Rewriting history...would you attack Germany?

[CrabR]

great thread.

If you were a liberal minded socialist in Paris and London- the answer was no. It was called APPEASEMENT, and there are millions who still practice it today.

The overwhelming majority of people liberal and conservative were against going to war back then. The horrors of WWI was fresh in peoples memories, and most of what Hitler was asking for was stuff that was taken from Germany by the Versailles Treaty, who many agreed was to harsh including Woodrow Wilson

You make it out to be something it wasn't

[PokerPacker]

another thing i don't think has been mentioned is the fact that WWII pulled the US out of the Great Depression.

[gchwood]

another thing i don't think has been mentioned is the fact that WWII pulled the US out of the Great Depression.

That is because there was a huge demand for factory workers. Never before were factories do important but than they were mass producing the M1 Garands, the Shermans, and all that ammo, plus many many men went into the military which started circulating money from the government to the citizens (albeit the value of a dollar plummetted as well). See war isn't always bad.

[Prosperity]

The answer is yes.

sincerely - a liberal minded American.

Your simplistic mischaracterizations of what liberals believe or stand for are a tired joke, getting more tired with every one of you posts.

except no one in the world joined to fight ww2 to save the Jews, that was a secondary, maybe even a tertiary reason.

^no country

====

under those circumstances probably not. I would have probably stepped in sometime between Hitler's taking of the Sudetland and the taking of Czeckslovakia.

[LD0506]

Let me ask you again - do you really think the GIs would have followed him to Moscow in 1945? How could we possibly have justified such an act to the American people at that time?

I thought this was a game of "what if?" and not "should we?"

I think that politicians, especially during wartime, could manufacture justification for damn near anything under the sun. It sure didn't take long to go from "Yay! We won the war!" to "Those damn commies!" and the Berlin airlift. The Korean War began a scant five years later so I don't know that the will to oppose them was totally lacking. Truman was as tough as they come and somewhat less starry-eyed about the Rooskies than FDR was. There was a lot known at the time that was just left unsaid since the USSR was our "ally" against Germany but that could have been churned out of our propaganda mills quickly enough if needed. The British, in spite of being very tired, were staunchly anti-communist and would have likely been in support of it if it did come to pass.

Having said all that, I don't think that anyone would have been truckin Moscow-ward 'cuz if it did start that would have been #3 after Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

[Predicto]

I thought this was a game of "what if?" and not "should we?"

I think that politicians, especially during wartime, could manufacture justification for damn near anything under the sun. It sure didn't take long to go from "Yay! We won the war!" to "Those damn commies!" and the Berlin airlift. The Korean War began a scant five years later so I don't know that the will to oppose them was totally lacking. Truman was as tough as they come and somewhat less starry-eyed about the Rooskies than FDR was. There was a lot known at the time that was just left unsaid since the USSR was our "ally" against Germany but that could have been churned out of our propaganda mills quickly enough if needed. The British, in spite of being very tired, were staunchly anti-communist and would have likely been in support of it if it did come to pass.

Having said all that, I don't think that anyone would have been truckin Moscow-ward 'cuz if it did start that would have been #3 after Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

Five years later is a different than Patton just continuing on past Berlin to Moscow in 1945. A lot different.

[Predicto]

I thought this was a game of "what if?" and not "should we?"

It is, but I stick to "what if" in the realm of the politically possible at the time.

[LD0506]

It is, but I stick to "what if" in the realm of the politically possible at the time.

Well that just sucks the fun right out of it!

[Predicto]

Well that just sucks the fun right out of it!

sorry jeez

I kilt the thread....

[Seabee1973]

Sure, but simplistically, you can prevent millions of deaths by invading Germany. Again, knowing what we know now, I think you HAVE to.

Or we could have caused millions more. It would be a tough call to make

[swaroopm]

Several of you are missing the point of this thread.

Its an analogy. Replace Nazi's, Germany, and Allies with Hezbulla, Lebanon, and Israel.

BTW, I could see the partial reformation of the Ottoman Empire if Israel were eliminated.

The original question is an interesting one, but the thread is undermined by comical statements like the two above.

If I ask you a question about apples, it doesn't mean I can necessarily apply your answer to oranges. It does not make any sense to draw a tripartite analogy between Hezbollah and the Nazis, Lebanon and Nazi Germany, and Israel and the Allied Forces. The differences between each pair are too numerous for me to list in full, but the weakness of the attempted analogy is perhaps most obvious because one can just as easily make nearly the opposite analogy, comparing Lebanon to 1930s Poland (a weak state caught between competing regional powers) and Israel to 1930s Germany (a powerful state that feels threatened by its neighbors and is concerned with its own stability, security, and expansionist agenda). I'm not saying that's a good analogy, but it's no worse than the one posed by Zguy28. "The point of this thread" may have been an analogy, but the attempted analogy is so poor that it does not really merit discussion.

I don't understand what is meant by "the partial reformation of the Ottoman Empire." Who would be in this new empire? Anyone who thinks that the Ottoman Empire broke up because of Israel, or that people in the Middle East have shown a desire to unify their states into a larger state or empire, should put away their game of RISK and head to the library to study the history of the Ottoman Empire, the means by which it was kept together, and its eventual decline and dissolution. If the relevant people are interested in unification, why do we see such discord among various groups in Iraq, the open rejection of Syrian influence in Lebanon after the killing of Rafik Hariri, the oft-expressed (in words and deeds) desire of Kurds for their own independent state, or the westward leanings of Turkey (as evidenced by its pursuit of NATO membership)? Personally, I see parallels between the decline of the USSR and of the Ottoman Empire, and I could see either empire being revived by a powerful central state. Such a state exists in the case of the USSR (Russia) but not in the case of the Ottoman Empire.

[swaroopm]

Let's travel back to 1930.

Adolf Hitler and his Brownshirts(Nazis) are rising in power in Germany. He's not ReichsChancellor yet, but the Nazi's hold seats in Parliament, even though many Germans don't agree with the Nazi's.

Knowing what you know now about the impending future of Europe (WWII, Holocaust, etc.), would you attack Germany if you had the armed forces of the Allies at you disposal?

Oh, and by the way, assassination attempts against Hitler have failed already.

Returning to the original question, I vote no. If the Allied Forces had attacked Germany in 1930, I don't know what it would have accomplished. We would have faced the same problem that we now face in Iraq, namely, "woo hoo we won!...now what do we do?" To anyone who has posted that we should have invaded Germany in 1930, my question is this: what is the purpose of the invasion, and how does an invasion serve to achieve that purpose? As some of the other posts have pointed out, it's not like we could have invaded in 1930, gotten rid of Hitler, and just had everything turn out fine after that. Who knows how things would have turned out in the future? I think (in hindsight!) it's obvious that the correct course of action would not have been to invade Germany but would have been to contain Hitler and Germany to the extent possible, especially to prevent them from expanding and conquering neighboring countries. Containment, not appeasement; the line had to be drawn at the Sudetenland. To invade Germany in 1930 would just have generated more of the resentment and fear (in Germany) which resulted from the Treaty of Versailles and propelled Hitler to power in the first place.

[swaroopm]

So, are you saying knowing what we know now? If so, then of course. Why wouldn't someone have attacked Germany and nipped it in the bud right away? It would have saved a lot of lives in the long run I would think.

My problem with this statement is the assumption that if we would "have attacked Germany," we would have "nipped it in the bud right away." Remember, Hitler came to power because Germans felt demeaned and demoralized in the aftermath of WWI and Hitler offered them a vision of a strong and powerful Germany. If we had invaded Germany without provocation in 1930, it probably would have left Germans with the sense that their fears (of the rest of Europe planning to dominate them) were valid and would have given all the more credibility to the next German leader (e.g. Hitler II, Son of Hitler) who preyed on their fears and offered them that vision of revived power. A 1930 invasion of Germany may just have delayed the German war of conquest, not prevented it. Rather than invade in 1930, I think it would have been better to let the Germans rebuild some national pride so they wouldn't be so eager and excited to elect (!) and empower a nationalist leader like Hitler. Of course, letting them have some pride and letting them take over neighboring states are two very different things.

Obviously, letting them have some pride and letting them carry out a genocide against some of their own people are also two very different things. On a related note, if we can sit here and agree that genocide is awful and should be stopped, by force if necessary, then why didn't we invade Cambodia in the 1970s, Rwanda in the 1990s, Bosnia in the 1990s, or Sudan in the 2000s (now)?

[swaroopm]

While it may be fun to play "what if?" like this you have to factor in everything. The Allies in '30 had a dismal military, economically things were in the crapper, there were not yet any of the technological advances that allowed us to overwhelm the Germans. Even if you could have pulled the trigger to start who's to say it wouldn't have settled into another slugfest-in-the-trenches? You have to remember that Britain had to weather the Blitz and we had to crank up our industrial base before we started turning the tide in 43-44.

Insightful. :applause:

[Air Force Cane]

LDO56-

not sure what you are talking about. I wrote: "If you were a liberal minded socialist in Paris and London- the answer was no. It was called APPEASEMENT"

how does saying FDR helped the English in 1940 contradict my point?

[Bang]

"If Nazi Germany is defused we have no guarantee the world would have not been any worse from some other reason."

Well, except for the 6 million Jews and the millions of Gypsies, Poles, Slavs and Russians who were exterminated, that is a great point.

I understand that. Ancestors of mine were among them. But, in terms of altering history, who's to say that among those 6 million wasn't a worse monster than Hitler?

There's a lot of real life what-if scenarios. What if the mustard gas had killed Hitler in WW1? He got hit with it in an attack and survived, a rare thing indeed.

Adolf Hitler's father was an illegitimate child named Shicklgruber. He took the name "Heidler" from his stepfather, and mis-spelled it "Hitler".

Would the nazi party have even happened had he had a name like Adolf Shicklgruber? Not very charismatic at all.

Given the state of warfare that the globe has been in since the mid 1800s (hardly a day has gone by without warfare of some sort on the earth.) it stands to reason that had Hitler and the Third Reich not risen, than some other evil would have.

World War 2 has done more to affect the course of human events than any single event in history. It's is the single largest cataclysm humanity has ever faced. The world as a result of it is radically different.

Consider the technological advances made in just 6 years necessitated by the war. The result on the world has been amazing. Since 1935 or so technology in general has exploded with exponential leaps forward, most of it forced by the war. Unfortunately, a lot of it hasn't been used for good, but technology is what it is. It's up to us to use it right.

Would those advances have happened?

What would world population be like now if all those millions hadn't died? In this country, would there have been a baby boom? How many of us would simply not exist if it didn't happen?

It's an interesting debate, and I think it goes a lot deeper than just the lives that would have been spared by avoiding the war.

~Bang

[CrabR]

Returning to the original question, I vote no. If the Allied Forces had attacked Germany in 1930, I don't know what it would have accomplished. We would have faced the same problem that we now face in Iraq, namely, "woo hoo we won!...now what do we do?"

I disagree, I think if we had prevented the holocaust there would be no Israel today, the refugees from Europe fueled the Zionist moment in Palestine. It has always been my contention that Hitler inadvertently created Israel. No Israel no mideast conflict today, the Arabs would provably still be fighting each other

[LD0506]

LDO56-

not sure what you are talking about. I wrote: "If you were a liberal minded socialist in Paris and London- the answer was no. It was called APPEASEMENT"

how does saying FDR helped the English in 1940 contradict my point?

My point was that the left/ liberal/ socialist faction at the time was already more aware of Hitler as a threat than others. I've heard FDR referred to as a socialist, hell as a communist, for the New Deal programs he instituted, etc., yet he was an ardent supporter of the British and bent a few rules trying to intervene against the Germans before he legally could. If you recall the Spanish Civil War drew partisan support from across Europe to oppose Franco and his support from the fascist states.

Appeasing Hitler in the 30s didn't work, no one argues that but is it right to attribute that to "liberal socialists"? The pro-German, anti-communists, right wing elements in various western states were the ones pushing that agenda. A lot of statesmen liked the idea of a hardcore German bulwark against the Russians. I think if you wanted to label Chamberlain (directly responsible for adding appeasement to the vernacular with his "Peace in our time" fiasco), you might just use woolyheaded. The guy didn't have a clue.

[No_Pressure]

WW2 would probably happen if you pre-emptivly attack Germany or not because of what was done to the German people in the treaty of Versailles. They were going to get back on their feet pissed off no matter who was in charge. There are so many factors in the world in 1930 that made it perfect for some nut to rise to power in Germany and thats exactly what happened. Who is to say that if you kill off Hitler, one of his followers who was equally crazy, but smarter with his military, wouldnt take over and lead the Nazis to conquer the globe...who is to say that someone worse wouldnt have taken over?

Plus like I said there are too many factors to consider. A military attack may be impossible considering how there was a world wide depression going on in 1930...

You really want to stop the Nazis you go back in time and change the rule in the Reichstag seat election rule where for every X number of votes a party recieves in an area, even if they arent the winners, they get a seat. Thats how the Nazis crept their way into the Reichstag. Barely winning enough votes to lose but still be awarded representation. Hell while were at it in 1930 how about making sure that the Germans actually stay disarmed instead of making special trips in the mid to late 30's to the Soviet Union to test their new airplanes, tanks, machineguns, rifles, artillery, and rockets.

There are too many factors to consider, it would be impossible to rationalize a decision like that.

[smsmith40]

If you were a liberal minded socialist in Paris and London- the answer was no. It was called APPEASEMENT, and there are millions who still practice it today.

AFC and I have had this argument before and there is no point going over it again, although I think even he would accept that in 1930 neither France nor the UK had the mobility, leadership or manpower to successfully invade or hold Germany in 1930 (as opposed to 36 or 38).

Also, Chamberlain was a Conservative not a LIberal or a Socialist.

Obviously that's a bit of a problem for his analogy, there's also the fact that it was the conservatives in the US that were desperate for FDR to stay out of Europe between 39 and 42.

[Bang]

AFC and I have had this argument before and there is no point going over it again, although I think even he would accept that in 1930 neither France nor the UK had the mobility, leadership or manpower to successfully invade or hold Germany in 1930 (as opposed to 36 or 38).

Also, Chamberlain was a Conservative not a LIberal or a Socialist.

Obviously that's a bit of a problem for his analogy, there's also the fact that it was the conservatives in the US that were desperate for FDR to stay out of Europe between 39 and 42.

They wouldn't have had to invade and hold anything. When Germany's illegal military marched into and re-took the Sudetenland they barely had any army at all. It was all a big show with a scary facade, and if the French had responded rather than be frightened by the show, they would have destroyed the fledgling wehrmacht, and possibly turned public opinion against the National Socialist party causing Germany to oust Hitler themselves.

Instead, Hitler managed to use the cowing of the French to convince everyone he had this big modern mechanized war machine, which in large part he did not. (At least not yet.).. He also used it as a rallying cry to the rest of the Germanic people to join in the reunification with the Fatherland.

Hitler used the manufactured joy of the "liberated" German people of the Sudetenland to turn public opinion in his favor in central Europe for a while.

The army didn't have to fire a single shot in the annexation of Austria, the people there nervously accepted that as Bavarian descent they were to be part of the reich, and let him waltz right in. Again, the impression to the world was that he had power, when in truth he and his cronies had 'invited' the Austrian leader to his retreat in the Alps, forced him to sign a document turning the country over, then gut shot him and took pictures of him while he died on a couch.

That led to the erasure of Czechoslvakia as a sovreign state, and to the claim of Danzig in the 'treaty' with the Soviets... to the invasion of Poland, and on down the line.

Had the French acted rather than appease, arguably none of it would have happened at all.

~Bang

[Air Force Cane]

"one can just as easily make nearly the opposite analogy, comparing Lebanon to 1930s Poland (a weak state caught between competing regional powers) and Israel to 1930s Germany (a powerful state that feels threatened by its neighbors and is concerned with its own stability, security, and expansionist agenda)."

So, the tiny country of Israel, the size of Maryland, the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, which UNILATERALLY WITHDREW from Gaza and South Lebanon- are now the Nazis?

Isn't it interesting how certain people will always try to make the analogy between Jews and Nazis.

Just so we know where you are coming from...

[Predicto]

"one can just as easily make nearly the opposite analogy, comparing Lebanon to 1930s Poland (a weak state caught between competing regional powers) and Israel to 1930s Germany (a powerful state that feels threatened by its neighbors and is concerned with its own stability, security, and expansionist agenda)."

So, the tiny country of Israel, the size of Maryland, the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, which UNILATERALLY WITHDREW from Gaza and South Lebanon- are now the Nazis?

Isn't it interesting how certain people will always try to make the analogy between Jews and Nazis.

Just so we know where you are coming from...

That is a blatant misrepresentation of what he was saying. A repulsive low blow even for you.

[LD0506]

They wouldn't have had to invade and hold anything. When Germany's illegal military marched into and re-took the Sudetenland they barely had any army at all. It was all a big show with a scary facade, and if the French had responded rather than be frightened by the show, they would have destroyed the fledgling wehrmacht, and possibly turned public opinion against the National Socialist party causing Germany to oust Hitler themselves.

Instead, Hitler managed to use the cowing of the French to convince everyone he had this big modern mechanized war machine, which in large part he did not. (At least not yet.).. He also used it as a rallying cry to the rest of the Germanic people to join in the reunification with the Fatherland.

Hitler used the manufactured joy of the "liberated" German people of the Sudetenland to turn public opinion in his favor in central Europe for a while.

The army didn't have to fire a single shot in the annexation of Austria, the people there nervously accepted that as Bavarian descent they were to be part of the reich, and let him waltz right in. Again, the impression to the world was that he had power, when in truth he and his cronies had 'invited' the Austrian leader to his retreat in the Alps, forced him to sign a document turning the country over, then gut shot him and took pictures of him while he died on a couch.

That led to the erasure of Czechoslvakia as a sovreign state, and to the claim of Danzig in the 'treaty' with the Soviets... to the invasion of Poland, and on down the line.

Had the French acted rather than appease, arguably none of it would have happened at all.

~Bang

Great post Bang.

This of course was because the NSDAP was the first to truly understand and utilize the electronic media for pure propaganda purposes. In the neverending perception vs reality cagematch perception always wins. Goebbels may have been a giftzwerg of the highest order but he was a master at his craft.

[JuanC]

Let's travel back to 1930.

Adolf Hitler and his Brownshirts(Nazis) are rising in power in Germany. He's not ReichsChancellor yet, but the Nazi's hold seats in Parliament, even though many Germans don't agree with the Nazi's.

Knowing what you know now about the impending future of Europe (WWII, Holocaust, etc.), would you attack Germany if you had the armed forces of the Allies at you disposal?

Oh, and by the way, assassination attempts against Hitler have failed already.

Yes I would attack Germany. The atom bomb may not be invented if WW2 happened earlier and with Germany completely eliminated. Possibly the cold war may not have happened either also, because the U.S. might have stayed allies with the Soviets and the Soviet Union might have converted into a democratic government earlier and not being a communist nation.

Or it would have been possible that the cold war would have happened, it would have been a similar one if the Soviet Union started to get tensions with the US. The Domino effect could have happened to more nations, and there could have been more wars as a result of that. So there may be more wars similar to the ones that happened during the cold war (Korea, Vietnam).

There is a lot more things that would not have happened along with the cold war (well some of these events were related to the cold war) if Germany gets attacked by the allies earlier (I think there is probably more):

• Korean War
  
• Cuban Missle Crisis
  
• Vietnam War
  
• Hiroshima
  
• Pearl Harbor
  
• Holocaust
  

Now Japan might have never been affected either, so they would not have a reason to attack to the U.S. so Hiroshima and Pearl Harbor would have never happened because they are neutral. But Japan could also turn bad and end up battling the allies and the U.S. in this scenario. So Japan can go either way: end up an ally or end up a bad guy.

And now since Germany has been eliminated there could be other countries that would be playing the bad guy. So this could go on and on and on branching off with different events that would/could not happen with periods of peace and violence until it ends up to the modern day world.

Just my:2cents: