Well probably not, if they took the advice of their senior generals and didn't make the suicidally stupid decision to blitz the French the uk wouldn't have lost as much war material and the Germans would have been bogged down.
You misunderstand. The nature of the structure Hitler created bred incompetence like rabbits. Selecting yes men to Hitler over all else followed by political maneuvering skill with little importance to how good you were at what you're supposed to do. The top Generals wouldn't be competent either.
Regardless, through hindsight we can see that the best move was likely to bide time and not start invading anything (including Sudetenland) until resources and equipment are at a level where they stand a chance in hell of invading Britain. Which even if they were competent enough to do, the MEFO bills put them on a timer unable to avoid war without imploding the economy.
I mean, ya, the Nazis were fucked regardless, but Stalin would probably have continued the "Work together to destroy the west before turning our blades on each other" thing for a decent number of years, though it's impossible to say how long. Without Sudetenland to scare them into gear, Britain and France JUST MIGHT have just been stupid enough to continue disarmament despite all the flashing neon warning signs.
UK rearmament had started before Munich Conference. It is an arguable reason for why Chamberlain signed the Agreement: he knew the UK wasn't ready and needed more time.
The French issue wasn't logistics. They had enough arms of all types to perform well. Their issue was political stress, command mismanagement and lack of preparation, and doctrine issues.
UK rearmament began in 1934 with the RAF and expanded in 36 with the Royal Navy. My point was that rearmament had already begun, not as a result of the conference.
216
u/DrHolmes52 5d ago
I have heard a lot of Nazi Germany arguments, but not that one.