Ww2 would happen regardless of Chamberlain though.
A France-British intervention in 1936 during the remilitarization of the Rhineland could have stopped Hitler.
The German military was not yet prepared for a major war.
The policy of appeasement was driven by political, public, and military unwillingness to fight again and not just a failure of foresight.
Even without hindsight, the 1936 Rhineland Crisis the Wehrmacht was in a transitional phase and would have been defeated by a swift French intervention
German forces entering the Rhineland were under orders to retreat immediately if France intervened, as they were outnumbered and lacked equipment.
General Werner von Blomberg commanded the troops to withdraw if they encountered resistance, specifically if the French crossed the border.
It is widely accepted that the avoidance of war in 1936 enabled Hitler to strengthen his position leading to a much more devastating, worldwide conflict.
Hitler later admitted that the 48 hours after the move were the most nerve-wracking in his life, acknowledging that if the French had intervened, the Germans would have had to retreat.
"The 48 hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life.
If the French had marched into the Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs,
for our military resources would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance."
Despite German weakness, France and the UK were politically divided and militarily underprepared to act, with France, in particular, lacking public support for another war.
The French, however, did not take action, allowing the gamble to succeed without any, or only minimal, resistance.
The decision to not act in 1936 meant that Germany could continue its rearmament culminating in a far more capable force by 1939.
Didn't want to fight "another" war and a few years later had to fight THE war.
The seeds of WW2 were planted with the treaty of Versailles.
And that's what shaped the Post-WW2 thought. The lesson learned? Don't impose "Carthaginian Peace" on the losers to a point where they have nothing to lose. Hence why the US help rebuilt Japan and Germany.
And the US used its military might to confront anyone who was flaunting the new International Order by policing the world in order to avoid another costly hot war. Hence why the us confronted the Soviets at every turn in the Cold War.
After WWI, the U.S. retreated into isolationism and rejected the League of Nations, creating a power vacuum. Post-1945, the U.S. did the opposite, establishing NATO and a permanent global military presence to "deter" challengers before they could trigger a "hot war".
Guess what Iran, Russia and China has been doing for the last few decades? Actively challenging the US-led international order. Because the anti-US retards in the West have forgotten all the lessons learned in WW2. The desire for "equitable" multi-polarity to counter US influence driven by nothing more than envy. Their argument that US hegemony is the primary source of global instability is is the cornerstone of "anti-imperialist" rhetoric from these useful idiots in the West.
The current reality marked by a resurgence of traditional security threats like large-scale land wars in Europe, China gobbling up large swaths of the South China Seas claiming it belongs to them suggests that as US influence recedes or is challenged, the "long peace" established after 1945 becomes increasingly fragile.
The critics/skeptics often use the post-9/11 nation building failures as the argument for a multi-polar world with some weird belief that it'll lead to some sort of collaborative pluralism. But don't even realize we already had a multi-polar world and it lead to two world wars. But these idiots operate on the "anything is better than the US hegemony"
But I get it, the neocons went on an adventure because of the hubris from the US winning the Cold War and wanted to re-shape the post-Cold War world and got involved in nation building that didn't work out. Managing friction is the best option we have with. Trading these low intensity "wars" to avoid the costly and bigger wars.
www.france24.com
