Alternate Path in 1940

[JerseyJohn]

A hypothetical question that might apply to SC-2 in it's scenarios, but this is just out of curiosity.

Spring 1940. Hitler decides on a different route to victory. Instead of holding Rundstedt and Guderian back, he approves Guderian to take Dunkirk while the B. E. F. and elements of the French Army are still inland. Dunkirk is taken with virtually no resistence. The B. E. F. and attached French units have no retreat now except south, to try and rejoin the French, who they are already cut off from. Rundstedt easily blocks their path and, completely cut off, they soon surrender.

Germany, after regrouping, resumes the offensive and takes Paris, etc, as it did historically. But this time it refuses to negotiate with the French. It has to be a joint peace with both Britain and France.

-- In preperatory negotiations Germany offers peace with the two countries if the following conditions are accepted:

1) Germany retains control of Western Poland, Denmark, Norway and Holland.

-- Britain and France agree to recognize German ownership of all colonies formerly controled by those countries (principally the Dutch East Indies).

2) Germany will withdraw from Belgium, Luxembourg and all French territory other than Alsace & Lorraine, which it reclaims.

No other conditions.

-- Does France accept the peace terms? They would have their entire country, except for the border provinces, reverting to their 1914 border with Germany.

-- -- At this point the German Army is in Paris and can occupy the entire country at will, exactly as was the situation in the historical June of 1940. It's either accept those terms, or fight on as a government in exile.

-- Does Britain accept the peace terms? With the B. E. F. entirely destroyed and no Dunkirk, and with France (possibly the U. S. as well) wanting acceptance of the peace terms, does Britain still refuse after losing all the troops it sent to the continent?

-- -- What are the reactions in D. C., Moscow, and Tokyo? Who supports this peace propossal, and who is against it?

-- -- -- Do the British and French negotiate to include Holland among, and it's colonies, to be among the returned territory? Agreeing to cede Poland, Denmark and Norway. If so, does Germany accept that condition?

== Very interested in your opinions, particularly as I've got a project in the works that incorporates this scenario.

[Blashy]

That's a "what if"... IF Hitler were not there.

He never would have accepted this, in his book he clearly stated he wanted Russian land.

[SeaMonkey]

Wow! A good one JJ. Really this needs some thought.

Preliminarily I would venture that USA and USSR wouldn't object. USA was interested in the dismantling of the Colonial European powers.

I believe Holland would be retained as a German annex as you initially state without objection from the French, at least.

This may be the sticking point, this whole negotiated process, between the two Allies. I'm seeing UK going it on its own, despite the BEF loss.

The Japanese would be very interested in acquiring some colonial stature in the East Asia sphere.

Maybe the Brits would offer a temporary cessation of hostilities with further negotiations in light of a prisoner exchange. Of course since they had no prisoners there would have to be something else. Perhaps something in the Med?

[xwormwood]

Hitler is the IF-stopper.

With Hitler nearly no IF is possible.

Without him, well, that is a good question.

If moderate generals and politicans would have taken over after the war declaration against france, maybe there would have been an early european union with a strong german leadership after your described scenario?

Probably no Barbarossa or prolonged warfare.

But for this outcome Hitler and some of his nazi scum would have had to be arrested and / or executed right after the fist days of the french campaign, i presume.

[Edwin P.]

Interesting scenario, its too bad that SC does not give players a choice - so that the Axis powers can make an offer to the Western Allies, and focus their resources in the East.

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey, Blashy and Xwormwood,

Thank you gentlemen for your excellent responses.

Blashy, I said nothing about this negating operations against the USSR. If anything, the reason for doing this would be to get the entire Western Front settled to clear the way for an invasion of Russia without complications elsewhere.

-- What's more, I believe Stalin would have seen it in exactly that same light.

Xwormwood,

I agree with what you're saying. These points are much more in line with something Bismarck would have done, and not Hitler. And yet, I think he would have done something like this if he thought it would enable him to conquer Russia.

And yet, he kept making offers to Petain after setting up Vichy, to return all of France to the French, along with their workers and POWs if only the country would officially join the Axis. Petain, the supposed collaborator, conducted a brilliant waiting game with Hitler, knowing the more time passed the more this would become a moot point -- assuming, of course, that Germany didn't simply win the war against Britain and, later, the USSR. The offers pretty much stopped the U. S. entry.

So, I have to wonder what Hitler had to gain by not wrapping things up in the West? Given Alsace & Loraine, Denmark, Norway and Western Poland he'd have picked up considerably expanded influence. Would have landlocked Sweden within his geographical control and, with an agreement of peace, would have left the British and French populations demoralized and defeated with his own population elated and truly believing they were invincible.

Imagine German morale in fighting the USSR and not having to run to the shelters every night under Royal Air Force bombing raids.

SeaMonkey,

I knew you'd like this one, it's so similar to a lot of things we've discussed over the years.

Holland is an interesting possibility. Of course, there's every possibility that it's colonies would simply have declared independence rather than submit to German rule. And, as you said, that would have been just fine with the USA.

But having the country itself under German control and occupation would have been the Sword of Deomocles over Britain's head. Air bases on the Dutch coast would have been within easy reach of Britain. I'm sure the UK would have pushed very hard to have Germany pull out of the place and, also, I think the Germans would have done so. But, leaving in their wake, a much stronger Dutch Nazi Party, perhaps strong enough to conduct a successful coup later on.

Belgium in German hands would have left France all but defenseless, of course, so I'd assume that would need to be the first issue cleared up.

-- Of the colonies, the Belgian Congo and the Dutch East Indies (later Indonesia) would have the two most important prizes. I believe both would have opted for independence rather than agree to be part of the Reich.

Ok, now if Britain doesn't go along with it and France does -- and if Germany refuses to accept peace from one and not the other unless France actually joins her against it's former ally -- I actually think that would make sense. And I believe France might have done this rather than simply be conquered. The feeling would be that the UK is turning it's back on them and fighting on when the French were the ones who lost everything in a doomed cause.

All speculation, but I think very interesting what ifs.

-- On the UK side, would the British people really have backed Churchill after a continental catastrophe? We all know how important the Dunkirk operation was in bolstering British morale. Now, suppose instead of that never happening, they also have the added hardship of losing their entire expeditionary army? I think national morale would have been at rock bottom. A Germany willing to return control of both France and the Low Countries to their rightful owners might have seemed very inviting to deal with if the Battle of Britain weren't going on.

My reasoning is, without massive public support for the war, Churchill would have been replaced by a peace party. Without Churchill, I don't think Britain remains at war.

-- From there, I'm wondering what the future would have been?

++ A year or so passes and Germany invades the USSR, as it did historically. Except there's no Battle of the Atlantic, no RAF bombings and no Mediteranean Theatre.

+++ And what about Japan? Presumably the Pacific Strategy would not have been an option. Would it be replaced with one of joining German in a USSR invasion?

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

Interesting scenario, its too bad that SC does not give players a choice - so that the Axis powers can make an offer to the Western Allies, and focus their resources in the East.

Thanks Edwin. Yes, I agree 100% Thanks, and I agree, an that option would make for some very interesting possibilities. :cool:

[Blashy]

Well Edwin these options are not necessarry because it NEVER would have happened without the Nazy power and Hitler in power.

These what ifs are too far out there.

WW2 games are based on the elements that started the war and the idea that you the player are in agreement with these ideologies but are you better in terms of how to conduct the war?

Not on what if: Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Churchill and the respective political parties were not in power.

Because if that was the case then these what if scenarios would be never ending.

Might as well go back to "what if" the treaty of versaille had never been so hurtfull to Germany.

What if Germany had followed Bismark's philosophy?

You play the game with the military and political doctrine of the time and see if you can do better. That makes sense to me.

[JerseyJohn]

Blashy

:confused: :confused: So, what you're saying is -- what?

That we can't speculate about something like this because it didn't actually happen?

-- There are tons of things to speculate about, for one thing, as late as 1918 Germany could have agreed to peace terms and retained everything that Russia ceded in the east with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

Sure things have to be rooted in history, but we don't need to be slaves to what actually occurred. I don't remember signing an agreement to not take it any further.

[Blashy]

No, we can all we want.

But not when it comes to playing a game about it. Because no game can cover all those what if scenarios because no one can contemplate all the possible alternate historical paths throughout human history.

What I'm saying is for game purpose you play with the acceptance that you are simply trying to do better with the powers IN power at that time and change the what ifs within that circle.

It would be like the Iraq invasion by USA and doing that mod and someone saying "what if" we had a script that Al Gore won the election... errr, after all it was only a chance of having 1 extra Republican judge that made one guy win over the other.

[JerseyJohn]

Sure. People do that all the time -- and what would have happened with the Iraq situation if Gore were president? No problem, I'd be glad to speculate on that.

The only variable that counts is whether Gore would have seen Iraq as having done something warrenting an invasion.

-- So we make the military scenario and assume that, for some reason, the United States has determined on a course to invade Iraq.

For SC-2 purposes, I don't even see any provision for countries having been led by one person or the other. Once we start, we're the ones leading those countries, and we don't need to do it the way any of the historical figures did things.

-- In terms of making scenarios, why even assume that Germany is being led by Hitler and Russia by Stalin, Italy by Mussolini? Why go through all the trouble of making a scenario and having to do it with the understanding that you're shackled to an historical block?

-- -- Alternative history, and I mean some really outrageous viewpoints, has become a major area of novel writing over the past twenty or so years.

To be honest, the project I was referring to isn't a game scenario, but a novel using this idea as a backdrop.

-- So far the input here has convinced me that I may need to change the basic situation, perhaps have Hitler suffer a stroke and Germany is then led by Goering, at least through 1940.

[xwormwood]

I am thankful for your questions, JerseyJohn.

If there wouldn't be questions like yours, why whoud be there any sense in playing games like SC & SC2?

I would really love to see some more options (mostly pre-war options), because it would really be the salt in the wargaming-soup. How hard could it be to offer your decent customers some more IFs (everyone with the "use the editor"-hymn on his lips: get lost!).

On the other hand i love to speculate about "what IFs" here in the forums as well.

This is one of the most important reasons to check here regulary. One of you guys could have started another "what if"-thread without me.

Keep on the good work, Sir Jersey, I can't get enough of it!

[SeaMonkey]

Well said x, and I concur. JJ is no doubt our greatest catalyst of what ifs.

I have come to a decision about this hypothesis JJ and I can agree with all the presumptions you put forth but one, the UK cessation of hostilities.

Even with the BEF loss, there was something deeper, and I hope it still resides in the men that make the great decisions of this day.

There was an ideal, and a man that had a mandate to act on that ideal, that man was Winston Churchill. Stepping into his shoes I can see that the premise of democracy and the conviction that all men should be free to determine their destiny resided in his soul. Luckily he was not alone.

These men knew that to accept compromise was to renunciate those ideals and eventually this darkness that settled on the continent would have to be exterminated. Listen to Churchill's speeches, heed his words, you know I'm right. If it was not Churchill then it would have been Eden, or Lord Beaverbrook or any number of other steadfast men who recognized what this aggression was really about.

You see the media and propaganda of that day was not the hyper-crap it is today and many men could see clearly and were not swayed as easily, they were men of conviction, vision. Thank God they were.

So in conclusion JJ, the proud, the people of principles, the UK of then, would not have negotiated. There was but one path, triumph.

[Retributar]

JerseyJohn:

I like your 'Alternate Hypothetical Path in 1940', it does have a REAL-POSSIBLE-HISTORICAL basis in-fact! [Fictitious?...even so, this situation could have easily have developed as such], so, whynot create this art-form for us to indulge in!.

[ August 21, 2006, 07:14 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Scook]

Your scenario is what me and my friend call the Britain taffy pull. The objectives are thus: keep neutrality with Russia and USA as long as possible. Take as much UK territory outside of Britain as possible. Make Britain feel the stetch and eliminate assets and lose money. If Japan can be in the game, set up to take oil from the Pacific, Singapore, and cut off Australia as quickly as possible. If you can get the UK into a position with few units and little money, it's very similar to the scenario you are creating. Barbarossa occurs, maybe a little late with tons of Germans, and Japan follows up soon with an invasion to take Vladivostok (hopefully Siberians go west beforehand).

The scenario you describe would be great on a world map, take Italy out of major power status and put Japan in. Italy can either be a minor lapdog to Germany (workable solution) or make Italy part of Germany and add to the German force pool (not so workable, but usable in a few situations).

I am not so sure Churchill would be replaced. I can see the fear of being under a jackboot as high or higher than placating the Germans after a French debacle.

[Canuck_para]

JJ, what about the Germans having the option to create Vichy or not. If they do the game is the same. If not all of mainland France is under German control ( I could see more partisan activity). All French territory outside of Europe could then either become neutral, join the Allied side or a small chance of joining the Axis.

[Rolend]

Yep France would of went for it for sure, I mean "I surrender France" never found a war they didn't like to surrender in

England is another story altogether, there was more at stake then just France, there entire Empire was on the verge of collapse and kissing German butt would certainly not helped with that. The British fight on no matter what France does or if they had lost the B.E.F.

For a change in the outcome of the war in the 'west' Hitler would have had to push back Russia a year (and that is something he just would not do) and put the full German military into taking all of N. Africa and forcing the British out of the war. Or pre Poland, if he could of made some kind of deal with France and England instead of Russia but I don't think that was possible either. Poland was the point of no return for the British IMO.

[Liam]

Interesting in that it's precisely what Germany should have done in order to Survive and become a World Power. Holding the Low Countries cost more men then they were worth. Considering Diplomatically and Militarily Germany would have been the only Major LandPower left in Europe aside from the USSR. Britian and France would've taken a backseat, as you say the public would've sued for Peace with the loss of hundreds of thousands of British. The Loss the BEF would've been like two 6th armies to the small Island Nation, and there wouldn't be many other armies in 1940 to replace it.. Empire would've come before European sovereignty that or total Collaspe of just that. Spain may have been more interested in a limited war for personal gains..

Hitler was overly ambitious, to the point of death. He was over worried about public opinion and worried about the support of his General Staff, which he wasn't assured until the Fall of France. So he was much too arrogant a man to see the fact that when Paris fell, at that point he'd already won. The Russians alone...they would've had to have fight perhaps twice the War then they did. Every German Panzer in North Africa. Every German Plane lost, pilot lost Over England.. Or protecting the Reich, every German Sentry that could be freed up would be pointing a Giant Sword in the Belly of the Red's...it would've been a very very dangerous time for Stalin

Hitler gained no More ManPower from his conquests, he diminished it. He gained very little resources he diminished those.. His Puppets were his downfall they were not to his advantage, ultimately Japan and Germany may have desired tracts of USSR. Perhaps Stalin alone, isolated would've sought a deal himself.. No Sacking of Moscow neccessary

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

SeaMonkey, Blashy and Xwormwood,

Thank you gentlemen for your excellent responses.

Blashy, I said nothing about this negating operations against the USSR. If anything, the reason for doing this would be to get the entire Western Front settled to clear the way for an invasion of Russia without complications elsewhere.

-- What's more, I believe Stalin would have seen it in exactly that same light.

Xwormwood,

I agree with what you're saying. These points are much more in line with something Bismarck would have done, and not Hitler. And yet, I think he would have done something like this if he thought it would enable him to conquer Russia.

And yet, he kept making offers to Petain after setting up Vichy, to return all of France to the French, along with their workers and POWs if only the country would officially join the Axis. Petain, the supposed collaborator, conducted a brilliant waiting game with Hitler, knowing the more time passed the more this would become a moot point -- assuming, of course, that Germany didn't simply win the war against Britain and, later, the USSR. The offers pretty much stopped the U. S. entry.

So, I have to wonder what Hitler had to gain by not wrapping things up in the West? Given Alsace & Loraine, Denmark, Norway and Western Poland he'd have picked up considerably expanded influence. Would have landlocked Sweden within his geographical control and, with an agreement of peace, would have left the British and French populations demoralized and defeated with his own population elated and truly believing they were invincible.

Imagine German morale in fighting the USSR and not having to run to the shelters every night under Royal Air Force bombing raids.

SeaMonkey,

I knew you'd like this one, it's so similar to a lot of things we've discussed over the years.

Holland is an interesting possibility. Of course, there's every possibility that it's colonies would simply have declared independence rather than submit to German rule. And, as you said, that would have been just fine with the USA.

But having the country itself under German control and occupation would have been the Sword of Deomocles over Britain's head. Air bases on the Dutch coast would have been within easy reach of Britain. I'm sure the UK would have pushed very hard to have Germany pull out of the place and, also, I think the Germans would have done so. But, leaving in their wake, a much stronger Dutch Nazi Party, perhaps strong enough to conduct a successful coup later on.

Belgium in German hands would have left France all but defenseless, of course, so I'd assume that would need to be the first issue cleared up.

-- Of the colonies, the Belgian Congo and the Dutch East Indies (later Indonesia) would have the two most important prizes. I believe both would have opted for independence rather than agree to be part of the Reich.

Ok, now if Britain doesn't go along with it and France does -- and if Germany refuses to accept peace from one and not the other unless France actually joins her against it's former ally -- I actually think that would make sense. And I believe France might have done this rather than simply be conquered. The feeling would be that the UK is turning it's back on them and fighting on when the French were the ones who lost everything in a doomed cause.

All speculation, but I think very interesting what ifs.

-- On the UK side, would the British people really have backed Churchill after a continental catastrophe? We all know how important the Dunkirk operation was in bolstering British morale. Now, suppose instead of that never happening, they also have the added hardship of losing their entire expeditionary army? I think national morale would have been at rock bottom. A Germany willing to return control of both France and the Low Countries to their rightful owners might have seemed very inviting to deal with if the Battle of Britain weren't going on.

My reasoning is, without massive public support for the war, Churchill would have been replaced by a peace party. Without Churchill, I don't think Britain remains at war.

-- From there, I'm wondering what the future would have been?

++ A year or so passes and Germany invades the USSR, as it did historically. Except there's no Battle of the Atlantic, no RAF bombings and no Mediteranean Theatre.

+++ And what about Japan? Presumably the Pacific Strategy would not have been an option. Would it be replaced with one of joining German in a USSR invasion?

[Scook]

Thanks JJ. I am going to attempt a world map now. I like the idea of Germany/Japan vs. the Big 3.

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by Liam:

Hitler was overly ambitious, to the point of death. He was over worried about public opinion and worried about the support of his General Staff, which he wasn't assured until the Fall of France. So he was much too arrogant a man to see the fact that when Paris fell, at that point he'd already won.

I wouldn't state it in such absolute terms, but I indeed wonder what would have happened if the Germans would have stopped after the low countries, France and some of Eastern Europe.

I am not so sure that the UK and the US would have attacked Germany. The BEF was indeed sned to France, but even that took ALOT of debate in the UK at the time. They had a treaty to defend the Low Countries, but they never did.

There is indeed a big chance that neither the UK, US or USSR would have attacked Germany.

But the question is this : how long would Hitler be satisfied with "just" Benelux, France and parts of Eastern Europe ?

Did he need an expansive conquest to ensure support from the German population ?

I don't know.

I think sooner or later he would have attacked the UK or the USSR and that would have been the end of it.

[Liam]

Totally agreed, greed, was Hitler's downfaul chances are he may have gotten away with victory at Paris, chances.. not 100%

Originally posted by TaoJah:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Liam:

Hitler was overly ambitious, to the point of death. He was over worried about public opinion and worried about the support of his General Staff, which he wasn't assured until the Fall of France. So he was much too arrogant a man to see the fact that when Paris fell, at that point he'd already won.

I wouldn't state it in such absolute terms, but I indeed wonder what would have happened if the Germans would have stopped after the low countries, France and some of Eastern Europe.

I am not so sure that the UK and the US would have attacked Germany. The BEF was indeed sned to France, but even that took ALOT of debate in the UK at the time. They had a treaty to defend the Low Countries, but they never did.

There is indeed a big chance that neither the UK, US or USSR would have attacked Germany.

But the question is this : how long would Hitler be satisfied with "just" Benelux, France and parts of Eastern Europe ?

Did he need an expansive conquest to ensure support from the German population ?

I don't know.

I think sooner or later he would have attacked the UK or the USSR and that would have been the end of it. </font>

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by xwormwood:

I am thankful for your questions, JerseyJohn.

If there wouldn't be questions like yours, why whoud be there any sense in playing games like SC & SC2?

I would really love to see some more options (mostly pre-war options), because it would really be the salt in the wargaming-soup. How hard could it be to offer your decent customers some more IFs (everyone with the "use the editor"-hymn on his lips: get lost!).

On the other hand i love to speculate about "what IFs" here in the forums as well.

This is one of the most important reasons to check here regulary. One of you guys could have started another "what if"-thread without me.

...

I get that way too, I'll be in another part of house and I have to rush to the study to see what's going on here (and a couple of other places I haunt ).

These What-if topics have always come to life when you and SeaMonkey and the others of us who love to speculate start exploring the ideas.

Agreed on the pre-war options. It would really spice things up quite a bit. My biggest speculation along these lines is, how would it have changed things if Hitler had waited a few years before hitting his neighbors?

-- Would things have been different if, after Munich, he'd have immediately turned against Poland instead of taking the rest of Slovakia? Britain and the U. K. didn't have a treaty with the country yet and the border disputes in that area were certainly much more valid than they were with eastern Czhechoslovakia. And, afterwards, Slovakia would still have been sitting defenseless. Poland would have been partitioned, and there would have been no war (yet) with the British and French.

My thanks, Mr X.

[JerseyJohn]

Continued Responses

Originally posted by Canuck_para:

JJ, what about the Germans having the option to create Vichy or not. If they do the game is the same. If not all of mainland France is under German control ( I could see more partisan activity). All French territory outside of Europe could then either become neutral, join the Allied side or a small chance of joining the Axis.

Interesting way of seeing things. I think, in this speculation, Germany (as opposed to Hitler, we might have to see around his less than rational approach to things) would have wanted to tidy things up in the West as quickly as possible to prepare the way for a war against the USSR.

So, Germany would have to withdraw from the Low Countries as a concession to Britain. If it keeps France, or the French Atlantic coastline, adapting a Vichy arrangement, Britain will certainly not agree to peace terms, just as it didn't historically. So, it takes the areas of Eastern France that it gained in 1871 and gave back in 1919, which we can assume would include the rich French mineral deposits, and satisfies itself with Denmark (Iceland too?), Norway and Western Poland.

From Germany's POV the idea is to end the Western conflict right away and pave the way for a one front war with the USSR. At least that's the way I'd see it.

[JerseyJohn]

Continued Responses

Originally posted by Rolend:

Yep France would of went for it for sure, I mean "I surrender France" never found a war they didn't like to surrender in

England is another story altogether, there was more at stake then just France, there entire Empire was on the verge of collapse and kissing German butt would certainly not helped with that. The British fight on no matter what France does or if they had lost the B.E.F.

For a change in the outcome of the war in the 'west' Hitler would have had to push back Russia a year (and that is something he just would not do) and put the full German military into taking all of N. Africa and forcing the British out of the war. Or pre Poland, if he could of made some kind of deal with France and England instead of Russia but I don't think that was possible either. Poland was the point of no return for the British IMO.

I think we see both the UK and Churchill today in a set light that wasn't the case in 1940. Coming into office, with Chamberlain having been toppled after the Nowary fiasco, Churchill was seen as a last resort. And, in fact, sending an expeditionary force to Norway -- without even consulting the Norwegian government -- had been Churchill's idea, not Chamberlain's! And, as First Lord of the Admiralty, it was Churchill who engineered the whole thing, including the mining of Norwegian coastal waters, again without consulting the country involved.

One British parliament member, interviewed long afterwards for the World at War series, was still very down on Churchill. Of Norway he said, "He was always coming up with grand sounding ideas that didn't work. It was another Gallipoli."

So, to me, that's the key. If the BEF had been destroyed and Dunkirk never occurred, all of this anti-Churchill sentiment would have risen in a hurry and he'd have been forced from office in favor of the moderate Anthony Edin, or someone from Chamberlain's government, and the way would have been open to signing a peace treaty.

Losing the BEF in 1940 would, in my opinion, have been at least twice the disasster that Stalingrad and Kursk would later be for Germany. Only Churchill was not a militarist dictator and much, much more vulnerable to public opinion. British morale would have been rock bottom and, with what would have seemed to be a reasonable peace propossal from Germany, the British public might just have not gone along with the Blood, Sweat and Tears -- they'd have said, "He means, Our Blood, Our Sweat, and Our Tears, not his." Which was muttered in any case by many Brits.

In this scenario Britain is left with Germany back across the Rhine, not sitting on the Atlantic coast, and along the English Channel, as it was with Hitler's historical peace propossal. I think that would have made a huge difference.

[JerseyJohn]

Continued Responses --

Liam and TauJah

Very interesting discussion you two have going here. Liam, I think you've put some real insight into all of this, not only clarifying some things I didn't express very well, but also infusing some new, and very important, ideas into this.

TauJah's points about the U. S. is very interesting -- people don't generally realize that at this point the United States was totally neutral, even to the extent of insisting that American ships could not be used to transport weapons and munitions to beligerants.