Well, it wasn't a problem in ww2 where US civilian and military casualities were much less then axis casualities.

Wow, I think I can honestly say that I've never seen so convoluted a thread before. Well, maybe a few over at the Zoo. I think I'll pass on this one, I already have a headache after a quick skim, good luck guys.

I've missed all this for a few days, so thanks to Swiss et al for taking it up.
Good points well made.

I wonder why it is that threads like this one always seem to end up discussing America's global exploits?

Just to reply to 'theshark888' though, (even though it hardly seems relevant now!);

20/20 hindsight and a modern perspective is all well and good, but;

It was widely felt by the mid 30's that the restrictions of Versailles were too restrictive for what was and is a major economic european power.
Consequently when Germany exceeded the 100k limit, was virtually welcomed into the Rhineland, Austria and the Sudetenland, diplomatic agreements were the order of the day. The remainder of Czechoslovakia was, in my view 'sacrificed' to give Britain time.

Britain needed time because in 37/38, the British military was in no fit state to take on the Werhmacht in a land war, and France simply wished to stay safe behind the Maginot Line, fearing a return to the conditions of 1914-18. No-one expected Germany to simply go around this line through Neutral States.

Even when we were given time, the combined forces of France and the British Expeditionary Force were unable to hold back the Blitzkrieg tactics of Guderian and co.
This is why it surprised me that it was thought that an earlier intervention would have cost only 'a few hundred lives'.
It's highly possible that an earlier, more overt intervention (although I can't envisage what form this would have taken) would have seen a return to the attrition of 14-18, albeit more mechanised.
Britain and France could easily have lost, as they did in France in 1940, leaving them in a worse state than post Dunkirk, and either way, Hitler would still have gone for the Soviet Union.
It's clear in 'Mein Kampf' that this, together with the destruction of 'World Jewry', was his main goal in life.

What seems to be forgotten is that from June 1944, after three years of terrible attrition in the east, and the combined forces of the British Commonwealth and the US in the West, it still took almost a further year to defeat Germany.
An earlier intervention could easily have led to a much greater catastrophe, as destruction of the British armed forces on land in Europe would probably have led to Britain under Chamberlain negotiating terms with Hitler. The US would have then been unable to launch a second front from Britain.
Hitler would only then need to concentrate on Russia, and may have won. Then he could have gone on to assist his Japanese allies in the east, but only after eliminating the 'untermensch Slavs' as well as the Jewish population.

Of course this is all conjecture......

As far as the Russian pilot goes, I take the view that if any of us had witnessed the destruction of our country's men and women over three years of total war as Russians did, we wouldn't hesitate to do the same.
It's Human Nature, which isn't as nice on a fundamental level as some people would like to believe.;)

If you researched this topic you would be very surprised how unready Germany was for war and how close the German General Staff came to overthrowing Hitler before the invasion of Poland.

I would also probably shock you since I believe the Maginot Line actually served it's purpose and forced the Germans to attack around it!

I know that this is a tough pill to swallow for a lot of Euros, but Hitler could have been easily defeated by some Allied action in the 1930's; that was my only point! My "alternate" universe may have made the world a more dangerous place, with no Hitler buffer against the Soviet Union or some other unintended consequences:)

Thank you for your thread!
And looking forward to the next, please keep producing and posting.

Regards

Viking

So if a burglar robs you by coming through the wide open window in the backyard, your burglarproof steel front-door served it's purpose as well?

Optimistic point of view. :grin:

Actually the combined forces of France, Belgium, Holland and the British Expeditionary Force held out only a week or two more than Poland all alone had managed. The Poles inflicted proportionally more casualties for their size as well, with around 10,000 Germans killed in Poland versus 30-40,000 killed in France against much greater odds. In addition the Poles manage to destroy or temporarily take out of action 25% of the Luftwaffe. The Poles did far far better than later propaganda about "cavalry and biplanes against armor" would suggest.

More significantly, at the time of first invading Poland, Heinz Guderian and co were all (surprise surprise) over in Poland. Hitler took a huge risk against the advice of his own military and left the western border with France undefended during the Polish campaign. This was a massive gamble hoping that the French and British would hold back on attacking until they felt more prepared. The gamble paid off.

In other words an attack by the French/British at the time Germany was tied up in Poland may well have succeeded.

This will be a great read.. cannot wait..:grin:

Interesting.. would you have any idea who's going to buffer the rest of the world from the current aggressor :rolleyes:

Cheers for the read m8:)