaties with Eastern European countries. The principal idea was to beat up the USSR. But strangely enough that wasn’t all. But let’s have a look at how the treaties worked. The French had a treaty with Czechoslovakia. The French had a treaty with the Soviet Union. The British had a treaty with the French but no treaty with Czechoslovakia. All this was complicated by the concurrent Spanish Civil War. If Germany had attacked Czechoslovakia, France had agree to come to her aid. But how? How would they be able to defend Czechoslovakia against Germany? Petain suggested going through Belgium but everyone knew Belgium wouldn’t agree. Gamelin suggested Alsace Lorraine but both of those plans would have violated their treaty with the British, which was of a defensive nature only. How could France have defended Czechoslovakia? By going around the long way, through Italy and Yugoslavia? No way anyone was going to allow for that. The Soviet Union had the same problem. To defend Czechoslovakia would require them to pass through one or more other countries, which could not have been done easily. There are certain niceties to be observed, even in war. This was further complicated by the fact that the _Anschluss_ had totally wrecked the Czech strategy because it exposed the south west border, rendering the Sudeten defences irrelevant. It wasn’t that there was any great fear that the Soviet Union would stay. It’s just that nobody wanted to get into cahoots with Uncle Joe.

Operation Unthinkable!!! 😉

Don't forget how much appeasement went on for the USSR itself -- with Baltics and part of Romania and part of Finland being occupied by the Reds. If only some British-led NATO-like arrangement would have been in place, that would have been an effective recipe. The European countries at the time were too small and too poor to defend themselves against Germany or USSR, but FGS together they stood more of a chance than France and Britain, deprived of all of their possible allies because of their incessant appeasement and the betrayals that followed it. Finland almost stopped the USSR occupation forces dead, FGS... Europe was siding with Hitler because they saw the weakness of the Anglo-French alliance, as now peoples would side (are already doing so) with China because of the weakness of the US/West as a whole. No one wants to be the next Ukraine, mired in a nation-killing war that could've easily ended with more allied support. A lot of people (or at least the leaderships) want to be like Iran, receiving the nuclear and conventional weapons from Russia and China, and being allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't irritate their masters too much. No one wanted to be like Baltics or Chezhs. People wanted to be like Hungary.

Correct. France and the Soviet Union had a joint treaty to defend Czechoslovakia which was signed in 1935. If the French had declared war on Germany to defend the Czechs in 1938, the Soviets would have been obligated by the terms of the treaty to enter the war and fight for the Czechs too.

@@thethirdman225 A historian wrote a book about this question, Hugh Ragsdale, "The Soviets, the Munich Crisis, and the Coming of World War II." The French general Gamelin said the Soviets would reach the battle across Romania and pour into Czechoslovakia.