My sources can be found pretty much anywhere as well. Thanx for the list I have read Munich Crisis, will look up the others.
No problem.
As to tanks I already showed you that the addition of the Czech tanks negated any over prodution by French.
Now if you want to show me that the effective forces increased dramatically compard to those of Germany at this time that woudl have some bearing. But you would have to be more than the Czech army which was neutralized by Munich to make them better.
No, it didn't, because French production was ready to double in 1940, producing another 850 tanks in the first six months of fighting before defeat halted production. Even with Czech additions, the inefficient Germany economy couldn't match either Britain or France.
Not that it would make any difference
That's actually something we'll agree on. No matter how many tanks or aircraft the Allies built between 1938-1940 it didn't change the fundamentally flawed approach the French and British had to modern warfare, leaving them open to the brilliant maneuver warfare of the Sickle Cut. It's shameful, really; the countries that introduced the tank into war were beaten by the nation that had struggled to field them.
Sure I have you have just disregarded them.
You haven't besides saying "Czech tanks were better." and arguing the allies would've done what they failed to do in 1939 despite being better prepared for
Then I misunderstood your point, please clarify.
Perhaps, doesnt change the fact France didnt recieve much from the USA before they fell.
My point was that the British were able to match Germany aircraft production despite being late to the party, and the fact that the French had the money in the first place to buy from the Americans speaks to their superior treasury.
Standing up and honouring your treaty commitments would be more shamefull then selling out your ally???
Promising to defend Czechoslovakia then utterly failing to do so isn't very honorable.
To be fair though, the British aren't really fully to blame for inaction against Nazi Germany when fighting broke out. Command of the forces in the field fell to the French, namely Gamelin, who despite his comments otherwise, did jack **** to threaten Germany. His entire plan to was to wait until the French had built up a ridiculous material advantage (even though it might've taken until 1942) before launching any major offensives.
Increadily unlikely as the anti-war feeling faded much faster in Britain than it did with Chamberlain himself. He was forced by public opinion and his own party to start re-armarment rather than because he thought Munich was just a means of buying time to re-arm.
No, not really. There was actually a fair amount of support for giving Sudetenland to Germany among the West, it was a largely German ethnic area, and like most Eastern European states, Czechoslovakia didn't have a great reputation when it came to ethnic and territorial disputes. Anti-war sentiment in the West largely gave way only after Hitler seized the rest of Czechoslovakia and then invaded Poland; at the time of Munich, there was actually a general sentiment that Hitler was a decent leader and ya know, not a mass murdering megalomaniac.
Germany was even less prepared to invade england in 1938-39 than they were in 1940.
A German invasion of England was never going to succeed at any point in time.
There is no reason to believe any selling out of the Czechs had any positive outcome for the allies in ww2.
Starting the war in 1939 instead of 1938 gave the British time to develop their RADAR and mechanize their army. No small feats that shouldn't be ignored.