Could appeasement have succeeded?

[kettyo]

What are your opinions, could the British appeasement policy in WW2 have succeeded?

We tend to think it was doomed to fail because it did so historically. But was it really?

Appeasement policy was about driving the course of events towards a German-Soviet war without direct Western involvement, sparing the West from another world war.

In my opinion it could have succeeded in case the West sacrificed Poland just like it did Czechoslovakia before. In reality probably Chamberlain did not have enough political power for this and also the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact made continuing the strategy look pointless.

Nevertheless i think if it went so tensions between Germany and the USSR would have soon escalated just like it historically did after the fall of France, leading to Barbarossa.

In such a case i think the West would have supported the side whoever is the actual underdog by extensive arms exports, leading to enormous profits, a huge economical stimulus, maybe possible even to drag the West out of the Depression just like WW2 historically did but without direct war involvement.

Edit: small adjustment for the history forum

 

[Beagá]

Chamberlain couldn´t do much IMO. The mobilization process in UK had to catch up to Germany´s standards.

What would make a difference would be war without giving the Sudetenland. The tanks and industries made a huge positive effect on Germany, while war would cause terrible casualties in a relatively weak Wehrmacht.

Probably better to post this in the History section.

 

[Alpha2518]

Sorry, there's no general WW2 discussion forum so i post here.

What are your opinions, could appeasement policy have succeeded?

We tend to think it was doomed to fail because it did so historically. But was it really?

Appeasement policy was about driving the course of events towards a German-Soviet war without direct Western involvement, sparing the West from another world war.

In my opinion it could have succeeded in case the West sacrificed Poland just like it did Czechoslovakia before. In reality probably Chamberlain did not have enough political power for this and also the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact made continuing the strategy look pointless.

Nevertheless i think if it went so tensions between Germany and the USSR would have soon escalated just like it historically did after the fall of France, leading to Barbarossa.

In such a case i think the West would have supported the side whoever is the actual underdog by extensive arms exports, leading to enormous profits, a huge economical stimulus, maybe possible even to drag the West out of the Depression just like WW2 historically did but without direct war involvement.

You do not reward bad actors. You only incentivize them to repeat their behavior. This is why Hitler didn't take the Allied guarentees of Poland seriously. They didn't stand up to him on the Rhineland, or Anchsluss, or at Munich. Why would he expect them to make good on the fourth time?

And on an over simplified note I saw this with my nephew while trying to help raise him. He got ice cream when he acted out because that's what my mom did. Don't know why, because I never got any ice cream for acting out. And so what did my nephew do? Act out to get more ice cream and it took my sister to point this out. I couldn't because I was like 12 at the time and didn't make the connection, I just followed directions and gave out the ice cream.

 

[Secret Master]

Let's move this to the history forum.

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

It's honestly hard to say. Germany was intent on making more and more demands while securing its place in Central and Eastern Europe. I honestly don't believe that Germany would have immediately turned east to the Soviets after taking out Poland. Denmark and Belgium for instance still had territory they had received from Germany after WWI. Then of course there was Alsace-Lorraine in France, which, while Hitler didn't care too much about, many Germans did. Meanwhile, the Germans and Soviets seemed to, at least at the time, to have been in a period of détente with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, so I don't see a conflict breaking out immediately.

Not to mention that the Soviets had basically the same idea as the Western Allies. Sit back and build up/consolidate while the Germans and Western Allies bleed each other white WWI-style. Then swoop in and pick up the pieces. Obviously the unexpectedly rapid fall of France mooted this strategy.

Then there is the effect this might have on other neutral nations. Earlier appeasement helped drive nations like Italy and Hungary into the hands of the Germans. If the West proved unwilling to protect them, you could potentially see countries like Greece, Yugoslavia (may not have as many issues as in our time line if the Western Allies have abandoned Eastern Europe), and Sweden actually join the Axis.

Then of course, there is the military balance to consider. Delaying the war will give the Western Allies more time to re-arm, but it will also give Germany more time building up with their industry unhindered by bombing or resource shortages, since they could just import whatever they would need. There also might end up being less time for the Soviets to re-arm. It also may be difficult politically for the Allies to declare war on Germany in order to defend a faltering Soviet Union.

On the other hand, I think that part of the reason the West was willing to guarantee Poland is because they saw them as replacing Russia in their Entente dynamic. As it turned out, Poland was fairly quickly defeated, however, it wasn't clear at the time that Poland wouldn't be able to force Germany into a difficult two-front war for some time. After all, Poland had held out against seemingly impossible odds before when they defeated a massive Soviet invasion to secure their independence. Had the Allies realized The weakness of Poland, perhaps they would have delayed the war for longer.

In the end though, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that a World War was coming. The earlier the Germans were confronted, the easier they would be to stop.

Now if we are talking about the Japanese, it might actually be viable to keep them out of the war through appeasement, since they were being kept plenty busy by China, although this would majorly risk the economic and political positions of France, the UK, and the USA in East Asia.
_________________________________________________________

As for in HOI IV, it actually can be an interesting balance, especially in MP. I have definitely gone through phases where my opinion was that it was best for the Western Allies to abandon Eastern Europe and just build up. If you could get tension high enough, you could have the USA in the war from the get-go, greatly improving your chances of holding France.

My opinion has since changed. The earlier the war starts, the faster the Western Allies can mobilize. While France and Britain may not be quite ready for war, it is likely that neither is Italy/Germany completely prepared. Not to mention that I have definitely seen the Axis back down from say invading Yugoslavia over an Allied guarantee. If the Axis delays Munich, it can also be worth going to war over it.

Overall, such diplomacy can be an interesting dance to pull off. Even more so it can be interesting if you are the Soviets trying to convince the Allies to risk an early war over stopping Axis expansion.

Then there is games where the Axis play basically pacifist and the Soviets go wild declaring war on everyone. In some cases, the Allies may need to consider which side they are aligning themselves with.

So at least some of the historical situation is reflected in game.

 

[Secret Master]

Regarding appeasement:

Appeasement might have worked if Hitler only wanted certain things. But anyone who read Mein Kampf or understood lebensraum would grasp that appeasement wasn't going to work, because Hitler wanted a lot more than Danzig, Sudetenland, and Austria.

Now, one might argue that a Britain and France more frightened of Communism than Fascism might conclude that letting Hitler have Poland so that he goes east would be a sensible move. Hitler's goals did not include annexing France and Britain initially, so letting Germany wipe out Communism and annexing land in the east at great cost to their manpower and industry has advantages.

But the problem there is the British Admiralty understood that the more ports and dockyards Germany owned, the more likely she was to have the capability to reach parity with the British in naval terms. If not now, then in the future. This was, for obvious reasons, unacceptable.

The other issue to deal with here is that France doesn't want to see Germany annex the industrial base of the Soviet Union.

And then there's a further problem with British mobilization. One can argue that Chamberlain had a poor hand to play in 38. But he played the hand the best he could, laying the ground work for an RAF that could defeat the Luftwaffe in 39 and 40. He also had some bad intelligence on German capabilities in 38.

The analogy I use with students is a poker game in 38. You only know half the cards Germany has. Except that the pot isn't money, it's millions of lives. Britain has a mediocre hand, and Germany might have a straight flush. What do you do? Cave at Munich and draw a new hand? Call and lay the cards on the table? Raise the pot even more before calling? It's a dangerous game.

 

[katanatan]

[QUOTE="Secret Master, post: 25285865, member: 4805",] But he played the hand the best he could, laying the ground work for an RAF that could defeat the Luftwaffe in 39 and 40.[/QUOTE]

To that quote, should say "loose in 1939, loose in 1940 and barely staying alive above the homeisland to comeback after barbarossa". But yes, chamberlain was the best pm in the 30s and 40s, stanley baldwin screwed the arms.

And a short opinion from me to "appeasement".
Yes could have worked, should have worked but chamberlain did not have enough support and the us supported the poles who did not back down, so gb got caught by superior us diplomacy who would use another european clash to reindustrialize, get out of depression, and economically, by finance and diplomatically ruin the old world powers.

But yes, im certain gb would give up poland if they got a trade deal or a fleet deal with germany, as they saw eastern europe in the long run as russian or german "clay" and battleground.

Also eastern europe expansions would make no difference for naval production as there was little to no baltic naval IC except leningrad.

Hard to call, plenty arguments to oppose hitler roo as the allies had a superior land army, ressources, navy etc and better industrial outlook.

They just did not like eachother and the rest is history i guess...

 

[kettyo]

Let's move this to the history forum.

Thanks! I did not realize a history forum is there.

Although it is also somewhat relevant for HOI4 now that the new British tree has appeasement and early intervention branches. And after all HOI4 is all about alternative history.

 

[DarthJF]

If by appeasement you mean France and Britain giving Germany free hand in Eastern Europe and allowing him to invade Soviet Union without opposition from Western powers, then yes, it could have worked in the sense that France and Britain don't have to fight a war with Germany.

Of course, then they'd have to cope with either victorious Germany or USSR controlling half of Europe without having the Americans to back them up.

 

[kettyo]

Actually i think i took the notion that the goal of appeasement was to guide Germany to face the USSR from Einstein's letter about it. Here is an article about it:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/hist...-two-adolf-hitler-letter-auction-munich-agree

I always hold contemporary sources as most relevant and additionally i have a really high opinion of Einstein.

Of course i also agree with him on that it was a horrible idea. You just shouldn't throw millions of people as slaves for some power game. But the question here is could it have worked?

Obviously the plan must have been abandoned after the MR-Pact, it just made no sense anymore. So we have to assume in this alternative timeline Poland is abandoned and the MR-Pact doesn't happen.

A sidenote: Chamberlain was pretty damn handsome

 

[kettyo]

Chamberlain couldn´t do much IMO. The mobilization process in UK had to catch up to Germany´s standards.

Yes certainly that is also a valid argument in favour of appeasement.

I just can't accept the widespread belief that the appeasement was made out of plain stupidity, from the idea that Hitler will be happy and stop. I can't believe Western leaders were so stupid.

 

[kettyo]

What would make a difference would be war without giving the Sudetenland. The tanks and industries made a huge positive effect on Germany, while war would cause terrible casualties in a relatively weak Wehrmacht.

Yes certainly it was game over for Germany then.

 

[kettyo]

You do not reward bad actors. You only incentivize them to repeat their behavior. This is why Hitler didn't take the Allied guarentees of Poland seriously. They didn't stand up to him on the Rhineland, or Anchsluss, or at Munich. Why would he expect them to make good on the fourth time?

Very true!

And on an over simplified note I saw this with my nephew while trying to help raise him. He got ice cream when he acted out because that's what my mom did. Don't know why, because I never got any ice cream for acting out. And so what did my nephew do? Act out to get more ice cream and it took my sister to point this out. I couldn't because I was like 12 at the time and didn't make the connection, I just followed directions and gave out the ice cream.

Very good example. Actually i think the best reaction to a child's acting out is to ignore it completely, at least that's what i've found the most effective, just needs nerves to do it

 

[kettyo]

It's honestly hard to say. Germany was intent on making more and more demands while securing its place in Central and Eastern Europe. I honestly don't believe that Germany would have immediately turned east to the Soviets after taking out Poland. Denmark and Belgium for instance still had territory they had received from Germany after WWI. Then of course there was Alsace-Lorraine in France, which, while Hitler didn't care too much about, many Germans did. Meanwhile, the Germans and Soviets seemed to, at least at the time, to have been in a period of détente with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, so I don't see a conflict breaking out immediately.

Not to mention that the Soviets had basically the same idea as the Western Allies. Sit back and build up/consolidate while the Germans and Western Allies bleed each other white WWI-style. Then swoop in and pick up the pieces. Obviously the unexpectedly rapid fall of France mooted this strategy.

That's all true.

Probably Germany got hard warnings and threats in case they looked West after Poland. That's all assuming no MR-Pact took place since with the MR-Pact the appeasement is made obsolete.

In such a case Hitler probably targeted the USSR next i think since it was his strategic objective from the beginning.

 

[kettyo]

Then there is the effect this might have on other neutral nations. Earlier appeasement helped drive nations like Italy and Hungary into the hands of the Germans. If the West proved unwilling to protect them, you could potentially see countries like Greece, Yugoslavia (may not have as many issues as in our time line if the Western Allies have abandoned Eastern Europe), and Sweden actually join the Axis.

Then of course, there is the military balance to consider. Delaying the war will give the Western Allies more time to re-arm, but it will also give Germany more time building up with their industry unhindered by bombing or resource shortages, since they could just import whatever they would need. There also might end up being less time for the Soviets to re-arm. It also may be difficult politically for the Allies to declare war on Germany in order to defend a faltering Soviet Union.

On the other hand, I think that part of the reason the West was willing to guarantee Poland is because they saw them as replacing Russia in their Entente dynamic. As it turned out, Poland was fairly quickly defeated, however, it wasn't clear at the time that Poland wouldn't be able to force Germany into a difficult two-front war for some time. After all, Poland had held out against seemingly impossible odds before when they defeated a massive Soviet invasion to secure their independence. Had the Allies realized The weakness of Poland, perhaps they would have delayed the war for longer.

All true. I think the West might have tried supporting the USSR via arms exports in case they performed very bad against Germany.

As for in HOI IV, it actually can be an interesting balance, especially in MP. I have definitely gone through phases where my opinion was that it was best for the Western Allies to abandon Eastern Europe and just build up. If you could get tension high enough, you could have the USA in the war from the get-go, greatly improving your chances of holding France.

My opinion has since changed. The earlier the war starts, the faster the Western Allies can mobilize. While France and Britain may not be quite ready for war, it is likely that neither is Italy/Germany completely prepared. Not to mention that I have definitely seen the Axis back down from say invading Yugoslavia over an Allied guarantee. If the Axis delays Munich, it can also be worth going to war over it.

Overall, such diplomacy can be an interesting dance to pull off. Even more so it can be interesting if you are the Soviets trying to convince the Allies to risk an early war over stopping Axis expansion.

Then there is games where the Axis play basically pacifist and the Soviets go wild declaring war on everyone. In some cases, the Allies may need to consider which side they are aligning themselves with.

So at least some of the historical situation is reflected in game.

Yes i think in game as Britain the earlier you get into war the better since the Axis can't invade or seriously bomb you anyway. As France it might be better to wait out so USA can join from the beginning as you said.

 

[kettyo]

Appeasement might have worked if Hitler only wanted certain things. But anyone who read Mein Kampf or understood lebensraum would grasp that appeasement wasn't going to work, because Hitler wanted a lot more than Danzig, Sudetenland, and Austria.

Here i assume the goal of the appeasement was to get Germany into war with the USSR without direct Western involvement, as Einstein thought.

If the goal was to satisfy Hitler by small gifts, in no way that could ever work. But i doubt Western leaders were so ignorant. Their advisors must have read Mein Kampf etc. To be honest i did not read it but recently i've incidentally read some qoutations from it (regarding the controlling of people etc) and i was amazed how intelligent the writing was. Tbh by the looks from footages i thought Hitler was simply mad and had exceptional rhetoric skills (probably partly because of his madness) while Göbbels had the brains i thought. Hitler's writings in MK show great intelligence though so it might be more complicated.

Now, one might argue that a Britain and France more frightened of Communism than Fascism might conclude that letting Hitler have Poland so that he goes east would be a sensible move. Hitler's goals did not include annexing France and Britain initially, so letting Germany wipe out Communism and annexing land in the east at great cost to their manpower and industry has advantages.

But the problem there is the British Admiralty understood that the more ports and dockyards Germany owned, the more likely she was to have the capability to reach parity with the British in naval terms. If not now, then in the future. This was, for obvious reasons, unacceptable.

The other issue to deal with here is that France doesn't want to see Germany annex the industrial base of the Soviet Union.

Yes this is my assumption here.

I doubt that such a scenario would lead to a great blooming of the German navy though since in a war with the USSR the Wehrmacht probably sucked up all resources while the British and American navies could be modernized and expanded.

Also certainly it wasn't the plan to let Germany annex a strategically significant portion of the USSR (or the other way around). The plan must have called for a protracted, desperate war. Actually given the huge extent of the Soviet Union her capitulation was very unlikely anytime in the near future, especially assuming Western arms supports. Given by geography the capitulation of Germany to the USSR seemed more likely but the state of the Red Army by the time didn't make it too realistic either and in case of some unexpected Soviet success the West could have supported Germany too.

And then there's a further problem with British mobilization. One can argue that Chamberlain had a poor hand to play in 38. But he played the hand the best he could, laying the ground work for an RAF that could defeat the Luftwaffe in 39 and 40. He also had some bad intelligence on German capabilities in 38.

The analogy I use with students is a poker game in 38. You only know half the cards Germany has. Except that the pot isn't money, it's millions of lives. Britain has a mediocre hand, and Germany might have a straight flush. What do you do? Cave at Munich and draw a new hand? Call and lay the cards on the table? Raise the pot even more before calling? It's a dangerous game.

That's probably 100% true.

 

[kettyo]

And a short opinion from me to "appeasement".
Yes could have worked, should have worked but chamberlain did not have enough support and the us supported the poles who did not back down, so gb got caught by superior us diplomacy who would use another european clash to reindustrialize, get out of depression, and economically, by finance and diplomatically ruin the old world powers.

But yes, im certain gb would give up poland if they got a trade deal or a fleet deal with germany, as they saw eastern europe in the long run as russian or german "clay" and battleground.

Yes, he probably didn't have enough support to abandon Poland also. I guess if he had the power to do it the Germans haven't made the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with the USSR at all. So eventually the German-Soviet war could have been a reality.

 

[kettyo]

Of course, then they'd have to cope with either victorious Germany or USSR controlling half of Europe without having the Americans to back them up.

Yes that would ba a major problem which they'd try to avoid for sure. In such a scenario a prolonged war is best for the West.

 

[demanvanwezel]

apeasemant was frankly too little too late

germany was already in the grip of ultranationalists who would stop at nothing at this point

however if austria had been allowed to join germany and poland wouldn't have it's sea route then I could see a lot of wind being taken out of the nazis sail

 

[Alpha2518]

however if austria had been allowed to join germany and poland wouldn't have it's sea route then I could see a lot of wind being taken out of the nazis sail

In a democracy yes, but Germany was no longer a democracy, it was a legal dictatorship. The wind blows where the furher says it goes and so that is where the German State then goes unless stopped by an opposing force. This also ignores Mein Kampf where Hitler outlined everything he would do and was now in the position to do.

Nevermind the plans to go to war by 1942, which Hitler and Mussolini agreed on.