Please Ponder This And Offer Thoughts And Opinions

[Hondo]

I am well aware of what most us think of the US, Britain, & Iraq situation and my purpose here is not to justify the invasion, but to use it within the context of a "what if" scenario. The key phrase here is "Those that refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

Most of the world considers Hitler and the Nazi Party as the absolute definition of evil in modern times. Their policies led to a war that involved some 70 nations and an estimated 60 million dead.

By 1937 Hitler was already showing his hand with racial policies within Germany and making noises towards Austria. The Gestapo had already begun to "influence" the courts.

Saddam by comparison had already had a go at Iran and Kuwait. His behavior towards selected groups was certainly less than pleasant. I think most would agree that Saddam was the courts. Seems I have heard, but can't confirm, that Saddam thought very highly of Adolf Hitler.

My question is what would the world have thought if Britain and France had invaded Germany in 1937 and thrown Hitler and the Nazi Party out? What would the world opinion be of them today? What would their own citizens have thought about it? Keep in mind that if this had happened, it is unlikely that WWII as we know it would have happened, so none of us would ever know what had been prevented. Would the world have roundly condemned them for an unlawful invasion of a peaceful country? Would the USA have condemned them for the invasion? Would the USA have tried to put trade restrictions on Britain and France until they withdrew from Germany? Hindsight being what it is we now know what such an invasion would have prevented and been grateful for it.

Although I don't agree with the invasion of Iraq, as something of a history buff I do sometimes wonder if this invasion hasn't prevented something even worse in the future. Especially since none of the Arab nations seem to be shedding any tears about Saddam being out of the picture now.

How about it, what would the world have had to say about Britain and France invading Germany? What would you have said?

[Gannex]

Very interesting question, Fiero, to which I don't have an answer. But I'm tempted to think that the historical verdict on an invasion of Germany in 1937 might depend on how the invasion had been carried out, how it had impacted on German civilians, and on how well the occupation and withdrawal had been handled.

[harsha]

don't forget that the Russians and Germans had a pact,it would still have led to a world war though

[DocF225]

The problem with these types of exercises is that they suppose the remaining events of the time would have remained static. In reality, humans react to their situations and surroundings. A stoppage of the Nazi rise to power would not necesarily curtail Japan's drive to expand their empire. It probably would have led to the expansion of Russia's sphere of influence.

The seeds of WWII were sewn at the Treaty of Versailles at the close of WWI. The second world war, in some form, was inevitable

The seeds of Korea, Viet Nam and the Middle East were sewn at the close of WWII. These wars were/are inevitable.

[Rollo]

My question is what would the world have thought if Britain and France had invaded Germany in 1937 and thrown Hitler and the Nazi Party out? What would the world opinion be of them today? What would their own citizens have thought about it?

An invasion of Germany in 1937 would have seen every German person fight with even more voracity than we saw in 1939. Owing to the treaties which were in place, then Austria would have also likely have joined as would have Italy. If your own homeland is being attacked, then people tend to defend it to and beyond their last.

This is just a theory of mine, but scientists that were working on the nuclear program probably would not have been fudging results and dare I say it, nuclear attacks on both London and Paris would have possibly been likely by Jun 1940.

The solution if you wanted to remove both Hitler quietly would have been to send in a division of the SAS and silently assassinated him.

Actually it would have been the best option against Saddam Hussain before the invasion, and I think I probably said so as well.

[Eki]

Saddam by comparison had already had a go at Iran and Kuwait. His behavior towards selected groups was certainly less than pleasant. I think most would agree that Saddam was the courts. Seems I have heard, but can't confirm, that Saddam thought very highly of Adolf Hitler.
I've heard Saddam admired Stalin, not Hitler.

Iraq had been seriously weakened for over 10 years and most likely wasn't a threat to anyone else but Saddam's opposition inside Iraq.

[Eki]

An invasion of Germany in 1937 would have seen every German person fight with even more voracity than we saw in 1939. Owing to the treaties which were in place, then Austria would have also likely have joined as would have Italy. If your own homeland is being attacked, then people tend to defend it to and beyond their last.
Exactly. And to think the German military would still have been intact and not spread and worn out all over Europe. And it would have been defensive war fare for Germany instead of offensive. In the army we were thought that an invading military needs 3 times more troops to hold occupied area than the defenders, 10 times more if the defenders go to guerilla war fare. I think Germany would have had a good chance to end up on top.

[Mark in Oshawa]

An invasion of Germany in 1937 would have seen every German person fight with even more voracity than we saw in 1939. Owing to the treaties which were in place, then Austria would have also likely have joined as would have Italy. If your own homeland is being attacked, then people tend to defend it to and beyond their last.

This is just a theory of mine, but scientists that were working on the nuclear program probably would not have been fudging results and dare I say it, nuclear attacks on both London and Paris would have possibly been likely by Jun 1940.

The solution if you wanted to remove both Hitler quietly would have been to send in a division of the SAS and silently assassinated him.

Actually it would have been the best option against Saddam Hussain before the invasion, and I think I probably said so as well.

Well, Rollo, the SAS was created in WW2 so they couldn't have done the job before hand, and political assassinations are just not part of their training.

I think if Britain and France invaded Germany, in many ways the world would have been radically different, and maybe not for the good. Fiero has a very good point, in that would Hitler have had a chance to do what he did? The problem is, most of the world tolerated some of his dark tendencies while admiring the way he rebuilt his nation. Heck, even Mahatma Ghandi was quoted in saying what an impressive guy Hitler was. Furthermore, the only people in Britain that were saying Hitler was going to be a problem were a small and vocal minority of people who believed in Churchill. That, and the communist party of the UK, who the second the Ribbentrop pact was signed all the sudden thought Hitler wasn't a bad guy at all.

It is really hard to say if the Brits and France could have won the war and gotten away with it, but they were not ready to fight then either. Len Deighton's excellent book "Blood, Sweat, Tears and Folly" details much of this pre-war era and the diplomatic movements involved. The fact is, Germany if they wanted to win probably should have been at war with the UK and France in 1937, for the Brits were not even CLOSE to being ready, and the French were really disorganized and ready for what was to come.

If you translate this situation to modern times, you cannot take that situation and apply it to this one and get a neat answer. First off, Eki is right in this, Saddam was no Hitler, and yes, he admired Stalin. That there condemns him as a moran but not worthy of invasion. I think what changed the dynamic was the reality of 9/11. Iraq did not have anything to do with that horrific attack BUT he certainly didn't disapprove of it either. Furthermore, his connections to Hamas were well documented as he had been supporting them all along even when Iraq was under sanctions. To understand the fear Americans felt, you had to be in America or watching from next door like I have.I think Dubya decided no more terrorist attacks were going to happen on US soil under his watch. He saw Saddam and his games with the UN, and the possiblity of WMD's and thought nothing good.

As we know now, Saddam didn't have them, but man he played poker like he had them, and that was likely enough to tip the balance from just being a nuisance. I think the other factor was the Americans knew they could take him down without a large loss of life.

Compared to what has happened in the "peace" the invasion was relatively light in casualties to Americans and civilians ( I know Eki, a lot have died, but trust me, most Iraqi's are glad he is gone, your link to tHAT poll is back on the other thread) . The biggest reason I was against the invasion was I KNEW that the Americans had no idea of the mess they would have by taking the lid off the pot. We know now what a mess Iraq is, but at some point, Iraqi's have to decide if they are one nation, or three. The Americans have been trying to keep it one, but the reality of it is, maybe at some point, they have to just pull back to the North, and say, Have at it.....I know the Kurd's are a lot better off. It is the Sunni's and Shiites that seem bound and determined to kill each other. Maliki has been a disaster as a leader, but hey, he was elected. Like any elected leader, he can suck at his job, and that is a lot what is going on now...

The Americans did this with the best of intentions I believe ( others don't but some believe the worst of everything they do ) and have not found the magic forumla to impose peace. The only practice the Americans have had at rebuilding two nations who were conquered and they are Germany and Japan. IN both cases, both of them were wore out, broken economically, and scared of the worse fate of the USSR. They listened, rebuilt their economies and constitutions and are now good members of the world of nations. What is more, they are independent. The problem is, Iraqi's seem to fight with each other over everything. Democracy might happen there in time, but the growing pains are going to be ugly I guess.

Every war happens for different reasons, and while Iraq was not going to be Nazi Germany, it wasn't for lack of trying on Saddam's part.....

[Hondo]

To Harsha and Doc, thats why I said it would have stopped WWII "as we know it", I didn't mean to say there would have been no war. In 1937 Japan was already in China and quite possibly aggressive moves by Britain and France in Europe might have made Japan think twice about fooling around with their colonial holdings in Asia.

There is no doubt the German people would have fought the invaders. In 1937 most of them saw Hitler as a good thing. Also in 1937 the German army wasn't anywhere near the fighting force it was by 1939.

Stalin and Hitler didn't like or trust each other. I think, if anything, Stalin would have waited until Britain, France, and Germany had worn themselves out and then would have come in on the side of Britain and France, gaining Germany and allowing the Anglo-French forces to quit and go home like their civil populations would have been screaming for by then. Stalin would then have had a free hand in dealing with German insurgency Stalin's way. Stalin didn't care about world opinion.

Still, the basic question remains, what would world opinion of the invasion had been and what would you have thought of such an invasion. The question was not what would have happened instead. What would you have thought of the invasion at the time?

It's not an easy question but I think most nations, including the USA would have taken a dim view of two superpowers making an unprovoked invasion of a poor country that was bothering nobody, while trying so hard to rebuild itself into something good and positive after the last war.

[Eki]

Still, the basic question remains, what would world opinion of the invasion had been and what would you have thought of such an invasion. The question was not what would have happened instead. What would you have thought of the invasion at the time?

I'm against pre-emptive war in every case, because nobody can predict the future accurately. A probable war, even a likely war, is still better than a sure war.

[Hondo]

Very interesting question, Fiero, to which I don't have an answer. But I'm tempted to think that the historical verdict on an invasion of Germany in 1937 might depend on how the invasion had been carried out, how it had impacted on German civilians, and on how well the occupation and withdrawal had been handled.

I don't care about the historical verdict. I want to know what Gannex, Englishman In Situ, would have thought if while shaving one morning, he heard over the radio that his country, allied with France, had just invaded Germany and was rolling towards Berlin.

[Hondo]

I'm against pre-emptive war in every case, because nobody can predict the future accurately. A probable war, even a likely war, is still better than a sure war.

I tend to agree with you. However, do you necessarily have to be physically attacked first before your strike is pre-emptive or what level of proof of intent would be acceptable? If you had documents, human itelligence from inside, radio signal intercepts, and troop movements indicating that country A was going to attack country B once everything was in place, would country B be justified in striking first?

If a note was found indicating 6 school students had made a list of 300 people they wanted to kill, should the police make a pre-emptive strike and round them up and bring them in, or wait until they actually open fire? After all, the're just kids, probably just running off at the mouth. Why take them seriously?

[Donney]

I agree with Rollo, remember Hitler won democratic elections in his rise to power and he did what he did, so most likely Germans would have fought more determined than ever to protect their country.

I basically think democracy cannot be imposed, every country has to find it in its own way. It happened in Spain not many years ago and thankfully no country forced us to have a democracy we just found it at the end of a very long road.

What if? I don't know but it might have lead to a more powerful Nazi feeling in Germany because they were attacked or maybe not.

[Hondo]

Donney, if you had been alive at the time, what would you, personally, have thought about the invasion?

[Hondo]

I would probably have sided with Germany. Here they are, minding their own business, hosted the Olympics, rebuiding their country and Britain and France come storming in to remove the government. Based on what? Their belief that Hitler is evil and dangerous based on some book he wrote while in prison?

[Donney]

Frankly I cannot tell, because now I know what Hitler was planning so if I knew then what I know now, I would have never supported him. But those times were extremely difficult for Germany and he seemed to offer a solution.

I would like to think I would not have voted him and therefore fight against the Nazis, but in all honesty I cannot tell.

Nowadays I'm happy that WWII saw the end of the Nazi regime and I'm glad the US helped, but if I were a German citizen in 1937 it is very likely that I would have been more in favour of diplomatic solutions than military ones.

[Ian McC]

I don't care about the historical verdict. I want to know what Gannex, Englishman In Situ, would have thought if while shaving one morning, he heard over the radio that his country, allied with France, had just invaded Germany and was rolling towards Berlin.

I really don't think you can compare the current day situation with the 1930's. I would imagine any Englishman at the time would of thought the UK had gone mad! The days of empires and glory were long gone, the First World War was still fresh in the memory, I would imagine that the people of the UK did not have the will power to want to start a war, whatever the reason.

I would guess in those days people probably did believe what they read in the press, with only newspapers and the radio for information it is not like today, people did not have access to the information we have today, if we had invaded Germany I expect the first they would of heard about it was when the invasion began, but as already pointed out we would not of been ready to start a war then.

I don't think that any politicians would of dared started anything then. Certainly the world was not such a 'small place' then, we would of been shown as the evil aggressors and probably not won, then the future would be very different after that.

[Daniel]

This is going to sound silly but in regards to WW2 I'm glad it happened like it did and not like Fiero has suggested. Not because it's a silly idea (which it isn't) but because the world has had over 60 years of relative peace after WW2. If it had happened differently then who knows what would have happened? :mark: People will go on about Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East, Afghanistan and Iraq but the implications for most of us of these wars was not as big as WW2.

Very interesting idea though Fiero :up: I don't stictly disagree. I'm just "happy" with the way WW2 ended with peace for most of the people on the planet.

[Hondo]

Daniel, the question was What would you have thought of the invasion at the time, with no knowledge of what began 2 years later. Most agree that that the invention and possession of nuclear weapons is what has prevented another "World War" so far.

[Daniel]

Daniel, the question was What would you have thought of the invasion at the time, with no knowledge of what began 2 years later. Most agree that that the invention and possession of nuclear weapons is what has prevented another "World War" so far.
Yes well that shows what an idiot I am :p

I guess back in those days it was far easier for a government to shape our thoughts on another country than it is now. I think people would have been well up for it after WW1. It's taken some people this long to forgive Germany for WW2 so it wouldn't surprise me if people were more than willing to fight against a non-agressive country who was perceived to be a threat.

Agree on the Nuclear Weapons thing too. These WMD's are the keepers of the peace methinks.

[Ian McC]

I think people would have been well up for it after WW1.


I doubt that, a lot of people died in WW1, chances are you would of lost someone or known someone who lost someone. It would of only been some 20 years ago then, I can't see people wanting to rush into another war just because the government tells you there is an evil man in charge.

[RaikkonenRules]

Don't ask me, I'm only 16 :(

[Ian McC]

Don't ask me, I'm only 16 :(

I don't expect there are any members old enough to remember, being 16 does not stop you having an opinion.

[Daniel]

I doubt that, a lot of people died in WW1, chances are you would of lost someone or known someone who lost someone. It would of only been some 20 years ago then, I can't see people wanting to rush into another war just because the government tells you there is an evil man in charge.
Yes but humans aren't smart :) We're dumb animals and we're more easily influenced by hatred of another person or race than sensible thought. The German army and public decided to try and rid Europe of Jews just because Hitler said so. I don't really see how it's any different tbh :mark: The thing about WW1 is that they didn't push the germans back to Berlin so it wasn't a true victory in the eyes of some people. Just like the Gulf War wasn't a true victory in the eyes of some because they didn't push the Iraqi's back to Baghdad and get rid of Saddam.

[Ian McC]

Yes but humans aren't smart :) We're dumb animals and we're more easily influenced by hatred of another person or race than sensible thought. The German army and public decided to try and rid Europe of Jews just because Hitler said so. I don't really see how it's any different tbh :mark:

Actually that is an interesting point, I could not imagine the British people wanting to start a war with Germany under those conditions, what made the German people different, if they were!

[RaikkonenRules]

I don't expect there are any members old enough to remember, being 16 does not stop you having an opinion.

What I mean is that I don't know enough about this to have an opion. ;)

[Ian McC]

What I mean is that I don't know enough about this to have an opion. ;)

Then, without trying to be too harsh, your post was kind of pointless :)

[janneppi]

It's a difficult question because so many things would change.
So, Germany is occupied by France and UK, it would have taken a toll on the occupiers forces, so they would have to lick their wounds for a while. There propably would have been insurgensy similar to Iraq which would slow down rebuilding for years.

Soviet Union would be pissed off and most likely would have done what it did in 1939 and create a buffer zone along the Ribbentrop pact line, propably even taken norther Europe, atleast Finland would be occupied to defend Leningrad. Souther parts of Sweden and Norway would be important to keep Baltic Sea from becoming a playground for British navy.
Soviets would not be able to get their hands on Nuclear and rocket technology, Many scientists who otherwise would have fled Germany, would now stay. A big portion of nuclear knowledge would have stayed in Europe, maybe even draw in scientists from US, giving it the edge over Americans.

America would still duke it out with Japan over Pacific, with no nuke this time.

Had this all happened, i would not have been born, so i wouldn't have an opinion :p :
But i think Northern Europe might have been worse off this way, under Soviet occupation and control.
Central and Southern Europe would develope into a loose union following France and UK.

Middle East would be a a central place because of the oil, but Israel not being there, would make it a bit more calmer area.

That's it, my imagination runs out after 1950. :)

This is of course all just imagination, i don't believe that France and UK could have taken out Germany and Soviet Union certainly wouldn't have stood aside for it to happen. :)

[Eki]

I tend to agree with you. However, do you necessarily have to be physically attacked first before your strike is pre-emptive or what level of proof of intent would be acceptable? If you had documents, human itelligence from inside, radio signal intercepts, and troop movements indicating that country A was going to attack country B once everything was in place, would country B be justified in striking first?

In this case I think the country feeling threatened should prepare for war and strengthen its capability to defend, without actually starting the war, or else it would most likely be blamed for starting the war and give the other party an excuse to join it.

Let's take the Finnish Winter War as an example. The war didn't start until November 30th 1939, but Finland sensed it was coming and called its reservists to extra military exercises in summer 1939 and started to fortify the border with bunkers, trenches and anti-tank osbstacles. But Finland didn't start the war. In November 1939, the Soviet Union fired mortar rounds on their own troops in Mainila and claimed it was the Finnish artillery that had opened fire on them, and used that as an excuse to declare a war against Finland. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, even the Russians admitted that it weren't the Finns who had fired those first rounds.

[Ian McC]

It's a difficult question because so many things would change.
So, Germany is occupied by France and UK, it would have taken a toll on the occupiers forces, so they would have to lick their wounds for a while. There propably would have been insurgensy similar to Iraq which would slow down rebuilding for years.

Soviet Union would be pissed off and most likely would have done what it did in 1939 and create a buffer zone along the Ribbentrop pact line, propably even taken norther Europe, atleast Finland would be occupied to defend Leningrad. Souther parts of Sweden and Norway would be important to keep Baltic Sea from becoming a playground for British navy.
Soviets would not be able to get their hands on Nuclear and rocket technology, Many scientists who otherwise would have fled Germany, would now stay. A big portion of nuclear knowledge would have stayed in Europe, maybe even draw in scientists from US, giving it the edge over Americans.

America would still duke it out with Japan over Pacific, with no nuke this time.

Had this all happened, i would not have been born, so i wouldn't have an opinion :p :
But i think Northern might have been worse off this way, under Soviet occupation and control.
Central and Southern Europe would develope into a loose union following France and UK.

Middle East would be a a central place because of the oil, but Israel not being there, would make it a bit more calmer area.

That's it, my imagination runs out after 1950. :)

This is of course all just imagination, i don't believe that France and UK could have taken out Germany and Soviet Union certainly wouldn't have stood aside for it to happen. :)

More likely, Germany would of won, rolled over the rest of Europe, including Britain, the Americans would not of joined in, and then we have an altogether different future.

[Rollo]

Well, Rollo, the SAS was created in WW2 so they couldn't have done the job before hand, and political assassinations are just not part of their training.

But you just told me that the war started in 1937 in your initial set of conditions. Such an entity would have been created. So they they could have done the job because they would have existed.



Furthermore, the only people in Britain that were saying Hitler was going to be a problem were a small and vocal minority of people who believed in Churchill.

Chamberlain's relations with Hitler were strained at best. The whole idea of a pre-emptive strike would have been repugnant to a generation; the whole idea of appeasement was a far better option considering that a mere 20 years before, hundreds of thousands of fathers, brothers, uncles, sons lay slain across the fields of Europe.

They knew damn well what a monster Hitler was, the Munich Agreement of 1938 was in part an attempt to stop a repeat of what was at the time, the bloodiest conflict the world had ever seen.
To actually invade a fully mechanised and mobilised Germany in 1937 would have been the most stupid idea in the history of the world.

[Gannex]

Fiero, you asked what the British man-in-the-street would have thought, had his government informed him in 1937 that British and French forces were going after the German Reich. I think it would depend entirely on how well the public had been prepared for the move. In real life, by 1937, there had been no serious preparation for war by England, either in materiel or in preparing the public, so if it were just launched as a complete surprise on that date, I feel sure the public would have reacted with horror and fury.

But if an invasion plan for 1937 had been hatched in London years earlier and started being implemented in 1935, then the public might have been brought along, and it would have given time for England to forge alliances, train troops and get military manufacturing underway. Under those circumstances, the Second World War, started by a broad alliance against Hitler could have been a spectacular success, by almost anyone's reckoning.

One thing I question is how much of a success the Second World War actually was. It didn't bring much relief to those trapped behind the Iron Curtain. For them, it was a terrible outcome.

[Ian McC]

One thing I question is how much of a success the Second World War actually was. It didn't bring much relief to those trapped behind the Iron Curtain. For them, it was a terrible outcome.

I can't see that it would have been any better than if Germany would have won. Had we invaded in 1937 then lost Germany would probably have invaded anyway, difficult to see how any outcome would have worked for them.

[Eki]

One thing I question is how much of a success the Second World War actually was. It didn't bring much relief to those trapped behind the Iron Curtain. For them, it was a terrible outcome.
Not to mention it put more people behind the Iron Curtain than there were before the war. Someone once said that there's constant amount of happiness, somebody's good luck is away from someone else. There might be some truth to that, just like for every winner there must be at least one loser.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The good thing is we wont have to know, for England in its own way sort of did what most democracies do, just go about their business until it is clear there was some sort of threat to be taken seriously.

The French are a mystery to me at this time, for I haven't read anything that says they were gearing up for war at this time other than the fact they had the biggest Army on paper during the 30's. It was poorly led and paid, and disorganized as the French didn't seem to have a strategy for defense beyond building the Maginot line...

I think things happen for a reason, and it would have been extremely difficult for any leader to get power in Britain and force the country to a war footing wthout an immediate threat, and Germany really didn't seem to be that threat until after the Munich agreement, and even right up to the start of the war, many in Britain refused to think Hitler would invade westwards. IF you look at the half hearted way the war was fought in the first 8 months, the "SitzKrieg", it is clear to me if Hitler had stopped then, the British and French likely would have done little....they were reacting to the Germans until Germany ran out of contiental Europe to conquer....

As for the American's role in all of this? They were very much concerned with the Japanese, and as their invasion of Manchuria and China had shown, they had nothing but disdain for those they ruled. The Americans were a bit nervous but basically, at that time, America's favourite foreign policy was isolationism. They were pretty strong, but they wanted no part of everyone else's problems. Unfortunately, that strategy just encouraged others....

[Eki]

I think things happen for a reason, and it would have been extremely difficult for any leader to get power in Britain and force the country to a war footing wthout an immediate threat, and Germany really didn't seem to be that threat until after the Munich agreement, and even right up to the start of the war, many in Britain refused to think Hitler would invade westwards.
Actually, Hitler didn't invade westwards until Britain and France declared a war against Germany and interfered his "business" in the east. I don't think it's sure that Hitler would have started a two front war if Britain and France had stayed neutral and out of the war.

[Hondo]

This has been a fascinating discussion. Assuming the Anglo-French alliance had the means to successfully force their will upon Germany and ousted the Nazi Party and then withdrawn, without any other nation's intervention, would that have been a good thing or bad? Forget WWII. It never happened due to the invasion so nobody had any idea of what was prevented. Would the invasion have been justified just by what Hitler proclaimed in his book and the changes he had made in his country up to 1937?

Is it possible that Saddam's removal may have been a positive thing and prevented an even worse bloodbath in the future? Not one nation came to Saddam's direct aid. Not one arab nation has expressed remorse about his removal from power. The arab nations feared Saddam. Libya gave up their WMD programs immediately and invited inspections to prove they were clean. Was that a good thing?

Flip side: Did Saddam, by virtue of being a "loose cannon" in the region, actually help maintain the peace? Saddam was still sitting on a large army and had already shown he didn't mind using it. Did a powerful Saddam help keep Iran and Syria in check? How cocky would Iran be knowing that Saddam was still there, coveting their territory? Has the removal of Saddam opened the door to additional hostilities among the arab nations?

To Eki: You're correct, it was Idi Amin that looked up to Hitler.

[Hondo]

Actually, Hitler didn't invade westwards until Britain and France declared a war against Germany and interfered his "business" in the east. I don't think it's sure that Hitler would have started a two front war if Britain and France had stayed neutral and out of the war.

Hitler always said he didn't want war with England. I don't think he thought too much of France though. I think he would have attacked France just to sew up the continent. Roosevelt didn't want to get involved in a war with Germany either. Although he considered Hitler evil, he was quite content to let Britain and Russia fight the war while the US provided military aid, supplies, and money. Roosevelt asked for and got a declaration of war against Japan. Germany declared war against the US a few days later.

[Hondo]

Yes but humans aren't smart :) We're dumb animals and we're more easily influenced by hatred of another person or race than sensible thought. The German army and public decided to try and rid Europe of Jews just because Hitler said so. I don't really see how it's any different tbh :mark: The thing about WW1 is that they didn't push the germans back to Berlin so it wasn't a true victory in the eyes of some people. Just like the Gulf War wasn't a true victory in the eyes of some because they didn't push the Iraqi's back to Baghdad and get rid of Saddam.

The Gulf War was a true victory because the mandate the coalition was operating under only allowed for removing the Iraqi army from Kuwait. Hunting Saddam down and killing him wasn't part of the coalition's marching orders once all Iraqi troops were out of Kuwait.

[Eki]

The Gulf War was a true victory because the mandate the coalition was operating under only allowed for removing the Iraqi army from Kuwait. Hunting Saddam down and killing him wasn't part of the coalition's marching orders once all Iraqi troops were out of Kuwait.
Exactly. Playing by the rules earns acceptance from people, stretching them or making your own rules don't.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, he would have invaded the French sooner or later....the one thing about Hitler, he was ambitious. If he invaded Russia when he had a "non-aggression pact" then he would have no problem going west as well. Lets face it, Hitler didn't do anything on a rational basis, for if he did, he would have never gone past his limited gains of Austria and the Sudetendland.

Hitler always said he didn't want to fight the English, and I think that would hold for a while, but in the end Hitler didn't seem to understand that people in the rest of the world were not going to sit by as he conquered one nation after another. At some point, someone will try to hold you to account.

The Americans were always the wild card, for their production capacity then and now is still unreal. By declaring war on the US, Hitler really slit his own throat, as if invading Russia wasn't dumb enough....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Exactly. Playing by the rules earns acceptance from people, stretching them or making your own rules don't.

Eki, you are not wrong, but the problem is, Saddam was not really a problem that was solved. To keep him under a regime of sanctions and military pressure couldn't go on ad infintitum. No one wanted to leave him to his own devices.

At some point, if the US and the UK left him and the sanctions were lifted, could you guarntee Saddam wouldn't be a threat? The reality is his word is barely good past the time it takes to hear it. This mistrust is as much the reason for Saddam's undoing as anything...

[Hondo]

Exactly. Playing by the rules earns acceptance from people, stretching them or making your own rules don't.

That is the main reason I was and am against the Iraq invasion. Based upon the lore of my upbringing, America standing for good and defending those who are attacked, invading Iraq is uncomfortably un-American.

Although I work with men whose sons have gone to Iraq and returned with stories that don't match what the media reports, i.e., Iraqis say they are glad to be rid of Saddam, I still feel we had no grounds to do what we did at the time it was done. If Saddam had been a direct threat or making direct threats then I could see it.

[Mark in Oshawa]

That is the main reason I was and am against the Iraq invasion. Based upon the lore of my upbringing, America standing for good and defending those who are attacked, invading Iraq is uncomfortably un-American.

Although I work with men whose sons have gone to Iraq and returned with stories that don't match what the media reports, i.e., Iraqis say they are glad to be rid of Saddam, I still feel we had no grounds to do what we did at the time it was done. If Saddam had been a direct threat or making direct threats then I could see it.

I think the way you have to look at it Fiero was the thinking in going in there now is that sooner or later Saddam was going to provoke the confrontation, and under the terms of the last gulf war, had violated the access and inspection regime as laid down by the UN. I think Dubya was very nervous about Saddam giving WMD technology to some terror group. There was no link between Bin Laden and Saddam, but that isn't to say there wouldn't be in the future. That and, as Eki would be very quick to point out, many felt the Bush's had unfinished business in killing Saddam. I don't buy that personal animosity was enough by itself, but it wouldn't help in the decision making process.

I always thought America was pushing the edge, but legally, a case can be made. What didn't make sense to me, and as it turned out I was right is America didn't have the plan to turn Iraq into something else besides a dictatorship. I have defended their idea as a noble one, and I think the people of Iraq deserved a shot at freedom, but it is clear to me there a number of people who want to use this time as a chance to settle old scores. Like Yugoslavia when the strong man was removed, Iraq is splitting among religious lines....-

[Gannex]

If I were an Englishman in 1937 and I were told by my government that Germany posed a serious and imminent threat which could be eliminated, that the German people could be liberated and the post-war world would surely be a better place, I'd have probably believed them. If I believed in Iraq II, surely I would have believed in WWII.

[Hondo]

We Americans need to get it through our heads that while a repesenative republic (we are not a true democracy) works for us, that doesn't mean it's right for everybody. At this time, some counties due to religious, ethnic, or tribal differences, are better off with a "strongman" kind of government.

Nowadays every bozo sitting on 200 acres of land, or belongs to such & such tribe, or practices such & such faith, or belongs to such & such ethnic group, wants to be their own independant country. Obviously, that isn't going to work.

Legally perhaps you can push the edge and make a case, but if you have to push the edge, you don't have much of a case to start with. If I had been President I would have to have required something stronger and more concrete to launch an invasion.

[Eki]

We Americans need to get it through our heads that while a repesenative republic (we are not a true democracy) works for us, that doesn't mean it's right for everybody.
I'm not saying it is or isn't right for everybody, it's not up to me, but first you have to make sure that the people you're trying to push it down their throats believe it's right for them, otherwise it's not going to work. Most of the world hasn't been able to convince the Americans that the metric system is superior, so it's not that easy to speak for others than yourself.

[Gannex]

There have been two major powers trying to spread democracy this century: the United States and the European Union. The EU has done it through carrots -- get more democratic, and we'll let you join in -- whereas the US has reached for the stick: democratise or die! I think the EU has created more democracy with its softly softly approach.

[Eki]

There have been two major powers trying to spread democracy this century: the United States and the European Union. The EU has done it through carrots -- get more democratic, and we'll let you join in -- whereas the US has reached for the stick: democratise or die! I think the EU has created more democracy with its softly softly approach.
That's how I feel too. The subtle approach may take longer, but it faces less resistance. I think it's analogous to the communists and social democrats of the early 20th century. The communists believed a change for better would come through an armed revolution, while the social democrats believed the change would eventually come through parliamentary democracy.

[Hondo]

There have been two major powers trying to spread democracy this century: the United States and the European Union. The EU has done it through carrots -- get more democratic, and we'll let you join in -- whereas the US has reached for the stick: democratise or die! I think the EU has created more democracy with its softly softly approach.

I hope The EU has enough carrots.

[SOD]

in 1937 there wasn't much of a desire to go back to trench fighting.

how many businesses were doing a good trade by selling steel to the Nazis?

how many were doing well by looking after Nazi gold investments?

and the Nazis were a nice buffer to keep the Commies in Russia.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't know if the EU method really works or not. To be fair it sounds better, and the American approach is usually this as well. That said, most of the eastern bloc nations who have joined the EU and NATO knew the alternative to Commusism is Democracy and knew they what didn't work for them. Look though at Russia, where Putin is almost running an oligarchy of sorts and is well on his way to being a dictator. They could have all the benefits of the EU and what is more, benefit greatly, and yet are regressing. Ditto for Byelorussia. Look at how they interfered in the democratic process in the Ukraine. The USSR may be dead, but the methods and goals to an extent are still there. It is a shame, for Russia should be a lot more than it is by now....mind you, what is there is better than the USSR.

Democracy is the only way for a nation to truly reach a "first" world status and have true freedom, but there are many ways to get there. I think the Americans will be buying more carrots after Iraq....

[donKey jote]

I hope The EU has enough carrots.

so do I.
I'm hungry.
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[Ian McC]

There have been two major powers trying to spread democracy this century: the United States and the European Union. The EU has done it through carrots -- get more democratic, and we'll let you join in -- whereas the US has reached for the stick: democratise or die! I think the EU has created more democracy with its softly softly approach.

The EU has not come across any really difficult cases yet, I wonder what would of happened if Iraq had been a bordering country with the EU?

I think there is a need for a world police force of some discription, this planet is too small to allow some countries to act the way they do, maybe if we thought of it as one human race rather than individual countries things would be better.

Of course, the only countries that would get 'policed' are those that not going to be of too much trouble, you can't see anyone wanting to stroll in to China to sort out problems.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I am well aware of what most us think of the US, Britain, & Iraq situation and my purpose here is not to justify the invasion, but to use it within the context of a "what if" scenario. The key phrase here is "Those that refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

Most of the world considers Hitler and the Nazi Party as the absolute definition of evil in modern times. Their policies led to a war that involved some 70 nations and an estimated 60 million dead.

By 1937 Hitler was already showing his hand with racial policies within Germany and making noises towards Austria. The Gestapo had already begun to "influence" the courts.

Saddam by comparison had already had a go at Iran and Kuwait. His behavior towards selected groups was certainly less than pleasant. I think most would agree that Saddam was the courts. Seems I have heard, but can't confirm, that Saddam thought very highly of Adolf Hitler.

My question is what would the world have thought if Britain and France had invaded Germany in 1937 and thrown Hitler and the Nazi Party out? What would the world opinion be of them today? What would their own citizens have thought about it? Keep in mind that if this had happened, it is unlikely that WWII as we know it would have happened, so none of us would ever know what had been prevented. Would the world have roundly condemned them for an unlawful invasion of a peaceful country? Would the USA have condemned them for the invasion? Would the USA have tried to put trade restrictions on Britain and France until they withdrew from Germany? Hindsight being what it is we now know what such an invasion would have prevented and been grateful for it.

Although I don't agree with the invasion of Iraq, as something of a history buff I do sometimes wonder if this invasion hasn't prevented something even worse in the future. Especially since none of the Arab nations seem to be shedding any tears about Saddam being out of the picture now.

How about it, what would the world have had to say about Britain and France invading Germany? What would you have said?

If Britain and France had tried to invade Germany in 1937 they (brit's and french) would have been slaughtered.!!!!! or WW2 would have just started earlier.
Iraq could never put a fight up against USA and UK.




Think about this.

North Korea has an awful human rights record. But what would you think if the USA invaded them and then the US was Nuked!!

My tip. Never start a fight with the big aggressive guy in the playground who has a knife :up: It's far more satifying if you wedgy the little cocky kid. (Iraq)

[fandango]

This is a very difficult question to answer, maybe impossible. When you read old newspaper reports from the 1930s mentioning Hitler, you can really see the difference between our image of him today, as evil personified, and the image then, as a possibly dangerous politician.

It has taken Germans a long time to get over the stigma, as it is only now that they seem to be starting to be able to express pride in their German identity, so many years later. Now it's the turn of the rest of the world, especially those in "Anglo-Saxon" culture, to move on from always refering to Germans in the context of the Third Reich and WWII. It wasn't all of them, and it could happen anywhere.

So I imagine I would be totally against Britain and France invading to remove Hitler. War is opening Pandora's Box, a result of rich people's ideas where the poor suffer most. It's not a case of just sending the cops round to stop a nuisance. On a day-to-day level Iraq is much worse today than before the so-called liberation.

This question is also interesting in the context of the European war which was ongoing at the time Fiero 5.7 mentions. In Spain many world powers were content to dabble a little and see how the (future) opposition were shaping up, and then later to recognise an undemocratic dictator. Why? Because they could, and it suited them. Where were all the grand ideas about democracy and freedom then?

[Hondo]

I'm sure most would agree that the importance of democracy, freedom, and human rights depends on who is being killed, by whom, and the "what's in it for us?" mentality. Funny how humanitarian and hypocrisy both start with an "H".

[Hondo]

I started my scenario in 1937. Don't forget Hitler was Time magazines "Man of the Year" in 1938.

[Knock-on]

In 1937, we would have been told by the Beeb that this need to be done to preserve the British way of life.

The US was predominantly behind Germany and would possibly have sided in a non combat role with them.

Germany at home is a pretty intimidating opponent in any sport, yet alone in war. We would lose.

The UK would have lost many rights and freedoms in the subsequent ceasefire.

Germany would have had strong footholds in West Europe to invade. Possibly Belgium first as a part of France. Then to colonise the Pyrenees. America would have been OK as an ally but Western Europe and Scandinavia would have fallen.

After that, who knows. A joint "United German Republic" ie Europe in conjunction with the US might have taken our the Soviets.

The world would have one major superpower (Germany) and the Americans as close Allies.

Would the world be a safer place. Well, not if your a Jew, Russian, Gay or Black but apart from that, there would have been stability.