Rewriting history...would you attack Germany?

[Darth Tater]

No, Stalin makes Hitler look like a nice guy. I think we should have played them off of each other.

[Darth Tater]

As much as it sounds bad, history has to play out the way it is supposed to.

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

History is what it is.

~Bang

A few years ago, I read two alternative-histories based on what if England had won the American Revolution. One showed an alternative reality that was great while the other discussed a horrible version. Thing was, both conclusions were valid.

[drums and skins]

I voted yes...but I was under the assumption you meant U.S. involvement.

I voted yes because we all know that the war did wonders to get us out of the depression slump.

However, if we got involved 15 years earlier...I can't even imagine what could have happened as a result. The baby boomers would well into retirement by now and I can't even imagine what kind of effect this would have had on technological innovation (computers, internet), music, and civil rights. Hell, if it did happen 15 years earlier, we might have rights for homosexuals already. The 90s would be the 80s...and so on. It would be quite odd.

But... after entertaining the thought, I pretty much have to second the opinion of Bang. History is what it is... You can only speculate in hindsight, and speculation is incredibly inaccurate.

[Darth Tater]

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

Quite false, we did not pull out of the depression of '37 until well after the war (probably around '48 or '49 when all that productive capability wasting in the military was released and absorbed). It is quite possible that the depression lasted as late as '53.

[Darth Tater]

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.

FDR was more of a facist than a communist.

[swaroopm]

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.

Thanks Predicto - I have to agree that Air Force Cane's comment is a "blatant misrepresentation" of my statements. I specifically said that "I'm not saying that's a good analogy," but Air Force Cane chose to exclude that line when quoting from my post. Fortunately, anyone with a reasonable level of literacy and reading comprehension skills will be able to see through Air Force Cane's post - a poor attempt to discredit my comments by cherry-picking. If Air Force Cane wants to embarrass himself, it's his own prerogative.

[swaroopm]

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

You quoted part of my post, but it's not clear to me what aspect of my post you "disagree" with. Either way, I don't disagree with your suggestion that prevention of the Holocaust might have prevented the formation of Israel - seems reasonable. In stating that I don't know what the long-term outcome of a 1930 Allied invasion of Germany would have been, I am just referring to the assumption that a 1930 Allied invasion of Germany would necessarily have prevented (rather than just delaying) the Holocaust.

[smsmith40]

AFC - I presumed you were talking about Iran. As for your response, I think I'll let it speak for itself. Obviously you have no idea where I'm coming from

Bang - I think you mean the Rhineland in 36 not Sudetenland in March 39.

As for your general point, its an interesting historical argument. I don't think that France had the ability to move its troops quickly enough into the Rhineland to make its difference. THe French military told the political leadership that it would take a general mobilisation and alll out war to stop Hitler. 18 years after the end of a conflict that cost it a million dead. The French were not ready to do that to stop Germany re-occupying it own territory.