what if there was no pearl harbour

[Gustaf]

Hitler's ultimate goal was to replace the Christian churches in Germany with a kind of neo-pagan church.

The Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats were the main political opponents of the Nazis in Germany and Austria. The liberal parties of these countries have been nazi-leaning, which is weird.

[Gustaf]

Hitler's ultimate goal was to replace the Christian churches in Germany with a kind of neo-pagan church.

The Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats were the main political opponents of the Nazis in Germany and Austria. The liberal parties of these countries have been nazi-leaning, which is weird.

Margaret Sanger, a US liberal icon, rationalized birth control as a means of reducing genetically transmitted mental or physical defects, and at times supported sterilization for the mentally incompetent. Sound familiar?

Well, yeah...but liberalism as I view it is very far from national socialism...I am usually content with the fact that the liberal conservatism I embrace is pretty much the exact opposite of national socailism...

[Gustaf]

In my humble opinion even if Pearl Harbor had never been attacked World War 2 would have still had Major U.S. Involvement (we were already well involved with Lend-Lease). Roosevelt was looking to get us into the war to help boost the economy. Roosevelt knew the attack was coming and chose to ignore intelligence that warned him about it 24 hours in advance. My proof of that are two examples : Both US Carriers were sent out on manuevers and a radar station picked up the Japanese fighters 3-4 hours before the attack and the high command dismissed it even though the experts said the radar wasnt lying. That tells you that FDR knew an attack was coming but I give him credit that sending the carriers out saved us and also the Japanese made a fatal mistake in not destroying the fuel tanks that were at Pearl Harbor. Our two biggest mistakes were not forming an alliance with China when they offered it to us after the Second World War. I still cant believe Truman rejected him. And not immediately driving the Soviets out of Eastern Europe. Just my thoughts.

I've heard these things before. Alliance with China, I suppose you're referring to Chiang Kai-Shek? The Guomintang killed more people then Hitler did, but I guess they would still have been better than the Communists. I wouldn't have wanted to be allied to him though, but that's my opinion. I think prolonging WWII would have been tough. I sympathize with the sentiment and everything, but I think it's very unrealistic.

[Gustaf]

I agree with you sir. But I believe the Chinese Communists extended their hand to us and Trumans rejected it. As for the prolonging WW2 I agree it probably would have been unrealistic. But it would have probably given a good change to history. Just a what if.

Just to make this clear, when was this alliance proposed, before or after 1949?

My point was that there was a lot of weariness and war exhaustion by 1945, and a lot of joy at the victory. I am not sure how such a war would have played out. The Soviet Union and its leadership was relatively popular at that time, both domestically and abroad. To fight them could have been tough. If they had been attacked it might also have increased sympathy for them rather a lot and made the war harder. I am not saying the US would have lost, but I am not convinced that they could have won. All of this supposes that they haven't got nukes yet, of course.

[Gustaf]

I agree, and I believe Communist China outstreched the hand for an alliance either in late 45 or early 46. Yes nukes would have definately added another problem for either side, although I believe Russia didnt detonate their first nuke till 1949? Correct?

British Communist scientist gave it to the Russians, but I'm not sure of the exact date. Bu there was a period when only the West had nukes. I have to go now, will get back ti this later...

[Gustaf]

I don't think the reason for the Middle East being anti-American was your involvement in WWII. And a Cold War against Germany could very well have occured. And condemning, among others, 5 million Jews to death would have been bad, imo.

[Gustaf]

I don't think the reason for the Middle East being anti-American was your involvement in WWII. And a Cold War against Germany could very well have occured. And condemning, among others, 5 million Jews to death would have been bad, imo.

The reason for the Middle East being so messed up has its roots in British Colonialism and the break-up of the Ottoman Empire after World War 1. The allies of WW1 didn't know when to leave well enough alone and did a lot of damage to national pride and helped inflame World War 2. Yes, I do blame the French and the British for inflaming World War 2, more so the French for meddling in the Rhineland and the way they treated German citizens and destroyed the German economy between the wars. Iraq fought against the British in the very early part of World War two but were quickly taken over. Many of the wars and conflicts of the 20th Century can be attributed to the Colonialism of the French and British in the mid to late 19th Century. Examples would be Vietnam, Palestinian Mandate, Egypt, other parts of S.E. Asia, Africa. Often the British and French just ditched their colonies and left them with barely anything that resembled a stable government. In my opinion neither side was really in the "right" during World War 1. I believe Austria was defending itself after the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand and Austrias' allies jumped in to support them.

Lot of stuff here...the prime reason for the Middle East being messed up is the fact that they messed up. But it's obvious that Western powers made the situaiton worse to a degree. In particular the fact that the Arabs were promised independence from Turkey in WWI but didn't get it.

It's also obvious that the French anti-Germany policy of the 20s did a lot to help Hitler to power. once again the burden of respnosobility must still be on those who actually started the war though, imo.

When it comes to WWI, everyone was looking for a war and has a share in the blame. But Austria was wrong, the demands they put on Serbia were meant to rob the Serbs of their independence, imo.

[Gustaf]

Why does everyone forget about all the people Hitler killed that WEREN'T Jewish. I dont mean to minimalize their deaths but non-Jews are always overlooked. And if you want to talk about who killed more Stalin was much much much worse then Hitler. Stalin made Hitler look like a rookie in regards to murder. About 90% of Germans never came back from Soviet prison camps, and about 90% of Soviet prisoners came HOME from German prison camps.

I didn't forget about them, that's the 'among others' in my above post. I won't argue with you on Stalin, but I fail to see your point. And the percentages just might have something to do woth the fact that Nazi-Germany lost and the Soviet Union won, no?

[Gustaf]

I don't think the reason for the Middle East being anti-American was your involvement in WWII. And a Cold War against Germany could very well have occured. And condemning, among others, 5 million Jews to death would have been bad, imo.

It was about 6.3 million

Just to clarify, I believe that there were 11 million Jews in Europe at the time and of those about 6 million were killed by the Nazis. So the remaining 5 million were those I referred to, since they would have been killed as well if the Nazis hadn't lsot the war by 1945.

[Gustaf]

Might be but its also known that that Nazis were not as harsh with certain POWs as they were with civilians. The Japanese had the worst treatment of POWs. You should hear the stories I've heard from a person I know who lived in the Phillipines during the occupation of Japan. Disgusting.

I have read 'King Rat'. I know.

[Gustaf]

The next debate would be "How much of the holocaust did the German people ACTUALLY know about?" Now that's a can of worms in itself.

Probably not all there was to know, but that doesn't really matter much. They knew what Hitler wanted with the Jews.

[Gustaf]

This guy I used to work with say Japanese soldiers tossing babies in the air and catching them with their bayonets.

I am not sure what your point is. They were cruel, yeah. I am not arguing that. I've read Jungle War by Charles Rolls, I think he's name was.

[Gustaf]

Why does everyone forget about all the people Hitler killed that WEREN'T Jewish. I dont mean to minimalize their deaths but non-Jews are always overlooked. And if you want to talk about who killed more Stalin was much much much worse then Hitler. Stalin made Hitler look like a rookie in regards to murder. About 90% of Germans never came back from Soviet prison camps, and about 90% of Soviet prisoners came HOME from German prison camps.

he was not after any other people on a jenocide mission

Gypses, or Romes. And homosexuals, though that's a different kind of group.

[Gustaf]

Wasn't it Stalin who said:

To kill one is a tragedy. To kill thousands is a statistic.

Stalin made sure there were no tragedies ...

Yeah, though it might have been milloins, I'm not sure...

Regarding Gypses, there weren't as many of them as there were Jews to begin with I think.

[Gustaf]

Man of the century? Charlie Chaplin.

I like Churchill as well.

[Gustaf]

Man of the century? Charlie Chaplin.

 

I don't know if that means that you can't believe what a stupid choice Charlie Chaplin is, or you are not familiar with Charlie Chaplin.  

The first one, my friend, believe me, the first one...I've seen the one where he eats his shoe-laces. Funny, yeah, but man of the century...I repeat: