Was Appeasement Justified? (Short Animated Documentary)

Twitter: / tenminhistory
Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=4973164
Merch: teespring.com/stores/history-...
Special Thanks to the following Patrons for their support on Patreon:
Kevin Sanders
Richard Wolfe
Chris Fatta
Daniel Lambert
Tom Loghrin
Joshua
anon
Andrew Niedbala
Cornel
Matthew
Mitchell Wildoer
Bernardo Santos
LavaLampLover3000
Norman A. Letterman
William Foster
Blaine Tillack
Richard Hartzell
Will Davis-Coleman
Danny Anstess
Perry Gagne
Joooooshhhhh
Henry Rabung
FuzzytheFair
Armani_banani
Jeffrey Schneider
Paul
Byzans_Scotorius
Haydn Noble
Spencer Smith
Gideon Rashkes
Shaun Pullin
Richard Manklow
Roberto
Chance Cansler
Andrew Keeling
William Olson
João Santos
In this episode we find out whether or not appeasement worked. Spoiler alert: no.
Sources:
Wishful Thinking or Buying Time? The Logic of British Appeasement in the 1930s by Norrin M. Ripsman and Jack S. Levy in International Security, Vol. 33 (2008)
Finance and the End of Appeasement: The Bank of England, the National Government and the Czech Gold by David Blaazer in Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 40 (2005)
The French Navy and the Appeasement of Italy, 1937-9 by Reynolds M. Salerno in The English Historical Review, Vol. 112 (1997).

[@filmnobelpreis]

+ Appeasement allowed more time to re-arm. - Appeasement allowed more time to re-arm.

[@stevemc01]

Two sides of the same coin: + No one to tell you "no" - No one to tell you "no"

[@jiayilee1873]

+ more time to re-arm: many problems at that time that did not allow Britain and France to afford a war with Germany. It bought time for them, and it was a wise idea not to go against Germany without being fully prepared. - more time to re-arm: Germany still used the time France and Britain took to re-arm more effectively. i have an exam on this tmr :((((

[@Sullian_dF]

@@jiayilee1873 how did it go?

[@jiayilee1873]

@@Sullian_dF it’s great!!! i expected worse since i kinda suck at history. but i got a B3 in my gcse-o!!

[@cl8804]

@@jiayilee1873 gcse-woooooooooooooooooo

[@Eggnog18]

"Europe was pretty quiet for a few years until 1938..." Spain: "Am I a joke to you?"

[@DakuHonoo]

Europe: "yes"

[@Johann_Gambolputty_of_Ulm]

Keyword "pretty". What was happening on Iberian Peninsula wasn't pretty, so one wanted to look that way. ...aaaaapart from couple thousand volunteers, Hemingway and Condor Legion.

[@peterg76yt]

Well, for a few years Spain definitely wasn't threatening anyone outside their borders.

[@MrShaneVicious]

To ask the question is to answer it

[@brandonlyon730]

Except Portugal

[@salt_factory7566]

*France used the time to build the navy heavily as well* *1940 rolls around* YEARS OF ACADEMY TRAINING WASTED

[@EmporerAaron]

What good a Navy when your enemy is a country away from marching into your lands? Should have done something other then those fortification they created.

[@hendrikdependrik1891]

They simply forgot their archrival Germany yet again...

[@tfwzyko]

THE HAT LOOKED GOOD? TELL ME THE HAT LOOKED GOOD THE APRON IS A BIT MUCH...

[@salt_factory7566]

The Maginot wasn't actually bad though it funneled Germany into Belgium which is what France wanted. Then they failed to defend Belgium because of shitty radios and forgetting forests exist...... Shucks.....

[@mojewjewjew4420]

@@salt_factory7566 This reminds me of Game of Thrones and D&D know said that Dany "kinda forgott" about the iron fleet,this is France kinda forgott about the panzers.

[@Bonk_Co]

Germany: Wants Sudetenland France and UK: Angry letter and conference time

[@AO00720]

a dove that wants to become president every UN ever

[@DirkusTurkess]

I'm so glad we've progressed. It angrily worded e-mails now.

[@c1eris]

Angry letter, conference AND betraying allies time.

[@Dollt28]

@Hautzarte Verwöhnung Sudetenland was not justified. It is and it has always been part of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia, germans (and other nationalities) who were invitied in medieval to settle there were not given that land, only the right to live there. Even the term "sudetenland" was made up in 20th cenzury by nazi germany to pretend they had any sort of claim.

[@BarberJ95]

That’ll show ‘em!

[@iliatchaplinski]

"War is never avoided. It is only delayed to the advantage of others." - Niccolo Machiavelli

[@alexsmith2910]

Ghandi says hello!

[@manuelcamacho1494]

Wokeness

[@jamesphillips531]

@Cherif Mairch gpe E for now

[@jacobarmour6325]

The Prince

[@parthbonde2106]

@@alexsmith2910 don't u mean Gandhi?

[@nikolaytsankov9066]

Hoi4 guidelines N1 - Can't deny Rhineland N2 - Can't deny Sudetenland if asked after November 1938

[@1urie1]

Yeah in my game Germany invaded Poland late 37 and died. And Italy actually had a stronger army than Germany. Weird right.

[@St3v3NWL]

you can, you need to take another route tho, but it can If you play allies.

[@MrMasterCGO]

Why not? Half the time Germany falters if you deny the Rhineland.

[@nikolaytsankov9066]

@@MrMasterCGO "hoi4 guidelines" is meant to kind of imply I'm talking about a MP thing. Obv in single player you can do what you want but those above are fairly common multilayer rules

[@nizzyyy659]

@@MrMasterCGO r/wooooosh

[@underconstruction6436]

"Peace, Yo" - Neville Chamberlain, 1938

[@AndrewVasirov]

"Peace, no!" - 1939

[@theemirofjaffa2266]

Greatest Quotes

[@exercisethemind]

That guy was pathetic.

[@AverytheCubanAmerican]

Chamberlain: Appeasement Germany: Invades neighboring countries Chamberlain: Ah sht here we go again

[@fatalconceit8061]

U always seem to be watching the same vids as me How to get so many yt likes so often

[@kercchan3307]

Chamberlain was a complete and utter moron

[@paddydelaney799]

Hello there

[@coltonc8562]

@@kercchan3307 how so?

[@Perririri]

Shit

[@epg96]

I've some suggestion Why didn't Mongols fully conquer Siberia? Why did Mongols lost in Southeast Asia, Japan, & the border of Africa & Middle East? How Romans made people in their territory to speak Latin? Why did Japan lost in Imjin war? How did Dutch lost in Indonesian war of independence? Why USA took kingdom of Hawai'i? Why Vietnam destroyed kingdom of Champa?

[@abdo5615]

*Laughs in Ain-Jalut*

[@samdoesvids1339]

That's some god-awful English

[@lucaix2560]

@@samdoesvids1339 not everyone is english mate, lay off it

[@lightfeather9953]

@@Onlinerando Iberian Peninsula was closer to Rome the city though at that time, when travel by sea was much better than land. The Balkans also was on the border of the Empire while Iberia had no non-Roman territories nearby.

[@abdullahsagga7195]

@I'm not flat, stop asking are you flat bro?

[@reecefinnigan4523]

It’s easy for us to judge in hindsight but we have to remember the destruction the 1st world war caused. After facing the horrors of the war, it’s easy to see why many didn’t want their sons to have to go through it as well. That said, the treatment of the Czechs was disgusting.

[@derinfomann4581]

We also have to remember that for them ww1 wasnt long ago.

[@Chino56751]

" If you want peace, be ready for war " They forgot that, and they paid for it. They should've prepped more heavily for a German offensive.

[@derinfomann4581]

@@Chino56751 it is easier said than done. The people were against a War.

[@cocotaveras8975]

@@derinfomann4581 Yup! The trauma was still to great and fresh in everyone’s minds.

[@knuppel8875]

@@Chino56751 hindsight 20/20

[@user-zz3sn8ky7z]

Britain : *allows germany to occupy czechoslovakia* Also Britain : why are you building guns for germans?!?

[@karelspinka3031]

1938: France gives Sudetenland to Germans 1939: France lets Germany to occupy the rest of Czechoslovakia 1940: France gets annihilated by Germans who use captured Czechoslovakian tanks

[@Dollt28]

I guess karma got France when it was conquered by tanks which were supposed to fight Nazi germany, but because of the munich treaty they were actually used by nazi germany

[@ECloudDog]

@@karelspinka3031 When did France let Germany occupy all of Czechoslovakia? There was no agreement, France just kind of had to accept as they weren't militarily or politically ready yet.

[@pox1396]

@@ECloudDog militarily was ready (compared to germany) before, now is late. they fucked themself by feeding their biggest enemy with land of your ally.

[@davidroberts7282]

French military at the start of WWII had to 6-1 ratio advantage in terms of tanks, fighter planes. What they didn't have was a unified political leadership because France in the 1930s was a highly divided, partisan landscape between Popular Front led by Jewish socialist Leon Blum and the French far-right proto-Neo Nazi parties and groups who wanted to establish a Mussolini-esque fascist state in France. Communists and Socialists fought Conservatives, sometimes their were inter-group tensions. Many foreign correspondents observed that the country lacked stability, coherence, and order. When you have that level of animosity, hatred, and disunity long-term among the politicians and populace, eventually these feelings trickle down into military ranks and its officers and generals. French military high command also put too much strategic value on Maginot Line. The Maginot Line probably would've worked if France and Belgium had continued their alliance in mid-30s and built up Maginot Line's defenses into Ardennes forest, but French engineers and logistics planners struggled adapting main Maginot Line's defenses into northern France because Calais, Brittany regions have high water tables that prevented deep, nearly indestructible trenches, elaborate defense systems built in. They also believed the Germans didn't possess a highly mobile, adaptable military apparatus and form of attack, and could make incredible, fast advances through deep, dense Ardennes Forests. They underestimated the concept of Hanz Guiderian blitzkrieg and many of older French generals, soldiers, and officers still stuck same outdated notions that if a second world war occurred, it would still be fought along the same, static conventional manner as WWI had been. Germany in September 1939 had a United, fiercely determined, powerful military machine that was well-armed, highly disciplined, well-trained, well-organized military leadership and command faced off against a politically divided, highly partisan, poorly trained, logistically and strategically outdated military with older generals who lacked the imagination, drive, or creativity in considering or applying new ideas or concepts. It also must be pointed out that until the preparations for Operation Barbarossa and its initial invasion began, Hitler and his inner circles stayed mostly of the German high command's way and didn't adversely object or interfere in their decisions or plans , except for the Dunkirk debacle where Hitler's order of a strategic pause allowed British leadership to send in rescue convoys to save most of the 330,000 soldiers of the BEF stuck and marooned on the Dunkirk beaches from being killed or captured. The disastrous failure of Luftwaffe to gain air supremacy over Britain in advance of Operation Sea Lion, and the failure to break British morale with the Blitz was the first strategic military failure of Hitler's Third Reich and according to senior Luftwaffe commanders, Hermann Goering privately tried to convince Hitler to not invade Soviet Union because if they failed to defeat RAF and establish air supremacy in Battle of Britain, how would they be any more successful against the Soviets' Red Air Force, one of the largest and well-stocked air forces in the world in 1941?

[@merrittanimation7721]

Poland: One of Europe's most delicious delicacies.

[@domsjuk]

More like Europe's favourite value pack, for a real (costly) treat you wanna go for sonething like Elsass-Lothringen if you ask me, but there are good aspects to both no doubt. :)

[@Tflexxx02]

Worst place to have a country: between Germany and Russia. Also, in the past, a country south of Sweden and north of Austria.

[@blenterbl]

Imagine being the nation that somehow stopped/won the bubonic plague,ottomans,Soviets in 1919-1921 , 2-5 napoleon coalitions ,Ukraine?,Lithuania?,mongols to rest of Europe. And being treated like this... neglected ..unloved...under-appreciated. I wanna give Poland a hug.

[@AudieHolland]

@@blenterbl Especially Polish women I would like to hug.

[@vo3243]

As a polish history student, i could not agree more

[@calebspangler132]

This is by far the best video on appeasement. In school, they just told me about it, and I always wondered why France and Britain didn’t do anything. You’re the best History Matters!

[@absolutshadow876]

A lot more going on than the vid suggests including the geopolitics in Eastern Europe and Russia (Russia was tech an ally of Germany, not to mention most of Eastern Europe). Plus America and China was trying to get the world to turn its attention to Japan which is fighting China(formal war) and Russia (informal war) in the far east. Not trying to promote a site but TIK's site has the best reasons/mindsets for WW2 in great detail. Great vids and he answers your comments.

[@absolutshadow876]

btw I agree with, HS ddnt teach me anything other than the dates and a couple major battles....sad

[@calebspangler132]

Zach Arbogast for real, school is so trash at teaching.

[@Wolfeson28]

@Zach Arbogast Even in the context of buying time, I still think appeasement has to be considered largely a failure. While it's true that Britain and France did build up their militaries during the late 1930s, it's undeniable that they still ended up in a weaker military position relative to Germany and Italy in 1939/40 than they would have had in 1935/6. Certainly Germany would never have been able to overrun France in 1936 (if, say Britain and France had actively opposed the remilitarization of the Rhineland) the way they did in 1940. And even though, geographically, Britain and France couldn't have directly prevented the takeovers of Austria or Czechoslovakia, the threat of invasion (or actual invasion) from the west by the still-stronger Allies would have forced Germany to back down. The intermediate objectives which Britain and France used as excuses for not taking action early on (naval talks, pushing Italy into an alliance with Germany, etc.) were either pointlessly shortsighted or simply failed anyway. Also, Christopher Vondran, Germany and the USSR were not allied during the vast majority of this period. In fact, they had opposed each other to the point of supporting opposite sides in Spain, and Hitler frequently attacked Slavs and Bolshevism in his speeches right along with his anti-Jewish rhetoric. The negotiations which led to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact only started in summer 1939, and the final agreement was signed barely a week before Germany invaded Poland.

[@VarietyGamerChannel]

@@absolutshadow876 Russia was technically not an ally of germany. Ribbentrop pact was no different to the munich pact signed between germany and britain/france.

[@austinreed5805]

Germany: I want that thing. Britain: You cannot have that thi...nnrrrggg...you can have that thing, but no more. Germany: I want that thing. AND REPEAT.

[@eyesac8329]

oversimplified I see

[@gigachadgaming6071]

"... shot himself in the foot, just the foot for now"

[@vladescu3g]

if only there was a major power to deal with that and not Britain, that could had worked

[@acebalistic1358]

Fingers *america has left the chat*

[@redornament3248]

Let's play *_Spot the French Soldier!_*

[@Stripedbottom]

Britain and France after Munich: "Phew, that was close, but luckily no war yet. Now we have bought some more time for rearmament." Germany after Munich: "Phew, that was close, but luckily no war yet. Britain and France have bought me even more time to rearm. And now I have the entire materiel of the whole Czechoslovakian military, and the Czechoslovakian armaments industry working for me full blast."

[@tyvamakes5226]

Second paragrapgh, replace "war" with oster conspiracy

[@dinozocker_lp1465]

Hilter actually was angry about the munich "succes" because he wanted to start the war and it would be good propaganda to march into Prague. So he invaded Czeckoslovakia and the Allies didn't do shit

[@thethirdman225]

@@dinozocker_lp1465 By strange coincidence, neither did the Czechs.

[@thethirdman225]

The German rearmament program was nowhere near as well planned and organised as the British. It started a bit earlier and proceeded at a steady pace until the start of the war. Oddly enough, even then, that pace didn’t change. The British, on the other hand, took the matter much more seriously. They actually geared up for proper wartime production because they knew war was coming and unlike Germany, they hadn’t convinced themselves that they were the master race and everyone would just collapse under the weight of their assault. The result was that, while German production proceeded at a steady rate that was impressive for peacetime but inadequate for war, British production proceeded very slowly at first and then gathered pace very rapidly as whole new factories came online. The new Supermarine factory at Castle Bromwich, outside Birmingham, had barely been completed when it was bombed for the first time. But by the end of the Battle of a Britain, they were producing about 100 fighters week (I think). Unlike the Germans, the British were able to replace their losses quickly, which is one of the reasons they won the Battle of Britain, albeit only just. The German losses became unsustainable. In short, Britain took her wartime production much more seriously than did the Germans. Sure, with Speer in charge, they were turning out thousands of aircraft in 1944 but by then it was far too late. But in 1938, Britain’s new factories and production lines were still barely in the construction phase, much less ready to start making things in the kinds of numbers they would later. So in 1938, Germany, though not ready for war, still had a substantial lead.

[@AlphaSqad45]

@@thethirdman225 The Germans fought all the major powers and allmost beat them all, British had a better rearmament plan? i wonder what alternate history of WW2 you have read up on.

[@steelfist1305]

In my (US) history class I remember the teacher speaking of appeasement as if the US wasn't staunchly antiwar itself. We literally refused to enter the conflict until it was proven that the oceans no longer protected us from it.

[@flamesofchaos13]

Yes but we Americans are free to be hypocrites.

[@jerrybobteasdale]

We were, and are, a Democratic Republic. We can't get big things done without consensus among our free peoples. We had factions that wanted war with Germany long before we declared it. The remainder of the citizens had to come around to the idea, The mastery of Roosevelt assisted Britain while building up up US war resources, while building a framework for eventual consensus. He didn't force it. He managed it. We can be a stubborn people when being forced to do ANYTHING.

[@steelfist1305]

@@jerrybobteasdale I feel like you responded to the wrong comment.

[@chrisigoeb]

Ye but actually no, sending tons of a weapons to a nations enemy is an unofficial decoration of war

[@fulcrum2951]

That means, very simply, very clearly, that our patrolling vessels and planes will protect all merchant ships - not only American ships but ships of any flag - engaged in commerce in our defensive waters. They will protect them from submarines; they will protect them from surface raiders. - Franklin D Roosevelt, 11th September 1941

[@DakuHonoo]

i'm sure the czech weapons fallen into german hands were totally worth the 1 more year of rearmament

[@user-zz3sn8ky7z]

DakuHonoo yeah and also our quite huge industry, czechoslovakia was one of if not richest countries in middle and eastern europe, especialy in 1920s

[@kerriwilson7732]

6th largest air force in the world handed to Hitler along with the industrial base that built it & the skilled military of Czechoslovakia. No small thing. + never trust the West to protect ever again.

[@elseggs6504]

@@kerriwilson7732 Its incredible how many countries got fucked by the Wests empty promises. The Czechs, the Poles, the Yugoslavs.... The latter two having suffered roughly 6-17 times more deaths relatively to the UK or France.

[@navydynamite656]

Yet Germany is a country that can only win short term wars that country isn't suited for long term wars considering its position

[@jamespond5848]

@@navydynamite656 I'm quite new to all this... Can you please elaborate on the how position aspect that you mentioned Cheers

[@notroll1279]

The last two sentences were crucial: the dictatorships made better use of the time to build up their military. What's the use of buying time - if that time is not used to improve your fighting capacity in Relation to your opponent? Add to this that Germany added Czechoslovakia's heavy industry to its own production capacities.

[@rijkaard1579]

Well it worked at the end of the day

[@LoneAW0]

@@rijkaard1579 Yeah, thanks to Russia not France or Britain.

[@Fater4511]

@@rijkaard1579 no it didn't, chamberlain was a wuss, and it was only because America was cranking tanks, planes, trucks, guns, etc off of our production line that the allies won the war. Everyone else was still fighting with horses and stuff.

[@cantripleplays]

@@rijkaard1579 not really, i mean france got conquered, britian was bombed heavily, the czechs and poland were stalin's puppets, really worse than if they just opposed munich agreement. Which i think was the only point they could contest without dying politically

[@josephsanjour4188]

While maybe not intentional, the time gained to rearm may have helped Britain and France in the end anyway... the US was also rearming... (so was Japan, but that's another story).

[@kennethbracken2053]

Well yes but, actually no.

[@plumeater1]

Well, actually, yes, but it is nope.

[@theamericanguy1969]

I’m your 666th like sorry but I’m withdrawing the like

[@Cjnw]

@@theamericanguy1969 that seems pretty stupid!

[@Jay-qb9gi]

Ahhh incorrect punctuation

[@Gray-Wolf]

@@Jay-qb9gi Omg, I thought you were assassinated

[@thibaultletricheur1884]

"Ah les cons, s'ils savaient !" "The fools if they knew !" Daladier, after the Munich Conference, before he joined a crowd acclaming him for avoiding war.

[@Sphere723]

Yeah, everyone praises Churchill for seeing Hitler for what he was. But the more I read about Daladier, the more I feel he understood Hitler even better.

[@davidandremelchorzavala2100]

More like "ah, those f* morons" lol. I'm just warning people who don't know French

[@jannegrey593]

Daladier was no fool. He played like this, because France had to fight with UK. That being said - many things might have been done better in this time. I always cry for the Czechoslovakians.

[@robertewing3114]

The fools if they knew, and they don't know - how apt to say the fools don't know! Fools who think they do know - fools who don't know why Chamberlain went to Munich, held the document in the air, etc.

[@victorvelazquez6547]

cons = slang for "cunts", in FR

[@epozokatrib]

"Europe was pretty quiet for a couple of years between 1936 and 1938." Spain:

[@donjorge8329]

C'mon...inner problems.

[@r.ladaria135]

With Russian, Italian and German involvement. @@donjorge8329

[@belisarian6429]

Actually in 1:53 it is wrong (but maybe at time they were thinking that), Czechoslovakia had defensive bunker ring along its borders in Sudetenland to slow down any German advances for few weeks to give Allies plenty of time to help them. Plus they basically gave Germans by doing this large Czechoslovakian industry, so it was huge mistake.

[@the_tactician9858]

I feel the only decision that can be justified as a decent decision was the decision to not do anything to the German annexation of Austria and the rest of Czechoslovakia. Austria would have been a problematic ally, given their love for Germany, and the Czechs were as good as dead without the Sudetenland. The Sudetenland was a serious error of judgement on behalf of the gains Germany got through this, and it was pretty cruel to divy up a nation without the nation itself being present at the negotiations (where have we seen that before). Of course at the time it was unclear how much of a gamble Germany was taking (there were plans within the German military to coup Hitler if a war broke out), so it is always easier to talk in hindsight, but I don't think someone like Churchill would have conceded as much as Chamberlain, and would at least have asked for serious repercussions from Germany, like transfering part of the German fleet to Britain (to be scuttled).

[@talltroll7092]

In regards to the Sudetenland, it didn't matter how long the Czechoslovaks could have held out, Britain and France were not in any position to help them in any meaningful way, for both military and political reasons. Ultimately, Chamberlain probably did the right thing, but probably for the wrong reasons

[@dylanram4653]

@@talltroll7092 chamberlains fucking retarted it seems, idk how he is with policies or any of that, but he handled the entire germany thing wrong

[@grantflippin7808]

The problem is that the border basically detected to Germany and it was annexed with a shocking amount of local support.

[@dylanram4653]

@@grantflippin7808 if ur talkinf about the anchluss it bc they saw themselves as mostly german, especially in the parts that were left to Austria as a country seperate from hungary

[@AudieHolland]

When I was in Prague many years ago, the 'Treaty of Munich' document, aka as the Treason of Munich, was on prominent temporary display in the Czech National Museum. Two Korean tourists were trying to make sense of the importance of this document so I started explaining how Czechoslovakia was counting on its allies Britain and France to back it up against Hitler's demands to hand over the Sudetenland. In the end, both Britain and France betrayed their ally Czechoslovakia and went to Munich to kiss Hitler's backside. Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister at the time, declared to the British public: "How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing." Wow, talk like a slap in the face of your ally, Czechoslovakia. I take it he meant the conflict between the Nazi-Germany-backed Sudeten Germans and the Czech people. So the UK knew 'nothing' about the Czech? While I was talking about the Treason of Munich, an elderly museum guard moved closer to see what was happening. I started worrying that I was talking too loud for the museum so I ended my explanation by pointing to the fact that all countries of that time had willingly donated their original copies of the 1938 Munich Agreement (its official name): Germany, Italy, France had all sent their copies to the Czech National Museum. The only one absent was the UK. They sent an apology, stating they had 'misplaced the document.' Thinking back now, they probably destroyed it shortly after the war because the immense disgrace. However, had they known they would have to tell the Czech National Museum decades later that they no longer had their document, I think they would have opted not to destroy it. Because the disgrace of saying you 'can't find' an important historic document is even greater then admitting the government at the time destroyed it. As the Korean couple moved on, the elderly museum guard approached me. "Now I'm in for it," I was thinking. But to my shock and surprise, he *thanked* me for telling history like it was. I felt I had done nothing much, just showed some other foreign tourists my knowledge of (pre) World War II history but it goes to show how painful the situation was and that pain still echoes on in the general Czech memory.

[@AudieHolland]

@peter schwarz Attention attention attention. German forces are here to help. Please cooperate and you may not get shot.

[@robertewing3114]

You quote Chamberlain like hundreds of others, no respect for the circumstances, you must read George Canning and learn how government works against international threats, Chamberlain agreed with GC...

[@lamichka]

You are absolutely right. Year 38 is brand that is in Czech sub-consciousness.

[@CzechMirco]

@peter schwarz LOL thats what Napoleon thought of German peasants from the Rheinbund. I wonder whether you'd agree with this interpretation. And Germans as friends is quite a joke, especially now when they are going to destroy Europe again, this time with green fanaticism.

[@BananaWasTaken]

@peter schwarz relationships change a lot. Especially in the 130 years between the HRE and WW2. For example Britain were about to fight a war with America and defeat France at Waterloo less than 2 decades after 1806 (when the HRE ended) and yet both France and the US were fighting side by side with Britain in both of the following world wars

[@OzzieTheHead]

Funny how some certain people waited five years to rearm and then just capitulated in weeks

[@joshebarry]

That's the crooks of it. If Britain and France hadn't completely lost everything they gained during appeasement by losing so quickly, we'd probably be hailing the two PM's as heroes.

[@gumdeo]

@@joshebarry Chamberlain was quite smart. The problem was that nobody predicted that Stalin would ally with Germany.

[@derinfomann4581]

@@gumdeo yes. After all it wasnt a Secret that Hitler and Stalin hated each other.

[@lamichka]

@@gumdeo Chamberlain was a traitor and a sissy to Hittler.

[@MorokLeviathan]

@@gumdeo Smart? He didn't allow the British Army to do anything until the Germans came to them, nor did he even prepare the army for war, while the French at least somewhat did. Both nations had fools as leaders, not only did they not attack while Germany was vulnerable, during FIVE separate occasions: The remilitarization of the Rhineland, the Anschluss, the annexation of the Sudetenland, the annexation of the entirety of Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Poland. Besides that, the only kind of aid the Soviets delivered to the Germans were economical (resources) which, even if the Soviets did not deliver, the Germans would still have conquered France, the German army was not yet so large that the Soviets would be the only thing sustaining them. Neither Stalin nor Hitler were that foolish, Stalin knew the Red Army had been weakened considerably by the Purge, and because of that wanted to buy time, while Hitler did not want to fight a 2 front war. The Allies ignored Stalin's offer to defeat Germany and Hitler did not expect the Allies to aid him in conquering the USSR. Put 2 and 2 together and you get them to temporarily work together. The Allies doomed themselves.

[@camille2881]

As a French person this is still quite a "hot topic" in France even today as why our government was coward not to do anything before it's too late... - first we need to think that WW1 killed 1.4Million French person to finally win the war. Thats a crazy number right here. No one wanted that again. And especially with new modern technology in 1930 people knew it meant even more casualty for the next big war. The strategy to have the Maginot line to make the German fight on Belgium ground was not bad, we should have put some defense around the Ardennes forest as well. But overall I think the best time to do something would have been when Germany invaded the Rhineland, that would have been our best option to win

[@TheCimbrianBull]

I suggest you watch the channel "World War 2" here on KZbin if you're not already familiar with it.

[@ECloudDog]

I agree with everything you said apart from the final part, I think it would have been a catastrophe for France to invade when Germany remilitarised the Rhineland, France was just too politically unstable and disunited to really fight another war at this point. I think it would have been best for the French army to engage them, as Hitler had orders to immediately retreat in case of any French resistance. This would've affected Hitler's attitude as his ideas of peaceful expansionism would've been contested, and it also would've affected Hitler's public opinion negatively.

[@camille2881]

@@ECloudDog Yes so you agree that French intervention for the Rhineland was the best move. Especially that the treaty of Versailles says France can use it's army if the Rhineland is being remilitarised. So France intervention was "in their right"

[@mrbisshie]

Put your self into the shoes of a French person before WW2. 15% of our population died in the last war with Germany. Do we really want another one with our next door neighbors? We should be urging the gov to try and avoid war as much as possible with Germany.

[@mdokuch96]

@@mrbisshie if you don't want war, best way to prevent it is to make yourself noone to fight with. France had A LOT time to slap Germany on the rise when size of German military was making whole "war" so small that it would be more correct to call it "police operation". Thing is, that Britain held the France's balls in pretty tight grip, and Britain needed Nazi Germany as a counterbalance to the continental power of France itself, and possibly - a skirmisher for proxy-war with Soviet Union.

[@ponocni1]

Do you wanna know how we call Munich agreement in czech republic? Agreement about us, without us.

[@DavidJGillCA]

Munich Diktat

[@ponocni1]

@@DavidJGillCA Sure i will change it to Mnichovská dohoda.

[@mdokuch96]

Hey, in a memoirs of one of Soviet diplomats about Interbellum diplomacy I met the mention that Britain and France not just refused to protect Czechoslovakia, but threatened to join Germans if Czechs chose to fight and pick Soviet help - which was offered. Is there anything said about this in Czech Republic nowadays?

[@ponocni1]

@@mdokuch96 Not anything i know off. but if i would keep digging most likely i would find it.

[@mdokuch96]

@@ponocni1 if it helps - it is claimed to happen in 20-21 of September 1938. Source where it is mentioned - Potemkin V.P. "Diplomacy in modern times (1919-1939)". For obvious reasons it is unlikely to find proof from French or British side (definitely not something, I'd would allow to get into historical books in the already uneasy context of Munich), but Czech sources may have provided some inside of "negotiations".

[@pavel6688]

I'm affraid the reason for sacrificing Czechoslovakia was not some elaborated plan to buy a time for France and GB to rearm for a future conflict. That would be also plain stupid, because the German military capacity grew enormously after acquiring Czechoslovakian military and industrial potential - which wasnt small at all. France and GB were simply too affraid of war after their experience with WWI and both their political representatives and public were willing to avoid it at any cost at that time. And they couldnt care less for their distant Czech ally for that matter. It is the bitter irony which saw Czechoslovakian tanks inviding France as a part of Wehrmacht.

[@MarkHarrison733]

Poland prevented the UK and France from being able to oppose Germany in 1938, and again in 1939.

[@themageofspace5516]

@@MarkHarrison733 how so

[@MarkHarrison733]

@@themageofspace5516 Poland moved its army units towards the border during the Sudeten Crisis, and refused to let the Red Army deter a German invasion in 1939.

[@guy-ic2sz]

Look what happened to the Baltic states when they let the soviets come in

[@Dollt28]

You could have mention that France signed the Munich treaty despite having a treaty about mutual defense with Czechoslovakia (also why its known as "Munich betrayal" in Czechia and Slovakia)

[@robertewing3114]

The real betrayal is the disregard for the evidence that Chamberlain was no different than Canning and even Churchill, and the slurring of his statesmanship as ignorant.

[@lamichka]

@@robertewing3114 Chamberlain was an usefull idiot and coward. Exactly what REICH needed.

[@austria-hungary7680]

"Munich Diktat"

[@kensigdom]

The problem with this argument is that Czechsolovakia had modern top notch fortifications on it's border plus the czechoslovak border with germany was mostly mountainous, it's military had the best equipment and was ready for war. Therefore even if only the little entente would have declared war on germany it was more likely to win than to lose. The munich agreement was something unforgivable from the allies stabbing their fellow ally (Czechoslovakia) in the back, and set a precedent to leave the czech and slovak people in the hands of totalitarianism all the way until 1989.

[@BartlomiejDmowski]

True, but... no Czechs were prepared, but not on the South. When Hitler got Austria, he made these fortifications worthless. Austria was Belgium of Czechoslovakia, other land through which you can invade your enemy They should have defended Austria in the first place Then they would say: But Rhineland was re-armed So they should have opposed remilitarization of Rhineland or indeed do something to protect peace and their empires Ironically, their fear of war ultimately made the war so devastating that colonialism fell. If it was solved quickly when Germany was weaker, perhaps peace would allow them to keep colonies for more time

[@jarvee9407]

@@BartlomiejDmowski i don't know where you got the information that Czechoslovakia wasnt prepared on the borders with Austria. It's wrong. There were fortifications before 1938 and more were being build.

[@BartlomiejDmowski]

@@jarvee9407 ... it was in my history school book in a chapter entitled "The road to war". There was explained how Anschluss destroyed Czechoslovak ability to defend I literally remember how it went, translated to English it was more or less like this "After WW1, Czechs built a line of powerful fortifications on the border with Germans, but from the Austrian side they were defenseless."

[@therealnuggetball]

Their lack of reaction to all previous things Germany did like rearming is the reason for not only the most brutal war ever, but also the cold war... Thanks to our western friends we went from a progressive liberal democracy with a powerful military and economy to a russian colony in 10 years...

[@juanjuri6127]

"Tread very, very carefully: we don't want to end up fighting both Germany AND Italy" "Tread very, very carefully: we don't want to end up fighting both a heavyweight boxer AND a mean-looking potted plant"

[@jcohasset23]

Italy's shortcomings in the war were mostly from its military leadership. Several Italian divisions served under Erwin Rommel and he praised them for performing well under German leadership in North Africa (specifically the Battle of Gazala and at Tobruk). There is some irony that Rommel received more support from the Italian military command than the German high command in 1942 due to Hitler being fixated on war with the USSR.

[@dominikdaubner9033]

Fun fact: The event is internationally known as Munich agreement, however in Czech rep. and Slovakia it is known as Munich betrayal

[@baha3alshamari152]

Funny that now Slovakia and Czechs support appeasement now

[@IceWolfLoki]

UK: Looks like we'll be fighting Italy and Germany France: I'll build up my Navy UK: You share a land border with both of them and we have the most powerful Navy in the world. France: "In the navy!" UK: I have a bad feeling about this.

[@alexanderrobins7497]

Narrator to France during the Blitzkrieg: “This was the moment, he knew, he fucked up.”

[@DoubleDee382]

France: Well, how do you expect us to get to London when this goes badly? Swim there?

[@cantripleplays]

@@DoubleDee382 i mean the british were the main one's who escaped the french mostly died and it was the british ships who brought the survivors back

[@gabed7407]

Can you make a video on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth like in the poll a few months ago?

[@Muhammed552]

well hope they do

[@yarpen26]

Yesterday I took a look at this channel's community posts and honestly lost quite a big chunk of respect for this guy. He pretty much doubled down on every single schedule he ever laid out with nothing in the way of explanation. I think he already promised a PLC episode in a speciific month twice, never actually going through with this and the PLC video is just one example. Where is the Chinese Civil War one we were supposed to get? He only ever came clean about the cessation of the British History series in the Q&A video and I think he did this only because so many people were pestering him about it. Even these new "Why did...?" videos are different. It's not just that they're shorter but they simply are much easier to research, unlike, say, his French Religious Wars ones which required massive amounts of reading. And we know that he doesn't have any other job, it's just YT. It just seems to me like he has simply gotten lazy or lost the spark for this channel. In January he said he was hoping to make 48 ten minute long videos within a year and he even boasted about how much faster his "new technique" proved. He made seven or so by the end of February and that's apparently it. That's definitely the biggest problem with this guy: he promises stuff that he has no way of knowing he'll be even able to deliver-and when he doesn't, he refuses to explain himself, he just ignores the comments straight up asking about it. I mean, I am aware he's been having loads of trouble with being demonetized but so does every other history channel on YT.

[@gabed7407]

@@yarpen26 Yeah I know. On the last few videos, mine was one of the top most like comments and I was insisting he do something about the PLC like promised and he doesn't even acknowledge it.

[@NeyoSteel]

I can tell you about PLC, what do you want to know?

[@gabed7407]

@@NeyoSteel I know about it, I would just love if there were more KZbin channels that cover it

[@Dan-zc3ou]

Here we go again

[@rainhymas277]

I wrote a paper about this topic, and honestly appeasement was about delaying, one major problem is that the UK and France thought the USSR would be their enemy first and was hoping for a situation were they could get the Axis and USSR to fight each other first and then join a war, but the events in Poland sorta made them realize that wasn't going to happen soon unless they up pressure on the Axis, so went to war.

[@lukerowley1613]

The trouble with buying yourself time to grow your army is it also allows your enemies to grow theirs as well.

[@Wolfeson28]

3:23 And that's why, even in the context of buying time, I still think appeasement has to be considered a failure. While it's true that Britain and France did build up their militaries during the late 1930s, it's undeniable that they still ended up in a weaker military position relative to Germany and Italy in 1939/40 than they would have had in 1935/6. Certainly Germany would never have been able to overrun France in 1936 (if, say Britain and France had actively opposed the remilitarization of the Rhineland) the way they did in 1940. And even though, geographically, Britain and France couldn't have directly prevented the takeovers of Austria or Czechoslovakia, the threat of invasion (or actual invasion) from the west by the still-stronger Allies would have forced Germany to back down. The intermediate objectives which Britain and France used as excuses for not taking action early on (naval talks, pushing Italy into an alliance with Germany, etc.) were either pointlessly shortsighted or simply failed anyway.

[@the_tactician9858]

You are absolutely correct in this. I think this video does not try to defend appeasement, but rather show the thinking behind it, why Britain and France thought it was a good idea to allow Germany to gobble up countries, and Italy too. In hindsight, it would have been much better for the world if Britain and France attacked Germany in 1935, but that would have been difficult to see at that time. On top of that, many in Britain and France initially didn't feel any threat from Germany. When entering the Rhineland, one British columnist remarked that Germany was merely 'walking in their back garden'. A war would have brought a political crisis with it, and that prospect was deemed far more dangerous than allowing Germany to do some stuff which other nations could do too.

[@kristiantoimil]

Also several leaders of the Wehrmacht were prepared to overthrow Hitler should the France & Britain declare war during the Sudeten Crisis but because of Appeasement that chance was lost (see “Oster Conspiracy”)

[@the_tactician9858]

@@kristiantoimil That's a thing too, yes, but again, Chamberlain didn't know that.

[@CaptainDecimus]

@@the_tactician9858 The British, probably including Chamberlain did know about it. Why they elected to choose concessions over it, we don’t know, but the contact and support of the British and their intelligence agencies was considered integral to the plot.

[@dlugi4198]

But... When allies gave up Czechoslovaki, they let Germany the industry they despretly needed to build their famous machinery. + They lost about 2 milions well equiped soldiers, who were unlike France,GB,Germany or Poland prepared to war. Soldiers with great defensive positions and informations about Wermach positions.

[@davidhouseman4328]

He definitely seemed to underplay the ability of Czechoslovakia to fight.

[@danieltsiprun8080]

@@davidhouseman4328 i think he talked through the allied mindset not his own opnion

[@NeyoSteel]

Yeah, but as you see - British and French people didn't see the point of dying for some middle-european country. You can't be surprised, I mean, if you told a Belgian to go die for Ukraine.. meh man, he wouldnt go

[@danieltsiprun8080]

NeyoStream you are right but since we have hindsight it's a good alt history what if the French and British people weren't anti war and protected Czechoslovakia. Which might have resumed at a much shorter war not destroying the British and French empires thing of that

[@NeyoSteel]

@@danieltsiprun8080 Yeah, I get your point!

[@Artur_M.]

I believe that the misconception that Appeasement was meant to prevent the war might have something to do with the fact that it was it's officially stated goal.

[@joshschilmeister1934]

Such is diplomacy. "We're letting them take this territory while we build up to destroy them" is not the kind of thing you announce when you're not ready for war yet.

[@lillyie]

if you actually watched the entire video, appeasement's goal isn't to prevent war, it's for britain and france to buy time so they can re-arm again

[@hiimjustin8826]

@@lillyie If you actually read their comment lmao

[@fulcrum2951]

@@lillyie wonder how embarrassed are you right now

[@yamchadragonball6983]

Well i am pretty sure it would've been a bad decision to publicly say "We're doing this so we can kick some kraut ass later".

[@ThelostPenguin0]

Seems same is happening again....

[@lolek312312]

Czechoslovakia had an pact with France guaranteeing French military aid in case of a war and vice versa, when in 1938 it came to the Munich conference, we, the Czechoslovakians saw it as a betrayal by an ally we trusted would go to war for our independence, we were ready to defend ourselves, Eduard Beneš, our then president, preamptively mobilised one milion troops to mount our mountain fortresses, they were incomplete but with a genious design and combat ready. But when the verdict of the Conference reached him, he decided to give in, rather than be seen as the agressor and the man who started the war. But that wasnt the will of the people, they saw him as a traitor to the country and a coward. And so the then proud Czechoslovakian spirit was broken, once the "Heart of Europe", Czechoslovakia was one of the most advanced countries, heavily industrialized and with a proud people ready to die for it, but at that die that was broken. We fought for our independence but we took an opposite route after the war, we focused on the Eastern power, the USSR, as our people saw the western powers as betrayers. And so in 1948, the Communist party won with overwhelming majority and a coup went down, where all democratic parties were forbidden and heavy Stalinism was issued, and so our freedom wasnt destined to last for long, and just after 3 years we were in a grip of totalitarian regime again. Then in 1968 when the Prague Spring was happening, a period of progressive movement towards democracy, freedom of speech etc., the USSR sent an invasion force to Prague and the Czech spirit was broken again. Three times in just 50 years we suffered a blow to once a proud nation, three blows from which we never recovered. And we have the "western powers" to thank for that, defenders of democracy they called themselves. They defended their democracy so hard, it imposed a communist regime on half of the entire europe, imposed the iron courtain, killed thousands of political prisoners and freedom thinkers, that was the true cost of their Appeasement...

[@ECloudDog]

Wonderfully written out comment, the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia was one of the greatest tragedies in the appeasement policy, for I staunchly believe a war between Germany, Czechoslovakia and the Allies would've had a catastrophic outcome for the Nazis.

[@ramblinman4197]

Czechoslovakia, and then Poland, were two big losers here. A lot of Czechoslovakian industries were more advanced than Soviet counterparts & were relocated to USSR as a result.

[@freewal]

Czechoslovakia as long as Poland and many others countries owe their existence to France pushing after the World War I. France since Napoleon wanted though nation state countries. Poland lived again in 1809 after being skinned by Prussia, Russia and Austria. This politics continued after. Italy for instance would never be the ones we know today without the though intervention of Napoleon III against Austria. So basically Czechoslovakia should be thankful to France for welcoming their gouvernement in Paris, and pushing for their agendas in Versailles. On the other hand you should know that France payed a terrible price during the World War I.

[@lolek312312]

@@freewal Not true, the main push for Czechoslovakian independence came actually from the American president Woodrow Wilson who advocated for the creation of free states for every ethnicity in Europe, and the only thing we can feel grateful about towards Paris was the knife in our back after '38!

[@freewal]

@@lolek312312 You should watch again the Napoleon policy, one century before this conflit. The French created the concept of Nation state, and supported every nation to take its independence in Europe : Unification of Italy, Poland, Czechoslovakia Yougoslavia, Romania .. Who welcomed the Czechoslovakian gouvernement in exile ? Before that Czechoslovakia was under total Austrian control as Bohemia and fought for them. They never took weapon against their masters, and the only thing they did, is asking for a similar status Hungary had (an autonomy.)

[@timesnewlogan2032]

"I believe it is peace for our time!" *Whispers to generals* "Get ready for war."

[@MrRogerogerio]

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

[@ihavetowait90daystochangem67]

Hitler: I want that thing Neville: You can’t have that thi- ok you can have that thing but no more Hitler: I want that thing *AND REPEAT*

[@Salty-Doggy]

Okay there oversimplified

[@gigachadgaming6071]

Ah, i see, a man of culture aswell

[@zentexic1569]

Stolen?

[@migueldomingos4570]

make popular comment someone sees the popular comment that someone steals it *AND REPEAT*

[@jasondyrkacz8270]

"When they approach, we run away."

[@shrumio5441]

Not again

[@TJDious]

Understandable? You can make a case for that. Justified? Ehhhh...

[@alexg4711]

Morally it was pretty justified. Germanies demands was basically unification of its people which its people themself wanted. If the entente had set up proper borders after ww1 and dividing germanies population into all its sourunding countries there would havd been no need for hitler to take them and any move on another country would have been diplomaticly way harder.

[@stepanpytlik4021]

@@alexg4711 Are you kidding me?

[@stepanpytlik4021]

@Cosmic Landscape A claim that wasn't really strong

[@sol2544]

@@stepanpytlik4021 many other countries that were not Germany have throughout the centuries used such justification and nobody bats an eye. It certainly made it easier for hitler to do it without as much pushback from his own people. In fact, he actually got support from people for it, because it was unification of old territories. And it may seem crazy today, but back then with tensions as they were and pacifist mentality high from the big powers (at least, from their populations), it was easy to declare war if someone had a reason to. Look back at the Franco-Prussian war. It was started over an INSULT! Yeah, Germany formed because Napoleon III saw a newspaper article as an INSULT. Imagine how much diplomatic leverage one could levy to declare war with if a large territory of another country was fundamentally of your country's culture. Nowadays, that's impossible. People dont start shooting over insults anymore (but if Russia is anything to go by, they sure still like taking territory over the excuse of cultural population) but it goes to show that yes, those things were valid reasons and seen by quite a few people, at least of their own countries, as morally right. And sometimes, especially back then, it was more important to get your own country to want to go to war, rather than get other countries to accept it. Exhibit A: this entire video explaining how the allies couldnt touch Germany because the people said no.

[@Mitaka.Kotsuka]

Their people didnt want a war, you cant win a war without the support of your people. National Unity was at their lowest levels ever

[@davidkingston6776]

We need to get the upper hand over Hitler, so we let him get Czechoslovakia for free and seize it´s entire military and industry. :D

[@bisque6448]

So much that. It shows how dumb appeasement was even when you claim if was meant to stall Germany to "even the odds".

[@joshebarry]

@@bisque6448 the problem was appeasement would have been a fantastic strategy and we would be hailing the two leaders as heroes had they not completely thrown away the things they gained during that time by being spanked when the Germans invaded in 1940

[@bisque6448]

@@joshebarry yeah, no, it wouldn't have

[@hiimjustin8826]

I don't think there was an easy move here tbh. Britain and France played the best hand they could, Germany & Italy just had the major war advantage of being a dictatorship and a populace that was more than willing to go to war

[@bisque6448]

@@hiimjustin8826 the lack of willingness of the populace of France and Britain to go to war is a myth. The public opinion especially in France was very much in favor of war with Germany since at least the Rhineland crisis. It was just the political elites that were either cautious or openly against it.

[@jafr99999]

Oh how History tends to repeat itself!

[@squarek123]

Damn right. We need decisive action against Putin, not just sanctions and telling him to stop. For starters, let's admit Georgia and Moldova into NATO and help them kick out Transnistria, Abkhazia and Ossetia. Send in more volunteers and weapons to Ukraine. With the situation in Ukraine becoming increasingly unfavorable for Putin, he will either sign a humiliating peace treaty with Ukraine, or get deposed by his own people.

[@DzondzulaKarakondzula]

The Allies were hoping the Reich and the Soviets would fight one another so they just let Germany of the hook until the Molotov-Ribentrop agreement made that plan impossible.

[@elseggs6504]

Stalin thought they'd duke it out with the UK first. Funny how both had the same hope and were screwed because of it

[@Boretheory]

They fucked up when they sanctioned Italy. If France and the Uk actively tried to help Italy or Make agreements instead of Opposing it Mussolini would have joined them without hesitation. The Germans had to do more to ally him than what the Allies needed. And Italy could have just maintained the guarantee with Austria. It would have been Uk France Poland Czechs Austria and Italy vs Germany 4:1 they throwed the easiest path.

[@USSFFRU]

It's also even funnier that the Soviets offered an Tripartite Alliance [Entente Cordiale II] to contain Fascism. It's just the UK's constant refusal doomed that plan.

[@TransformersBoss]

Hopefully we won’t need a sequel video to this one where the first-world appeases Putin

[@eldelostacos9980]

Allies: Give Axis powers anything they want and making them strong Axis: Declares war on them and they are very strong by then Allies: Surprised Pikachu face

[@Mitaka.Kotsuka]

errm... just saying... it was the allies who declared war, not the Axis, Poland was not part of the allies until the Brithish official declaration of war... The French and the Brits guaranteed Poland, wich is not the same as begin part of the allies... semantic issue only, btw

[@Mitaka.Kotsuka]

@@jessesinclair3861 You are right...

[@thethirdman225]

3:30 *_"It allowed Germany and Italy to continue their military build up and frankly, these two use their time more effectively than either France or Britain did."_* Superficially, that looks right but it's not. Since both the axis powers had used most of the 1930s building up their armed forces, they did so at basically a cottage industry pace and it showed badly later in the war. Britain, on the other hand was still building arms factories at the start of the war and some were not in full production, even in 1940. But once they did get to full production, they leapt ahead. The more fighters the Germans shot down in the Battle of Britain, the more seemed to appear. This was particularly true for the Spitfire because it was whole new construction method. This was why the Hurricane was so important: it filled the gap between wood and doped fabric designs and all-metal ones.

[@mateuszdybka4743]

No, it wasn't justified because in the end the allies didn't rearm sufficiently at all. They weren't able to attack Germany in September 1939, although the main German forces were invading Poland at this moment (or maybe they didn't want to, because they could have known that the USSR were going to invade Poland too) and they weren't able to defend France in 1940 as well. In a nutshell: by sacrificing other countries the allies won some time for absolutely no result. Besides the appeasement policy wasn't necessary since Poland offered France two times a preventive war against the Third Reich. The first proposal was made by the Polish leader Piłsudski in 1934, one year before his death and even if the Germans had been somehow prepared, they couldn't have won on two fronts. But France refused it. A single manoeuvre of the French army during the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936 would have been also enough (1:29) but as we all know.... nothing happened. Anyway thanks for your video and your great animations!

[@99smite]

@ Mateusz Dybka: WWII was in reality only a big win for Russia, to be honest. France and the UK declared war on Germany in order to reinstate the democratically elected government in Poland. The government, who had fled to England was pretty happy when they were given their country back in may 1945 from the hands of Josepg Stalin... Oh... Wait... The polish soldiers, who fought on every front in WWII were cheated of their sacrifices of their heroic fights against fascism. And the Allies appeased to Stalin after 1940 until he took everything. Celebrating the liberation of EUROPE at D-day must sound pretty foolish to every east european citizen, right?

[@berdre2605]

No way France would have been able to sell a war together with poland in 1934 to its public. In 1934 Hitler was just a weird psycho ranting antisemitic stuff to most people, who they guessed would have been gone in a few years anyway. Poland itself was not a brilliant democracy and had made just as insane territorial demands as Hitler. A war in 1934 would have been seen as a war of aggression by everybody in the west, as would have looked a war in 1936 arguably

[@mateuszdybka4743]

​@@berdre2605 France occupied the Rhineland and the Ruhr in the 1920's so I don't think that they wouldn't have had any excuse for the French public opinion in order to repeat some military manoeuvres against Germany in the 30's but it's obvious that the French politicians were more concerned about their own home affairs at that time. And Poland wasn't a brilliant democracy after 1926 because the democracy before wasn't brilliant at all (just like today?). That's another problem but there weren't any official territorial demands from the Polish side in the interwar period after establishing the borders as far as I know. There were of course some local conflicts and a lot of political disapproval (for example Zaolzie region with sad consequences in 1919/1938) but generally Poland, or at least its ruling politicians were more than happy in the final borders of the Polish state even if some territories claimed during the Paris peace conference remained outside of Poland and they signed in the end the non-aggression pacts with Germany and USSR in the 30’s.

[@derinfomann4581]

@@mateuszdybka4743 the public in France were against any War. Alone after the Invasion of Poland many in France were against France fighting against Germany since Poland was not their Problem. Do you think they would support Poland as the Aggresor? Also France suffered from Political instability. To fight a War is already a bad thing but as the attacker? the Chance for A revolution would have been much Higher

[@looinrims]

I’m just wanting to know how a preemptive war would go down both politically and the whole France’s military being completely flat footed in defense was supposed to go on offense, a study was done by the French military that showed it took 48 hours for an order to go from the top, to the local commanders, and then it had to be prepared and acted on, and you think such a flagrant act of war would be accepted by the German populace? That’s a great way to create a political rallying force, and German rearmament began because of the Ruhr occupation and fears of Poland occupying East Prussia (among others)

[@reisenenjoyer2210]

1:26 "huh. wonder who that's for."

[@infanos3720]

This sign Will not stop me because i can't read

[@migwella9086]

Dear history matters, I am writing to inform you on the italo-ethiopian war of 1895 it was a war that completely subverts expectations I would be joyous if you would make a video on this war Sincerely, Miguel

[@MatheusLB2009]

Terrific analysis, man. Great work!

[@MightyJosh1985]

No, and it should not be now with Russia

[@prestonjones1653]

Kind of hypocritical of the Brits to not want a stronger Italian empire. Britain: *owns half of africa* Italy: *takes Ethiopia* Britain: "You have too much land!" This makes sense for some reason?

[@shorewall]

Makes pragmatic sense, if not moral sense. :)

[@joshebarry]

People kind of forgot the unpleasentries of getting an empire. People accepted the British empire because it had existed for so long... It just 'was'

[@fulcrum2951]

Its not like Italy took Ethiopia with a bombardment of chemical weapons

[@Konoronn]

It wasn't about moral principles. It was about maintaining power.

[@Fulllife3.2]

Konoron Oh please if the British were so moral they would have left all of their colonies.

[@primpal08]

Appeasement may have seemed justified at the time but it guaranteed the war. The allies weren't ready earlier on, but neither was Germany. Germany was preparing for war at a much faster rate. The longer the allies waited, the stronger the Nazis got. When the Germans occupied The Rhineland it would have taken very little effort on the part of the French to wipe out the German military. Czechoslovakia was in a strong defensive position. They could have tied up the German army as the French and British pushed in from the West. Western politicians were looking for an easy way out. They failed.

[@mitchellerickson7919]

Absolutely this. I haven't read into the subject but William Shrirer's book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich makes some good points that not only was it possible at the time of the Rhineland and the annexation of Austria for the complete military defeat of Germany by the allies, it is entirely probable that Hitler would have been dissuaded by the mere threat of a united military front and the whole thing was entirely avoidable. Moreover it is worth pointing out that there were voices in British politics that recognized this but they were overcome by fears of another war. That is certainly a blunder, but if it was from cowardice or from the terrible knowledge gained from WWI is a different question - column a, column b in my opinion. Great book, very accessible for those interested in the lead up to the war in Europe and the Nazis in general.

[@gamerdrache6076]

the GERMANS not the nazis the nazis were runing germany but oure saying verybody was a nazi

[@primpal08]

@@gamerdrache6076 hence the term "Nazi Germany", or "Nazi's" for short.

[@Marcuss23]

These videos are amazing! Keep it up

[@daviddeandres1720]

It's never stressed enough that Italy NOT joining Germany was a REAL possibility at some point. Mussolini was much against Germany annexing Austria and tension went extremely high when the Anschluss happened. Of course France and England should have played their cards much better for that to happen, but appeasement of Italy + buying time against Germany could have made the war very different from what we know and much easier for the Anglo-French side.

[@Blade57331]

It's also worth to mention that Hitler invited Austria troops to march inside Germany as well.

[@PoweredByLS2]

No, we can't have Hitler or the Germans sounding like reasonable people. Gotta keep up the Boogeyman spiel.

[@CantoniaCustoms]

Let’s not forget Hitler was an Austrian Immigrant

[@ninout05]

Italy used the appeasement time to effectively build up its army? Lol at that

[@kercchan3307]

italy had army? i thought they had a group of people who could parade and beat up unarmed people.

[@psq6214]

Italy most definitely didn’t build up the army... they had just come back from the Spanish civil war

[@Edmonton-of2ec]

Bubhbubbubhbuh. Army of Lions, led by Sheep. The Italian Army wasn’t actually that bad. It’s the officers were really fucking stupid

[@ventu7907]

The Italian army got fucked by the Italian anti war partisans that regularly sabotaged the Italian war machine to stop the was all together

[@lucadesanctis563]

We didn't had the money for it. Both Spanish civ war and Ethiopia emptied our coffers

[@jeffdillinger2253]

I soo love your channel! So informative and interesting

[@vinniethepuuh7553]

Thank you for this video, Especially for the sources

[@FixDieWeed]

Hey History Matters, I've been a long time fan of your videos. They're awesome! I have a question: are there any plans to bring back some longer, more general content? Maybe not exactly 10 mintes (I loved those) but maybe 7-13 minute content? Thank you for your vids! If I had the funds I totally would donate (sadly, I'm in college).

[@stepanhrebicek8309]

Germany used the appeasement much more effectively because by annexing czechoslovakia, he gained its industry and its army's equipment. This is one of the main reasons the french then lost, germany had world class tanks and other equipment from czechoslovakia

[@lenkalenech3102]

I recommend the Arte documentary called "Hitler-Stalin" pact, talking about how Britain and France made little effort to get an alliance with the soviets against the nazis, and how soviet diplomacy seeked for such alliances, and how there attitude toward germany changed due to those diplomatic failures

[@AlexC-ou4ju]

I recommend you read int othe french proposed Alliance with the Soviets they signed in 1935. Strange, I don't remember any Soviet troops coming to honour that pact in 1940. 'In the event that, in the circumstances described in Article 15, paragraph 7, of the League of Nations Pact, France or the U.S.S.R. may be, in spite of the genuinely pacific intentions of the two countries, and subject of unprovoked aggression on the part of a European state, the U.S.S.R. and France will immediately lend each other reciprocal aid and assistance.'

[@mdokuch96]

@@AlexC-ou4ju in summer 1939 Soviets suggested France and Britain negotiations about exact obligations of each side to contain possible German aggression. Both France and Britain sent to Moscow delegations which avoided taking obligations to own states for months. Taking into account that Munich created precedent of treaties with France and Britain not worth the paper, they are written on, it is understandable that Soviet Union chose to let Allies deal with Germans on their own.

[@pwgearedturbofan2348]

I thought part of the issue, too, was that most people agreed that the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles were unfair, and that Germany was just exercising their natural right of self determination, among other things.

[@garmenlin5990]

Chamberlain: Peace for our time! Hitler invades the rest of Czechoslovakia Chamberlain: Am I a joke to you?!?!

[@ArkadiBolschek]

Answer: Yes.

[@vojtechpeterka1929]

Yes he was a joke

[@Cjnw]

*YES,…* *EvEn To ThIs DaY!!!!*

[@gumdeo]

Chamberlain is underrated. Nobody could have predicted the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

[@robertewing3114]

@@gumdeo underrated, the man Attlee described as very able and crafty, he was indeed superb!!!

[@thedisturbedone5026]

Weird how history repeats himself.

[@manuj2868]

“History doesn’t repeat, but it often rhymes”

[@SurprisDeRaps]

If you posted this 1 month ago it would have legit givenme all the answers for my IB History exam, bless your other videos helped tho 🙏🏻

[@jakubpraznovsky8999]

I guess you did the Munich agreement now so with appeasement done with this video you could do the Soviet Union's expansion in eastern Europe as the winter war, occupying the Baltic States and annexing Bessarabia

[@jeschoofs]

Thanks youtube your recommendations always come out the worst times

[@TheMightofDab]

I love it when people actually talk about aspects of history that go against the grain. We're taught even at A Level that appeasement was a total failure when it sorta did what it was meant to, and that the treaty of Versaille was far too strict on Germany, when the opposite has a lot of credibility

[@_LilRascal_]

“Appeasement allowed *Italy* and Germany to continue their military build-up, and frankly these countries used their time more effectively than either France or Britain” Italy: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@ruthswann88]

Hey you know, without these years Greece would kicked Italy out of the Balkans so hard they would've reestablished Magna Graeca

[@xenotypos]

Yeah, Italy was far from being amongst the great powers so I don't agree about that statement too. What Italy needed was improving the economy and building a strong industry, before any militarisation happened.

[@Boretheory]

@@xenotypos Italy wasn’t far from being a major power. It had already had 2 major wars recently and it couldn’t sustain others

[@Boretheory]

@@ruthswann88 I highly doubt if the Greeks early attacked Italy they wouldn’t have had British help or the flood to stop Italian advance plus not Albanian auxiliaries so Italy wouldn’t have got his Alpini elite corp encircled immediately destroying the army morale

[@steppedonmyglasses]

Who else watch it after Russian Invasion of Ukraine?

[@sm00ly22]

We Slovaks and presumably also Czechs have many names for the Munich conference, my favourite is "O nás, bez nás" which translates to: "about us, without us"

[@gamerdrache6076]

you slowaks got free

[@Manyhigh]

THIS IS SUDDENLY VERY RELEVANT!

[@austrakaiser4793]

Maybe WWII could have been avoided if Hitler was appeased by James Bissonnette.

[@joelt2002]

You straight up state France had a larger military force and was capable of defeating the Germans in the early era of appeasement. They clearly weren't just biding their time with appeasement. Especially as the allies were losing potential allies and the Axis was greatly increasing their own capabilities during that time as well. Meaning appeasement even if it was meant to buy time, was a failure. Britain/France failed by appeasing, Russia by enabling, and the US by not caring (full blown isolationism).

[@artanisplays3982]

wdym, he stated that France's politics is a dumpster fire and would have most likely imploded if they had intervened with a population that didn't want war, the population at the time was still focused on themselves cause they we're on fire, not until the munich conference does the population see the issue. So no, they can't just intervene, they would have won sure. But that is assuming France didn't implode

[@stevepirie8130]

The terrible irony for the Czechs, Ukraine and Poland was there was only one major power that insisted certain nations have independence post WW1 rather than they returned to previous rule. The USA. France and the U.K. assumed they would return to the status quo prior to the war. The Soviets wanted their vassals back after they’d given away in the peace treaty when Germany had defeated them.

[@goldbullet50]

Britain and France succeeded to prevent a new great war with their appeasement until they stopped it and declared war on Germany. If they had continued and not escalated a German-Polish war into a world war, who knows what would've happened.

[@stevemc01]

That end card scene is actually quite fairly well done. Chamberlain, upon returning to Great Britain was waving a signed piece of paper in the air detailing the German agreement to not invade the rest of Czechoslovakia. ...which we all know how that went.

[@albireothestarthebacklight2990]

My history teacher showed me this video at school. *Little did she know I was subscribed.*

[@nathangoedeke694]

"We didn't condemn them enlarging their military out of fear they wouldn't agree to stop enlarging their military"

[@Choppytehbear1337]

The best time to stop appeasement was when Germany demanded the Sudetenland. Czechoslovakian forts would have held off German advances. Czechoslovakia also had a sizeable tank force. 1/4 of the tanks that Germany used in the invasion of France were Czech.

[@Suksass]

The best time was when Germany began rearmament and militarizing reichland. Hitler even given orders to military to retreat if French or Brits showed up.

[@Fungamerplays]

This is probably the most "pro-appeasement" take I've seen and it's an interesting perspective that I feel is often overlooked, especially since you still mention the strategy's shortcomings in your conclusion.

[@dkupke]

Fungamerplays in my own research I feel that ultimately it was a lousy idea-but there really weren’t any good ones available.

[@Fungamerplays]

@@dkupke I Think so, too. Given that Hitler wanted a war no matter what and had actually hoped for it to start in '38 after the invasion of the Sudetenland you could argue that stalling and trying to catch up in terms off rearmament were the best things to do.

[@dkupke]

Fungamerplays and the elephant in the room that never gets mentioned-is Russia. Europe was as afraid of Stalin as they were Hitler. There was a hope of putting them off against each other-not knowing they were playing the same game.

[@Fater4511]

@@dkupke go to war, be men?

[@bogdanbatrin7413]

There's a book published recently "Appeasing Hitler" by Tim Bouverie . It mainly focuses on the UK political scene and it does seem clear there that the proponents of appeasement (Chamberlin but not only) actually wanted to avoid the war for a lot longer. And that the UK was mainly concerned with its empire. Furthermore, it also highlights some missed opportunities. Including the disaster that was the abandonment of Czechoslovakia and the refusal to enlist Soviet help before 1939.

[@adampytlik8453]

France and Britain: Betrays Czechoslovakia which has really strong arms industry to prepare for war despite the fact that France had even a pact, saying that should one be attacked, they will defend eachother. Also France after years of "preparation": Gets destroyed by Germany in almost two months.

[@ksotar]

There were high hopes, that Hitler would go for the USSR, perhaps joining forces with Poland. Anyone who can read could have few ideas from his book on Lebensraum. Eventually, he did, but there were nuances...

[@adampytlik8453]

@@ksotar Yea, but you gotta admit they were naive

[@ksotar]

@@adampytlik8453 yes, that pretty much characterise all pre-WWII.

[@lamichka]

"Also France after years of "preparation": Gets destroyed by Germany in almost two months." - by Czech tanks and weapons...... Ironic.

[@adampytlik8453]

@@lamichka Yea lmfao, Czech tanks won the first tour de France kekw

[@moshodi100]

Appeasement enables bullies and never usually works. Just delays the inevitable and becomes a lot harder to dig onself out of the mire.

[@chwww87]

that's what's happening now

[@No-yn7ry]

That was the whole point. It was meant to buy more time to build up and rearm so that when the war does come, you will be able to win it.

[@sovietunion7643]

i feel like going the opposite way is bad too. you can jump into wars that might not be necessary and populations will hate it. look at vietnam or more recently Afghanistan for the american point of view. was it really worth is going all guns blazing in those wars? no. they are incredibly unpopular amoungst the general populous and will be remembered with disgust and disgrace for generations to come.

[@konstantincvetanovic5357]

@@No-yn7ry yes but while you rearme so do your enemies, in this case even better then you

[@xD4rkridex]

Germany: "Austria, do you want the appeasement?" Germany: "Yes"

[@AdmiralBonetoPick]

Factor in the massive resources Germany gained from Czechia, including coal, factories, and the Czech army's stockpile of weapons (indeed, about one quarter of the panzers the Germans used to invade France the following year were actually Czech, manufactured by Skoda).

[@noytelinu]

consequentialism says no cuz it failed. Value ethics says no cuz they betrayed their values. Moral relativist says "not my time/place"

[@thorsvenson3530]

A common theme in the lead ups to the many wars in Europe in the first half of the 20th century is how utterly terrible France was at foreign relations and policy and how it consistently made everything worse for everyone through a combination of cluelessness, incompetence and ego.

[@zarlg]

It should be noted that France essentially didn't have a stable government for that entire time, it was in the middle of a serious institutional crisis and governments were falling usually after just a few weeks. This meant it was impossible to define any sort of long term strategy. This is the reason why after WW2 De Gaulle argued for a more stable "monarchical" semi-presidential system, which is what became the Fifth Republic. Another thing that played a big role here was the idea according to which Germany had been treated unfairly at Versailles, which by then had made its way through public opinion in France and Britain. This is mostly a myth (and one that persists to this day), but a lot of appeasement was justified by the idea that Germany should be compensated for having been treated so harshly.

[@stc2828]

It's like when playing Starcraft, you decide not to be aggressive so you can expand and tech up, but your enemy have way better macro than you and end up with a larger army in later fights.

[@himhim3344]

HitIer holding the "Let's do this" sign gets me every time😂😂😂😭😭💀💀

[@dturtleneck]

This video is intended to justify the appeasement yet the "reasons" it states are a demonstration of weakness and helplessness.

[@infanos3720]

Yes the great powers of France and britain were fragmented and basicly helpless

[@lamichka]

@@infanos3720 And they paid a heavy price for their cowardise

[@iordanneDiogeneslucas]

@@lamichka as we will again. I for one welcome our new ruskie overlords.

[@Gabriel-ip6me]

Do a video about when Austria got independence from Australia, please

[@maninredhelm]

First cover the secession of Dominica from the Dominican Republic.

[@Cjnw]

or the Emus

[@Rudepenaltyoffside]

😭 no dancing in the flowers in this episode!!!

[@lilyschmidt4024]

I'm a huge map fan, and I wanted to ask if you have a preWW2 map of europe with just the colours in. Honestly the maps in your videos look amazing and if you have a map like this would you be willing to publish it. Great thanks in advance your videos are awesome really appreciate your work!

[@greggsadler4387]

I admit it is easy to look in hindsight. However one glaring issue should be addressed. England and France had no problem enforcing the parts of the Versailles treaty that they could enforce early on. If they weren’t going to step up militarily, they should’ve never forced the reparations and other parts of the treaty. Part of Signing that treaty what is the responsibility to enforce it. I know it may sound like it an oversimplification But this is true in every area of life basically, from parenting with rules, to the CEO of a corporation, to teachers in school, etc. Don’t have a rule that you’re not willing to enforce.