Tony B Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 While things are quiet. What might have hapaned if in the 1930's Hitler had concluded a non agression pact with the West rather than Stalin? If Hitler had gone East first, would the West have been bothered? Might they have even joined in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienFTM Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 A variation. If you play Command and Conquer Red Alert 2, the premise is that Einstein created a time machine and went back to the 1930s to kill Hitler, only to discover a new reality where Stalin fills the void. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 Hum, that adds a twist supposing Hitler did go East and as you say lost. Then where would the Iron Curtain have ended up, would that have brought the Allies in on Hitler's side?. Did you see the Revealed programme the other night? film of the inside of various Berlin bunkers, including under Templehof. Fascinating stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martylee Posted July 19, 2008 Share Posted July 19, 2008 I've been reading a book about Finlands war against Russia, and can't see much difference between Hitler and Stalin. So I guess the computer game might be right! I've also been thinking a little of what I'd done in 1940 when Norway was invaded. Present I see communism as something, we'd be better off without. With the same thoughts back then, after Norway surrendered and with the German forces fighting against Russian forces, which earlier invaded neighbouring country of ours Finland. And of course without the knowledge of concentration camps and so on. Would I have joined the German army to fight the Russians? A few hundreds actually did! Luckily this is just my mind playing around. I guess I'm too much of a coward to have volentered for the war. :-) Marty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowtracdave Posted July 19, 2008 Share Posted July 19, 2008 Marty - the urge for self preservation is not neccesarily an indication of cowardice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted July 19, 2008 Author Share Posted July 19, 2008 (edited) Marty, thats a very sticky point. The Channel Island's were Occupied in 1940. The British goverment dumped everything on the Bailiff's of the Islands (Head of the Islands States) This meant the Civil authority had to work with the Germans. One in Four of the populations on the islands were armed forign soldiers. Was that collaberation? Notice judgement was made by those NOT Occupied. The question is still a very hotly debated one. In the case of Finland, well, as in the case of the Allies and Stalin, the Enemy of my Enemy, gets to be my friend. I've always thought if Hitler had stopped in 1938, he would probably be remembered as one of the greatest 20th century statesmen. Attitudes were a lot diffrent then, the media, especially the internet as we now have it didn't exist. It was easy for any goverment to control information. As an example, during the First Gulf War a 14 year old girl was shown sobbing about how Iraqui soldiers had thrown premature babies out of incubators. As my son was born three months prem, you can imagine how I felt. However, no conformation of such incidents has ever been found. Journalists who tried to find conformation then, and now, were warned off very forcefully. Edited July 19, 2008 by Tony B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.