Poland bordered the USSR. The USSR was a superpower. The USA was on the other side of the Atlantic. What could they possibly have done? Besides, it's not the USA's obligation to protect other countries for their enemies.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Poland bordered the USSR. The USSR was a superpower. The USA was on the other side of the Atlantic. What could they possibly have done? Besides, it's not the USA's obligation to protect other countries for their enemies.
congrats you remembered your WW2 topography.
I was referring to this 2 posts:
I was correcting Eusebio who thinks USA joining on allied side actually made a difference for Poles...
so. Andrelvis wtf are you talking about.
Um, it did? Lend-Lease to the USSR, strategic bombing, the western front all stopped the Polish nation being exterminated and replaced with German settlers.
And how is this a best possible history? :rofl: Even if you're right and Germany collapses within 15 years (hardly certain), that's still 15 years of mass ethnic cleansing. And absolutely no guarantee that happy liberal democracies spring out of a Nazi collapse like what happened after 1989 historically.
Well since they killed 4 million Chinese (actually killed, not starved) in only a few years, it probably wouldn't have been far off had they taken control of the whole country. And a best possible history, I don't think Mao takes over. It was not likely that he would in 1939.
Really? What happened to Jews in the Soviet Union that was in any way comparable to the holocaust? :wacko: And the Lithuanians or Czechs? Soviet rule wasn't great, but the fact that those nations still exist today is something that wouldn't be the case in Nazi Europe.
Except if you lived in Europe or East Asia, where you've been put in death camps or had your culture destroyed.
Hmmm, so why the USA sent their forces to France? Poland was also one of Allies.
Well, Finland was also Soviet neighbour. Also, Poles would be happy to share Austria's status as well.
But I don't think it would be possible indeed...
yeah....so how would death of FDR and no usa in war exactly change that? Stalin would have just watlzed over the rest of europe. no change for Poland.
Read once again what you wrote and think twice
It isn't hard to look up "antisemetism" and "Stalin" or "USSR". The USSR, while seemingly neutral to the Jews at first and even warm to the idea of Palestine, liquidated all assets of the Jewish community, repressed their religious beliefs (per the Communist ideology), accused them of being a bourgeois nationalist threat and were "purged". The Soviets after Lenin often believed just as much in the Jewish Conspiracy as Fascist Germany did.
Don't be upset :happy:
they supplied germans too for a time. just normal trading.
russians would have beaten germans in the end. (if the germans wouldn't get a A-bomb that is) only reason americans joined was so that ruskies wouldn't conquer all of europe.
either way...in the end no difference for poland. still under russian occupation.
To preserve the balance of power in Europe, and indeed because France was an ally. But whereas it was possible to protect France, a country which has an Atlantic coast, it would be very difficult to do so for Poland, not to mention that people were too exhausted from World War II to be willing to fight a major conflict with the USSR. For better or worse, the USSR had to be accommodated for there to be peace (and contrary to Nazi Germany, it was possible to accommodate the USSR).
In the Soviet Union there were senior ministers who were Jews. In Germany they ended up going out the chimney. You have no clue that you are talking about.
Tell me this oh learned one: do you think Nazi Germany would have recognised Israel on day one of its existence?
As much as I disagree with Jagsman32, I think Nazi Germany would have recognized Israel, since relocation of Jews was considered as an alternative to extermination. See the Madagascar Plan. Furthermore, while the Soviet Union was the first to recognize the state of Israel, it only sporadically allowed Jews to leave, fearing a brain drain. This also supports your point, as Jews were most definitely seen as very important contributors to Soviet society. Where Stalin saw some Jews as nationalistic and overzealous troublemakers, the Nazis didn't even consider them to be human.
Last edited:
Nazi Germany was very supportive of Arab nationalist cause with for example the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. In the region controlled by Britain Arabs were main internal resistance force and natural German ally. Changing that to a recognition of Jewish state in the region seems fantasy to me.
Your argument is about Eastern Europe. But what about Europe west of Germany? With real timeline there are still Jews in France. Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and France quickly went back to democracy after occupation and have remained in that status. Sweden, Finland and Switzerland managed to remain internally more or less peaceful and democratic, but would that have been the case after a German victory?
Well, perhaps not Israel in its modern location, but somewhere else, I don't see why not. I guess the Germans supported the Arabs to cause trouble for the British. The British themselves did the same thing during WW1, promising Jewish bankers a part of the Middle East to get them to finance the war and simultaneously promising Arabs the same to get them to rebel against the Ottomans.
I've been reading this thread and have become pretty disturbed by the results. I tend to agree with the early posts about there not being a definate "Better" or worse, history is just a collection of winners and loosers, and any moral statement about their rightousness comes from a limited and subjective position.
In my mind, people would be better off if they never settled ("civilization" is a intrestesting experiment in hedonism and discovery, and the very basis of my life, but that don't make it neceseraly good, neither does scientific discovery. Expansion is not the goal with existence, if there is a goal with existence). But that's just my perspective. What bothers me is that so many, many people in this thread equates "Great Empire/Large Regime/Stability" with being "Good". Death is stable. Missery can be constant. Chaos and, for lack of a better word, anarchy doesn't mean that there isn't triumphs and greatness, and happiness as well.
I won't say that this isn't a fun discussion, because it is. But the whole idea of a objectivly "Better" history disturbs me. Better for whom? Me? You? Everyone? How can we tell? Happiness? Lack of death? Lack of starvation, war, disease (and other horsemen of the appocalypse)?
I'm really not trying to bring the conversation to a end or even change the subject. I'm not saying "Stop having fun". I just had some issues with reading the thread and I felt I needed to vocalise them. No harm done, I hope?
In my mind, people would be better off if they never settled ("civilization" is a intrestesting experiment in hedonism and discovery, and the very basis of my life, but that don't make it neceseraly good, neither does scientific discovery. Expansion is not the goal with existence, if there is a goal with existence). But that's just my perspective. What bothers me is that so many, many people in this thread equates "Great Empire/Large Regime/Stability" with being "Good". Death is stable. Missery can be constant. Chaos and, for lack of a better word, anarchy doesn't mean that there isn't triumphs and greatness, and happiness as well.
I won't say that this isn't a fun discussion, because it is. But the whole idea of a objectivly "Better" history disturbs me. Better for whom? Me? You? Everyone? How can we tell? Happiness? Lack of death? Lack of starvation, war, disease (and other horsemen of the appocalypse)?
I'm really not trying to bring the conversation to a end or even change the subject. I'm not saying "Stop having fun". I just had some issues with reading the thread and I felt I needed to vocalise them. No harm done, I hope?
My candidate would be Wilhelm I accepting Bismarck's advice not to ask for territorial concessions after the Franco-Prussian War. With a little luck you then avoid WWI (not likely, but certainly do-able) and extend the golden age of European civilization for another fifty to one hundred years.
Noting that it was the German establishment who pushed for the war, I consider this unlikely.
Also, the supposedly 'Golden Age' of Europe is largely a myth created during and after WW1. Real Europe at that time was a land of crushing poverty, slums and social upheaval.
The thing people remember from pre-WW1 is that living conditions (availability and quality of work, food & housing) had been steadily improving for ~30 years. And worsened dramatically during and after WW1. Plus, civic conditions were very peaceful despite protests and political disagreements. Law & order were reliably meted out by governments focused on stability - even if you didn't agree with the laws (in imperial Germany or Austria-Hungary) at least they could be relied on. Lex dura, sed lex. Again, compare that with the decades that followed.
You have to see things in their perspective: For any lower- or middle class person who was 30 years or older when WW1 started, it was a golden age, a climax of civilization preceded and followed by long years of relative (and in case of WW1 absolute) misery.
That's not saying it could have gone on forever, of course. Everything good comes to an end eventually.