The Night of the Long Knives happened because The Hitler/Nazi clique felt Rohm was getting too powerful/popular and hungry for more revolution, getting there with or without Hitler. If there wasn't a strong personality like Hitler for Rohm to compete with and guys like Himmler trying to kiss Hitler's ass by making up stuff about Rohm, I doubt there would have been a purge without Hitler.
Without Hitler, no one of the other Nazis ever would have been a person of historical importance. Hitler had to choose between the SA and the Wehrmacht. And the Wehrmacht was simply easier to handle as the SA, which already had 3,5 million men (!). The Wehrmacht 100000 men. The SA expected influence and positions in gratitude for the street battles with the Commies. Röhm wasn't very popular, the SA was widely regarded as a bunch of thugs, unemployed men and even criminals.
I agree. The SA was also more obtainable than the Wehrmacht. Though much higher in numbers, the SA was a much more disorganized group. They had their strengths, but without the purge, Hitler and the NSDAP could not have gained ground. Politically it bolstered their appearance in the eyes of the military and resulted in support.
Personally, I believe a coup by the Heer was a real possibility from about the time of the Rhineland occupation up until the conquest of France. Before then, a disaster would have made a coup politically possible. The Heer generals would have needed a justifiable reason they could take to the public for deposing Hitler. After the successful French campaign Hitler was untouchable. Even if successful, a new government wouldn't have the consent of the governed.
I can buy that. His commanders knew he was taking tremendous gambles, but it also didn't take a genius to ascertain that Europe wanted no part of aggressive action.
How did they evade poland? Appoint Himmler as Reichsfuhrer of Nazi chickens? If he was convinced that peace was at hand, why would his government approve so many destroyers and corvettes, before war broke out
Plan B. Regardless of how "sure" he was, he was a politician and political figures window dress their decisions. Chamberlain was going to stick to his belief and perhaps build as much clout as he could. However, it is perfectly normal to begin defensive operations toward a growing concern. The rise of National Socialism at this time was swift and they didn't hide their intentions.
Now I see why Hitler wanted Czechoslovakia. At one point, Prague was the capital of the Holy Roman Empire, or the First Reich. Hitler was trying to recreate the Holy Roman Empire by extending South East into Europe.
One of the reasons I think were the fact that his Reich only had foreign currency at times for a couple of weeks only. Annexing countries and their banks gave him time to do and prepare his army and country to war. Without Schacht he would have been done long before 1939 because he had no foreign currency. Ain´t that weird... Even how much he might have thought of Aryan nation he needed money,money,money....
If I recall correctly it was no problem for the Poles to take a part of the important industrial area for themselves when the Germans took the main part....
Or there were multiple reasons. History and the past were important parts of Hilter's ideology, and yes the Czech industry was a key component that Hitler used for the war effort.
Czechoslovakia was regarded as an aircraft carrier of the Soviet Union in a future war. Then there was the industry, the money, the german population ... Hitler was born in the Habsburg-Monarchy, when Bohemia belongs to Austria.
Plus the historical and mythical aspects of the Nazi belief system. Prague was once the capital of the Holy Roman Empire, the First Reich, The original "German" "Prussian" empire.
Yes Hitler was devious in the way he would do things. Even if he got what he wanted, he would always ask for more just to put things back into chaos. Chamberlain did not see this coming. With Hitler you had to try and beat him at his own game and know his next move. Chamberlain did not see the wolf in sheep's clothing even after meeting Hitler twice. Hitler liked conflict and if he had to create it he would to get his own way! Chamberlain was totally out of his league. I often wonder how Churchill would have seen and dealt with the whole situation at the time.
I ran across something interesting in, of all places, Norman Friedman's book on British destroyers and frigates. Writing about the accelerating rearmament in the late 1930s, he writes that after Munich, Chamberlain said in private that Hitler was the nastiest human being he'd ever met. Friedman wrote it just like that, not as a big revelation, but as if he was just mentioning something people already knew. New to me though.
From what I have read, knowledge of Hitler's traits were known but ignored. Most seemed to feel they could contain him despite his attititude. They weren't used to dealing with a megalomaniac.
I think rather they thought they knew how to deal with megalomaniacs. There were more than a few in 19th C. Europe IIRC.