>>17272645
For some reason all these alternative interpretations of the Munich treaty gloss over that Chamberlain honest to god believed what Hitlers promise and felt betrayed when he broke it.

>>17272666
He might have been fooled but it doesn't mean he didn't take the global context into consideration.

>>17272764
True but in his mind it wasn't war now or war when better prepared, it was war now or no was

>>17272645
>The soviet participation in case of war was dubious
Soviets were the only ones pushing for an actual response as a guarantor.

>>17272816
But the western allies had no reason to believe they would actually do anything drastic. Their army was considered weak by everyone and Poland wouldn't let them pass.

>>17272645
From the perspective of Chamberlain and Daladier it was a victory. Their plan was that given that their economies have good access to world markets and when combined are bigger, they will eventually be able to overpower Germany but in 1938, as you've said, they weren't ready. The biggest problem, especially from the French perspective was shortage of fighters(they were restructuring their aircraft industry and the production was at the lowest level since 1934), and I would only show results in late 1939. There was however never a doubt that a war is most likely coming and they need to set themselves up for a victory in one.
Hitler in a sense wanted a war, because the Austrian-Czechoslovak border was easy to breach(Sudetes were heavily fortified) and taking over Czechoslovakia gave them access to relatively highly developed armament industry of theirs. Instead they were given Sudetenland. Sure it could be spun as propaganda victory, but its economic value from the perspective of upcoming war was 0.
This is also why the turn from appeasement to not one more concession happens right after Czechoslovakia was dismantled next year, the takeover of this industry was seen as detrimental to the allied timeframes. And mind you all this happens under the supposed "doves", Daladier and Chamberlain, the hawkish Reynaud and Churchill aren't at the helm yet and won't be for some more time.

>>17272645
1938 would have been iffy but France and England would have crushed Germany 1936 or earlier

>>17273008
This is the correct answer.
Munich agreement was a massive win for Chamberlain and a defeat for Hitler.
The whole 'le stupid Chamberlain and naive Appeasement' myth was created by Churchill to make himself look more favorable, with the narrative that "History would have been so much better if everyone just had listened to mr Churchill".

In reality, Chamberlain knew 1938 and Czechoslovakia was bad grounds for a fight. Hitler had a good argument for Sudetenland, and the British politicians / public was still in pacifist mode. Germany wasnt seen as aggressors yet.
France was also not ready, her economy was in a terrible state in 1938. Daladier had to implement draconian measures to quick-fix it.
Hitler wanted a war with Czechoslovakia because internvention seemed very unlikely, and he wanted the Wehrmacht battle-tested before taking on a much larger foe like USSR or France. He also wanted influence over all of Czechoslovakia, not just Sudeten, for the industry and armament etc.
It was Chamberlain who called for a conference, not Hitler. And Hitler couldnt walk away without seeming like a warmongerer.
With Munich, Chamberlain had locked Hitler into a corner, and if Hitler made any further move, Chamberlain would get the support he needed in Britain for war by painting Hitler as a threat to peace that cannot be reasoned with. It created good grounds for confrontation with Germany.

>>17272816
I got a suspicion you got more excuses Stalins distrust every time the Brits tried to warn him against German plans

>>17273724
>Czechoslovakia was bad grounds for a fight
I thought they had a pretty good army.