US War History
-
A lot of Brits did back Chamberlain. You know Peace In Our Time. It is not quite as clear as you make it. Hey are you defending the US action here? :-O Sounds kind of similar. Peace In Our Time[^] "Don't be so anti-american, would you? KaЯl (to Paul Watson on Baseball Bats) 26 Nov '03 "
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Hey are you defending the US action here? Sounds kind of similar. Hmm.. not really. The key difference is that the rest of Europe faced an inevitable invasion. Heck, Hitler didn't stop at Europe, he wanted Africa too! Someone had to do something, and the good old brits showed the way. Iraq is different. This isn't about stopping an inevitable invasion. Saddam knew it was hopeless as the attempt to invade Quwait was an utter failure. He also knew that if he'd ever launch a WMD, he'd be obliterated within 5 minutes. The Iraq case is about military and economical power. The one who controls Iraq controls the middle east. The one who control Iraq also controls a vast amount of oil. Why do you think Bush spends all this money into Iraq? Because he expects something in return. He could've liberated other rogue states for a lot less money. -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I really believe your comparison leaves a lot of facts out. If people knew what Hitler was going to do I think the world would have done things differently including the German people. What facts are these? It was not necessary to know what Hitler was going to do (though plenty of people did). It was only necessary to know what he was doing. 1. Annexed Austria in 1938 and forced Czechoslavakia to cede some of its territory. 2. Conquered Poland and the remainder of Czeckoslavakia in 1939. 3. Conquered Norway, Denmark, France, Holland, Belgium and commenced the Battle of Britain in 1940. I guess it was pretty hard to figure out if Hitler was a good guy at this point. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Also Why did Britian declare war in 1939. Because they had a defense pack with Poland. Not because they thought Germany was evil. This is laughable. Britain (and France) were trying to negotiate a way around the threat of German aggression from 1936 onward when Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland in violation of the Versailles treaty (in fact, they were worried about Hitler from the time he came to power). At the time of the 1938 Munich agreement in which Britain (and France) appeased Hitler by joining with him in forcing Czechoslavakia to cede territory to Germany, they drew a line in the sand by guaranteeing the integrity of Poland's borders. This guarantee was a direct response to German aggression, not some legacy from the past that compelled them to take action that they otherwise would not have. John Carson
John Carson wrote: t was not necessary to know what Hitler was going to do (though plenty of people did) Heck, he even wrote a book about it long before the war begun. :-D -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
-
It is kind of interesting to read the furious objections the US has to allies who didn't join the military "coalition of the willing." Now I supported the overthrow of Saddam and the liberation of Iraq. And I was upset that Canada didn't throw in its lot with the US & UK and join the coalition of the willing... but.... Americans seem to have amnesia. It took them two years to join the "coalition of the willing" in WWII. When did Britain declare war on Germany in WWII? I think it was September 1, 1939, when the Germans started raining down the bombs on Warsaw. Canada declared war on Germany within 28 hours. What did it take the Americans? I think it was more like 28 months before they joined the "coalition of the willing." And then they only joined because they thought Hitler might win. Sure the Americans supported the war effort before joining it... but Canada had naval vessels in the Gulf supporting the America effort in Iraq. Plus we've contributed hundreds of million dollars to reconstruction of Iraq. Ok... I think Canada was wrong to sit on the sidelines. But would Hitler have been so bold if the US had been on side with the allies right from the start of WWII? As the jokes goes... we'd like to thank our American friends for coming to our aid in 1941... when we got in serious trouble in 1939. JM
Funny how people insult the USA for jumping into the war against global terrorism too quickly but they also insult the USA for jumping into the war in Europe in the 1940's too late. Wankers each and every one of them.......
-
It is kind of interesting to read the furious objections the US has to allies who didn't join the military "coalition of the willing." Now I supported the overthrow of Saddam and the liberation of Iraq. And I was upset that Canada didn't throw in its lot with the US & UK and join the coalition of the willing... but.... Americans seem to have amnesia. It took them two years to join the "coalition of the willing" in WWII. When did Britain declare war on Germany in WWII? I think it was September 1, 1939, when the Germans started raining down the bombs on Warsaw. Canada declared war on Germany within 28 hours. What did it take the Americans? I think it was more like 28 months before they joined the "coalition of the willing." And then they only joined because they thought Hitler might win. Sure the Americans supported the war effort before joining it... but Canada had naval vessels in the Gulf supporting the America effort in Iraq. Plus we've contributed hundreds of million dollars to reconstruction of Iraq. Ok... I think Canada was wrong to sit on the sidelines. But would Hitler have been so bold if the US had been on side with the allies right from the start of WWII? As the jokes goes... we'd like to thank our American friends for coming to our aid in 1941... when we got in serious trouble in 1939. JM
I think it is safe to say that the general historic consensus in the US is that our isolationsim was a big mistake and lead inevitably to Pearl Harbor and probably tp a much larger war than might otherwise have occured. The lesson wasn't lost on us at all. That is one reason for our invovlement in Vietnam - trying not to repeat history.
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Also Why did Britian declare war in 1939. Because they had a defense pack with Poland. Not because they thought Germany was evil. Because they knew that if they didn't act soon, they'd be next... Hitlers plans wasn't really a secret after having displayed his military forces by building up forces next to France, forcing Austria to join Germany, annexing Czechoslovakia. The invasion of Poland was the last drop. -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
Yeah that true - Britain drew a line in the sand and Hitler crossed it. Those countries were really exhausted from WWI and the Great Depression as well, so I think this is why they were trying appeasement. Borders were more fluid back then too - with the UN rules we have become used to peace in our time. Invasion of Iraq is part of an economic war and a way to secure oil for the future. The Saudi's were getting unfriendly, and the west depends on their oil. The WMD was a pretense to go to war, these just things that politician do to try to get away with like anything else.
My neighbours think I am crazy - but they don't know that I have a trampoline. All they see my head bobbing up and down over the fence every five seconds
-
Funny how people insult the USA for jumping into the war against global terrorism too quickly but they also insult the USA for jumping into the war in Europe in the 1940's too late. Wankers each and every one of them.......
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Funny how people insult the USA for jumping into the war against global terrorism too quickly but they also insult the USA for jumping into the war in Europe in the 1940's too late. Wankers each and every one of them....... What they are pointing out is the hypocrisy of the US position in criticising others for a lack of support in the war against Iraq. When half a dozen formerly democratic European countries were living under the heel of the Nazi dictatorship, the US didn't see a reason to militarily support them. Yet the US gets upset that countries don't rush in to support the US in a discretionary war against a country that did not threaten the US. Your position on this issue is so weak as to be utterly pathetic. You are mindlessly partisan, applying a completely different standard to the US to that which you apply to every other country. John Carson
-
Yeah that true - Britain drew a line in the sand and Hitler crossed it. Those countries were really exhausted from WWI and the Great Depression as well, so I think this is why they were trying appeasement. Borders were more fluid back then too - with the UN rules we have become used to peace in our time. Invasion of Iraq is part of an economic war and a way to secure oil for the future. The Saudi's were getting unfriendly, and the west depends on their oil. The WMD was a pretense to go to war, these just things that politician do to try to get away with like anything else.
My neighbours think I am crazy - but they don't know that I have a trampoline. All they see my head bobbing up and down over the fence every five seconds
JWood wrote: Invasion of Iraq is part of an economic war and a way to secure oil for the future. Thank you for acknowledging that. Who in their right mind would ever spend such a ridiculous amount of money on "liberating" a people, without getting something back in return (with interests)? Dalai Lama perhaps.. But Bush ain't no Dalai. -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
-
It is kind of interesting to read the furious objections the US has to allies who didn't join the military "coalition of the willing." Now I supported the overthrow of Saddam and the liberation of Iraq. And I was upset that Canada didn't throw in its lot with the US & UK and join the coalition of the willing... but.... Americans seem to have amnesia. It took them two years to join the "coalition of the willing" in WWII. When did Britain declare war on Germany in WWII? I think it was September 1, 1939, when the Germans started raining down the bombs on Warsaw. Canada declared war on Germany within 28 hours. What did it take the Americans? I think it was more like 28 months before they joined the "coalition of the willing." And then they only joined because they thought Hitler might win. Sure the Americans supported the war effort before joining it... but Canada had naval vessels in the Gulf supporting the America effort in Iraq. Plus we've contributed hundreds of million dollars to reconstruction of Iraq. Ok... I think Canada was wrong to sit on the sidelines. But would Hitler have been so bold if the US had been on side with the allies right from the start of WWII? As the jokes goes... we'd like to thank our American friends for coming to our aid in 1941... when we got in serious trouble in 1939. JM
John McIlroy wrote: When did Britain declare war on Germany in WWII? I think it was September 1, 1939, when the Germans started raining down the bombs on Warsaw. Canada declared war on Germany within 28 hours. Technically it was September 3rd that Britain and France declared war on Germany. Canada declared war on September 10th. Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Italy when it invaded Ethiopia in 1935? No. Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Germany when it invaded Austria in 1938? No. Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Germany when annexed Czechoslovakia in On March 15, 1939? No, they effectively gave Germany permission to do so. (Link[^]) Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Japan when they invaded China in 1937? No. In fact, with the exception of the US and Britain (because of Pearl Harbor) none of the Western powers ever declared war on Japan. (With the exception of the USSR which declared war on Japan after the Atomic bomb was dropped.) So, why didn't those enlightened Europeans declare war on Japan back in 1937? I'm guessing because "its an East Asian problem" - which isn't terribly different than the US saying "Nazi Germany is a European problem". I hardly think saying "Canada declared war on Germany within 28 hours" (of Poland) is much of an argument when you realize that it was years after the invasion of Ethiopia, Czechoslovakia, and Austria. In short, England and France declared war only because war was obviously inevitable for them. Additionally, they had a pact with Poland. Canada was also part of the English Commonwealth and had only gained autonomy from England in 1931, so Canada was closely tied to England. They weren't acting out of any sort of moral enlightenment. The US didn't feel directly threatened and didn't jump into the war (which is exactly what England and France did when Germany and Italy were invading Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Ethiopia.) So, in that light, none of the Allied powers were jumping into World War 2 because of any sort of moral enlightenment. They all tried to avoid the war as long as they could, but it was inevitable. Arguably, then, World War 2 might be a lesson that none of the Western powers (including Canada, the US, England or France) went to war quickly enough. September 1st, 1939 i
-
I think it is safe to say that the general historic consensus in the US is that our isolationsim was a big mistake and lead inevitably to Pearl Harbor and probably tp a much larger war than might otherwise have occured. The lesson wasn't lost on us at all. That is one reason for our invovlement in Vietnam - trying not to repeat history.
Look at the bombing of London which was more or less continual and over 50,000 civilians died. The Russians lost millions of people and you hear barely a whimper out of them. The U.S. should thank its lucky stars that it lives two oceans away from any really hostile nations.
My neighbours think I am crazy - but they don't know that I have a trampoline. All they see my head bobbing up and down over the fence every five seconds
-
John McIlroy wrote: When did Britain declare war on Germany in WWII? I think it was September 1, 1939, when the Germans started raining down the bombs on Warsaw. Canada declared war on Germany within 28 hours. Technically it was September 3rd that Britain and France declared war on Germany. Canada declared war on September 10th. Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Italy when it invaded Ethiopia in 1935? No. Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Germany when it invaded Austria in 1938? No. Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Germany when annexed Czechoslovakia in On March 15, 1939? No, they effectively gave Germany permission to do so. (Link[^]) Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Japan when they invaded China in 1937? No. In fact, with the exception of the US and Britain (because of Pearl Harbor) none of the Western powers ever declared war on Japan. (With the exception of the USSR which declared war on Japan after the Atomic bomb was dropped.) So, why didn't those enlightened Europeans declare war on Japan back in 1937? I'm guessing because "its an East Asian problem" - which isn't terribly different than the US saying "Nazi Germany is a European problem". I hardly think saying "Canada declared war on Germany within 28 hours" (of Poland) is much of an argument when you realize that it was years after the invasion of Ethiopia, Czechoslovakia, and Austria. In short, England and France declared war only because war was obviously inevitable for them. Additionally, they had a pact with Poland. Canada was also part of the English Commonwealth and had only gained autonomy from England in 1931, so Canada was closely tied to England. They weren't acting out of any sort of moral enlightenment. The US didn't feel directly threatened and didn't jump into the war (which is exactly what England and France did when Germany and Italy were invading Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Ethiopia.) So, in that light, none of the Allied powers were jumping into World War 2 because of any sort of moral enlightenment. They all tried to avoid the war as long as they could, but it was inevitable. Arguably, then, World War 2 might be a lesson that none of the Western powers (including Canada, the US, England or France) went to war quickly enough. September 1st, 1939 i
You are of course right that Europe was reluctant to confront Germany (and Italy and Japan). This is hardly controversial. Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement is one of the most commented upon aspects of the history of WWII. None of this changes the fact that the US saw no reason to commit troops when European countries were invaded and placed under the Nazi dictatorship. Accordingly, its outrage that some European countries have been reluctant to support it over Iraq (a merely hypothetical threat, as distinct from an occupying army in the case of WWII) shows an astounding lack of perspective. John Carson
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Funny how people insult the USA for jumping into the war against global terrorism too quickly but they also insult the USA for jumping into the war in Europe in the 1940's too late. Wankers each and every one of them....... What they are pointing out is the hypocrisy of the US position in criticising others for a lack of support in the war against Iraq. When half a dozen formerly democratic European countries were living under the heel of the Nazi dictatorship, the US didn't see a reason to militarily support them. Yet the US gets upset that countries don't rush in to support the US in a discretionary war against a country that did not threaten the US. Your position on this issue is so weak as to be utterly pathetic. You are mindlessly partisan, applying a completely different standard to the US to that which you apply to every other country. John Carson
John Carson wrote: US position in criticising others for a lack of support in the war against Iraq How is not handing out sugar-coated contracts to those nations who huddled in paralyzed inaction criticism? John Carson wrote: Your position on this issue is so weak as to be utterly pathetic Good word choice! I guess my personal opinions are "weak". I guess I should have used stronger language...... John Carson wrote: You are mindlessly partisan It is true that I am an American.
-
John Carson wrote: US position in criticising others for a lack of support in the war against Iraq How is not handing out sugar-coated contracts to those nations who huddled in paralyzed inaction criticism? John Carson wrote: Your position on this issue is so weak as to be utterly pathetic Good word choice! I guess my personal opinions are "weak". I guess I should have used stronger language...... John Carson wrote: You are mindlessly partisan It is true that I am an American.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: How is not handing out sugar-coated contracts to those nations who huddled in paralyzed inaction criticism? There is no need to bother answering this question. The US and its supporters (including you) have been abusing Europe for months. Indeed, you just did it again. Terry O`Nolley wrote: John Carson wrote: You are mindlessly partisan It is true that I am an American. A truly mindless answer. John Carson
-
Funny how people insult the USA for jumping into the war against global terrorism too quickly but they also insult the USA for jumping into the war in Europe in the 1940's too late. Wankers each and every one of them.......
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Wankers each and every one of them....... An insightful response. I had a lot to say, but you've shot me down in flames with cold logic. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
You are of course right that Europe was reluctant to confront Germany (and Italy and Japan). This is hardly controversial. Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement is one of the most commented upon aspects of the history of WWII. None of this changes the fact that the US saw no reason to commit troops when European countries were invaded and placed under the Nazi dictatorship. Accordingly, its outrage that some European countries have been reluctant to support it over Iraq (a merely hypothetical threat, as distinct from an occupying army in the case of WWII) shows an astounding lack of perspective. John Carson
At the start of the war in late 1939, the isolationism of the US and all to fresh memories of the losses in WWI, as well as national laws, prevented FDR from committing troops to the war in Europe. He did push the neutrality laws changed to allow the US to sell arms to the allies, mainly to Britain. In early 1941, with much great controversy, the US Congress passed the Lend-Lease act, which was just a way to give arms to Britain and other allies. By war's end, the US had given $48 billion (US billion) to Britain, Russia, France, China and other countries. Between 1939 and 1941, the US sent tons of supplies to Britain. During those years, hundreds of US merchant ships were sunk and thousands of merchant marines lost their lives. Also during that time, 244 US airmen went to Britain and flew with one of three Eagle squadrons. 74 lost their lives. (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/es.html[^]) In mid 1941, several hundred airmen and crew went to China and flew with the Flying Tigers against the Japanese. (http://www.flyingtigersavg.com/tiger1.htm[^]) Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
You are of course right that Europe was reluctant to confront Germany (and Italy and Japan). This is hardly controversial. Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement is one of the most commented upon aspects of the history of WWII. None of this changes the fact that the US saw no reason to commit troops when European countries were invaded and placed under the Nazi dictatorship. Accordingly, its outrage that some European countries have been reluctant to support it over Iraq (a merely hypothetical threat, as distinct from an occupying army in the case of WWII) shows an astounding lack of perspective. John Carson
John Carson wrote: Accordingly, its outrage that some European countries have been reluctant to support it over Iraq... Whatever outrage there was (and there wasn't as much as some of you may have been led to believe) is not that France and Germany were reluctant to support the US and follow through with UN resolutions France, at least, voted for, but that they openly opposed the war to the point where some leaders indicated they hoped the US led coalition would lose. PS. One thing I didn't put in my previous post is that the US president, FDR, was prohibited by law from sending troops, let alone arms, to Europe due to laws passed in 1937. The protectionism goes even further back, with the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act of 1930 being the most notorious, and arguably very self-destructive, example. (It didn't cause the depression, but it did greatly intensify it.) Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Wankers each and every one of them....... An insightful response. I had a lot to say, but you've shot me down in flames with cold logic. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: An insightful response. I had a lot to say, but you've shot me down in flames with cold logic. I think his F overrides his T when it comes to him deciding what to say on issues of Americanism. Good for combat, but on CP soapbox:confused::) Later, JoeSox "That sounds exactly like the thinking of a machine to me." -- Morpheus, The Matrix Reloaded joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
It is kind of interesting to read the furious objections the US has to allies who didn't join the military "coalition of the willing." Now I supported the overthrow of Saddam and the liberation of Iraq. And I was upset that Canada didn't throw in its lot with the US & UK and join the coalition of the willing... but.... Americans seem to have amnesia. It took them two years to join the "coalition of the willing" in WWII. When did Britain declare war on Germany in WWII? I think it was September 1, 1939, when the Germans started raining down the bombs on Warsaw. Canada declared war on Germany within 28 hours. What did it take the Americans? I think it was more like 28 months before they joined the "coalition of the willing." And then they only joined because they thought Hitler might win. Sure the Americans supported the war effort before joining it... but Canada had naval vessels in the Gulf supporting the America effort in Iraq. Plus we've contributed hundreds of million dollars to reconstruction of Iraq. Ok... I think Canada was wrong to sit on the sidelines. But would Hitler have been so bold if the US had been on side with the allies right from the start of WWII? As the jokes goes... we'd like to thank our American friends for coming to our aid in 1941... when we got in serious trouble in 1939. JM
The most common stance towards this that the US didn't want to stop a chance of the russian bear getting it's furry ass kicked. Some even go as far as claiming they were indecisive which side to take.
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
I really believe your comparison leaves a lot of facts out. If people knew what Hitler was going to do I think the world would have done things differently including the German people. Also Why did Britian declare war in 1939. Because they had a defense pack with Poland. Not because they thought Germany was evil. "Don't be so anti-american, would you? KaЯl (to Paul Watson on Baseball Bats) 26 Nov '03 "
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Why did Britian declare war in 1939 As it did for centuries, to defend the European equilibrium, to thwart a too strong continental power.
Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Tous les remords n'y changeront rien Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Donc à présent le choix reste mien
-
John Carson wrote: Accordingly, its outrage that some European countries have been reluctant to support it over Iraq... Whatever outrage there was (and there wasn't as much as some of you may have been led to believe) is not that France and Germany were reluctant to support the US and follow through with UN resolutions France, at least, voted for, but that they openly opposed the war to the point where some leaders indicated they hoped the US led coalition would lose. PS. One thing I didn't put in my previous post is that the US president, FDR, was prohibited by law from sending troops, let alone arms, to Europe due to laws passed in 1937. The protectionism goes even further back, with the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act of 1930 being the most notorious, and arguably very self-destructive, example. (It didn't cause the depression, but it did greatly intensify it.) Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
I don't dispute that the picture re the US from 1939 to 1941 was complicated and that various forms of support to the allies were offered at various levels. Even so, considering the nature of what the allies were opposing, the US response was sufficiently weak to disqualify it, in my opinion, from pointing the finger at Europe now. Joe Woodbury wrote: Whatever outrage there was (and there wasn't as much as some of you may have been led to believe) is not that France and Germany were reluctant to support the US and follow through with UN resolutions France, at least, voted for, but that they openly opposed the war to the point where some leaders indicated they hoped the US led coalition would lose. I don't need to be "led to believe". I can (and do) access various US news outlets on the web and several US news/current affairs programs air on Australian television (quite apart from the many reports on US affairs from news outlets of other countries). As for leaders indicating that they hoped the US led coalition would lose, I am unaware of any such case (at least among European leaders). Please provide details. John Carson
-
John McIlroy wrote: When did Britain declare war on Germany in WWII? I think it was September 1, 1939, when the Germans started raining down the bombs on Warsaw. Canada declared war on Germany within 28 hours. Technically it was September 3rd that Britain and France declared war on Germany. Canada declared war on September 10th. Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Italy when it invaded Ethiopia in 1935? No. Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Germany when it invaded Austria in 1938? No. Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Germany when annexed Czechoslovakia in On March 15, 1939? No, they effectively gave Germany permission to do so. (Link[^]) Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Japan when they invaded China in 1937? No. In fact, with the exception of the US and Britain (because of Pearl Harbor) none of the Western powers ever declared war on Japan. (With the exception of the USSR which declared war on Japan after the Atomic bomb was dropped.) So, why didn't those enlightened Europeans declare war on Japan back in 1937? I'm guessing because "its an East Asian problem" - which isn't terribly different than the US saying "Nazi Germany is a European problem". I hardly think saying "Canada declared war on Germany within 28 hours" (of Poland) is much of an argument when you realize that it was years after the invasion of Ethiopia, Czechoslovakia, and Austria. In short, England and France declared war only because war was obviously inevitable for them. Additionally, they had a pact with Poland. Canada was also part of the English Commonwealth and had only gained autonomy from England in 1931, so Canada was closely tied to England. They weren't acting out of any sort of moral enlightenment. The US didn't feel directly threatened and didn't jump into the war (which is exactly what England and France did when Germany and Italy were invading Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Ethiopia.) So, in that light, none of the Allied powers were jumping into World War 2 because of any sort of moral enlightenment. They all tried to avoid the war as long as they could, but it was inevitable. Arguably, then, World War 2 might be a lesson that none of the Western powers (including Canada, the US, England or France) went to war quickly enough. September 1st, 1939 i
As mentioned in previous posts, you could begin Hitler's agressions my the remilitarization of Rhineland. There were many reasons to avoid war, but History proved the people taking the decisions were wrong. Brit wrote: which is exactly what England and France did when Germany and Italy were invading Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Ethiopia No, not exactly. Austria wasn't theorically invaded, but back into the Reich. Austria was asking since the end of WW1 to be authorized to join with Germany. Ethopia was an Africn country, and in these times of splendors for colonialism, and African country as worthy of consideration as another one ([ironic] see how it has changed in our days [ironic]). But for Czechoslovakia, you're totally right. "Authorizing" the destroying of Czech defense lines with the annexion of the Sudeten Land was a mistake, a disaster and a shame for the two western democracies, and they paid the price for it. Brit wrote: Hitler declared war on the US in 1941. So, apparently, he really was that bold In 1941, Hitler was dominating the European continent, he wasn't in 1939. Could US backing France and UK in 1939 have change the history? The power of US industries could have compensate the lack of materials in some strategic sectors, as fighter planes and bombers. IMO however, it wouldn't have corrected the totally inadequate strategy of our military leaders, so it isn't sure it would have change the events, all we can say about that is fiction.
Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Tous les remords n'y changeront rien Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Donc à présent le choix reste mien