Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if the Allies won the war in 1939?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by 1984 Brother View Post
    Very good thread poser, would an Britain, French, german alliance have formed to thwart the communist menace of Russia?

    The Japanese and USA would have still fought , if the Americans had continued to blockade Japan.

    Israel independence fighters would not have seen Britain flee from their terror tactics so easily had it not been weakened by war and a harassing pro Zionist USA.

    There would have been as you allude a more massive Japanese involvement in the chinese mainland, perhaps a treaty between the two asian giants to ward off US moves in the pacific.
    Russia could easily have been contained if something like a NATO had been put together. Even mroe if the buffer the Soviets created in 1945 didn't exist and Poland, Romania, etc. were in the alliance from the start.

    The rest of your post doesn't make sense to me. The US didn't start the blockade until 1941 after the Japanese occupied French-Indochina...owned by Vichy France (thus linked to WWII). It was Japan making moves in the Pacific and a treaty with China doesn't make sense (especially with a Communist China...then Japan might have allied with the USA against the Communists) given the fact they had been commiting aggresion and expanding in China for years.

    The part of a "Pro-Zionist, harrassing" USA scarcely deserves comment (but I will anyway). There might not have been Isreali independence fighters if there had not a been a war and Holocaust to encourage Jews to leave Europe...and you might check and see that Britian had been Pro-Zionist for a time as well.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by joea View Post
      Russia could easily have been contained if something like a NATO had been put together. Even mroe if the buffer the Soviets created in 1945 didn't exist and Poland, Romania, etc. were in the alliance from the start.

      The rest of your post doesn't make sense to me. The US didn't start the blockade until 1941 after the Japanese occupied French-Indochina...owned by Vichy France (thus linked to WWII). It was Japan making moves in the Pacific and a treaty with China doesn't make sense (especially with a Communist China...then Japan might have allied with the USA against the Communists) given the fact they had been commiting aggresion and expanding in China for years.

      The part of a "Pro-Zionist, harrassing" USA scarcely deserves comment (but I will anyway). There might not have been Isreali independence fighters if there had not a been a war and Holocaust to encourage Jews to leave Europe...and you might check and see that Britian had been Pro-Zionist for a time as well.
      True but I do recall reading that over 200 brits were blown up by Zionists at the hotel David?

      Not much of a thank you for a country that had it not stood up to Hitler, may have meant he suceeded in killing all trapped european Jews.

      In fact Iam appaled at this and other acts of violence against the British.

      Churchill was not Pro zionist, in fact he warned of the future troubles.

      Many people at that time were pro zionist, pity they had not been pro humanitarian.
      I dunno I was drunk at the time...a sinner before God.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by 1984 Brother View Post
        True but I do recall reading that over 200 brits were blown up by Zionists at the hotel David?

        Not much of a thank you for a country that had it not stood up to Hitler, may have meant he suceeded in killing all trapped european Jews.

        In fact Iam appaled at this and other acts of violence against the British.

        Churchill was not Pro zionist, in fact he warned of the future troubles.

        Many people at that time were pro zionist, pity they had not been pro humanitarian.
        Yes that part of the story is forgotten isn't it?

        Comment


        • #19
          What if the Allies won the war in 1939?

          Almost 50 million deaths less.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by jpg View Post
            What if the Allies won the war in 1939?

            Almost 50 million deaths less.
            who knows ?
            I dunno I was drunk at the time...a sinner before God.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by jpg View Post
              What if the Allies won the war in 1939?

              Almost 50 million deaths less.
              And the UN would not have been invented saving countries headaches in the furture!Un cause more trouble than Hitler and starlin caused.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Heidi View Post
                And the UN would not have been invented saving countries headaches in the furture!Un cause more trouble than Hitler and starlin caused.
                Biting humor, I suppose.

                Comment


                • #23
                  jpg. No it;s a true answer.ww2 caused the UN to be invented,and the un wround all the countries.
                  If not for ww2,we would not have the UN,and to me that;s a good thing.
                  My answers are suppose to be real,not trying to be funny.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Heidi View Post
                    And the UN would not have been invented saving countries headaches in the furture!
                    The League of Nations would be resurrected and/or reinforced by the victors instead. It would be pretty much the same thing. The old colonial powers (France and England) would have a dominant role and the rising powers (USA, USSR) would have a more limited role.

                    If Nazi Germany had been beaten in 1939 the world would have been different. Poland would be recognised a middle power. England and France would remain colonial powers and world leaders. Italy and Japan would re-think their plans. Italy would likely settle for the status quo. Japan still might try war with the USA. Too many of their leaders thought too little of the Americans. In any case the war in China drags on. However without the fall of France, the Indochina takeover does not occur and thus the oil emargo doesn't. That removes the primary motivator for the Japanese attack.

                    A lot depends on Stalin's actions in this scenario. If he still goes to war with Finland in the fall of 1940 then it is likely that France and Britian help the Finns and a general war errupts. However with Nazi Germany defeated so quickly he would likely do nothing. That would be good news for the Baltic states as they would retain their independence.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Sorry, 'England ?'

                      There are four countries in the UK, all of which played a part in the construction of the British Empire.

                      It wasn't English troops who were captured in 1940 after the Dunkirk evacuation, it wasn't an Englishman who founded the SAS and it wasn't an Englishman who was the first civilian casualty of German bombing of the UK during WW2, nor did those particular bombs fall on England.
                      Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Heidi View Post
                        jpg. No it;s a true answer.ww2 caused the UN to be invented,and the un wround all the countries.
                        If not for ww2,we would not have the UN,and to me that;s a good thing.
                        My answers are suppose to be real,not trying to be funny.
                        I think all the same that to say that UN caused more trouble than Hitler or Stalin is very exaggerated.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by the ace View Post
                          Sorry, 'England ?' ...
                          Do you use the term 'Holland' or the 'Netherlands'?

                          Holland are two counties in the western portion of the Netherlands. Somehow the term has come to be applied to the entire country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland

                          I can't imagine that an insult is intended by the use of England for the UK (or is it Great Britain? What's correct?) or Holland for the Netherlands.
                          Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Heidi View Post
                            jpg. No it;s a true answer.ww2 caused the UN to be invented,and the un wround all the countries.
                            If not for ww2,we would not have the UN,and to me that;s a good thing.
                            My answers are suppose to be real,not trying to be funny.
                            What the???

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Roadkiller View Post
                              Do you use the term 'Holland' or the 'Netherlands'?

                              Holland are two counties in the western portion of the Netherlands. Somehow the term has come to be applied to the entire country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland

                              I can't imagine that an insult is intended by the use of England for the UK (or is it Great Britain? What's correct?) or Holland for the Netherlands.
                              I use, 'The Netherlands,' there are nine provinces there, only two of which share the name, 'Holland.'

                              The UK is made up of three countries and the rump of a fourth, each with separate cultures, history and identity. England is merely the largest. Either, 'Britain,' or. 'The UK,' is acceptable, 'England,' is an insult to Scots, Welsh and Irish, the Queen, who claims the throne through Scottish descent, and the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who is a Scot.

                              The insult may not be intended but it's very real, like calling a Canadian a Yank, both insulting and inaccurate.

                              My passport says I'm British but no power in Heaven, Earth or Hell would make me call myself English. I'm a Scot, neither more nor less.
                              Last edited by the ace; 27 Mar 09, 17:39.
                              Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by the ace View Post
                                I use, 'The Netherlands,' there are nine provinces there, only two of which share the name, 'Holland.'
                                WHich is what he said,
                                Originally posted by the ace View Post
                                The UK is made up of three countries and the rump of a fourth, each with separate cultures, history and identity. England is merely the largest. Either, 'Britain,' or. 'The UK,' is acceptable, 'England,' is an insult to Scots, Welsh and Irish, the Queen, who claims the throne through Scottish descent, and the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who is a Scot.
                                Incorrect The United Kingdom Is made up of England, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall and Ireland...( Yes Cornwall was it's own nation with a unique language and it's own tongue, AND you forgot Ireland so if you're going to Nitpick make sure you're getting it right)

                                The Queen may claim the throne through Scottish decent but that's bull as she shares the Germanic Hanoverian ancestry.

                                You may take offense at the Generalization of the terminology but it's going to happen people being what they are.
                                Originally posted by the ace View Post
                                The insult may not be intended but it's very real, like calling a Canadian a Yank, both insulting and inaccurate.
                                I AM a Canadian, and I've been called American, by a Scotsman no less. I advised Him I'm from Canada but didn't get my back up or attack him for making a mistake. Essentially I "Sucked it up"

                                Originally posted by the ace View Post
                                My passport says I'm British but no power in Heaven, Earth or Hell would make me call myself English. I'm a Scot, neither more nor less.
                                Fair enough, no one asked you to call yourself English, but reacting as you have to something not intended as an insult does no service to you or your people from the perspective of the person you ripped into... it's the kind of thing I'd expect from an American... or an Englishman)
                                BoRG
                                "... and that was the last time they called me Freakboy Moses"

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X