Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Arts & HumanitiesHistory · 1 decade ago

If England and France had attacked Germany in 1938 (after numerous severe treaty violations by Hitler)...?

...and overthrown Hitler and the Nazis, do you think that today's history books would have labelled the war as "unjust, unprovoked, and causing massive loss of innocent civilian life"?

Update:

actually, this question was about defending Israel. The just war to topple Saddam is another issue.

Update 2:

chrstwrtr: yes, and whatever proof they found of an impending genocide would have been labeled as "made up by the conquering British and French forces to make the Germans look bad" - there, that's an analogy to Iraq!!!

10 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    Yep!

  • 1 decade ago

    Probably yes. If by some miracle the French and British could have stopped Hitler, they would have been labeled the aggressors. They would have been seen as violating the Treaty of Versailles which ended WW1.

    The world at that time was anti-semitic and would not (and in fact, did not) care if Hitler killed a lot of jews and other "low life". There was a program on TV about Jews fleeing the Nazi persecution arriving in NY (I think) and being refused asylum and sent back to die in Germany. There had been articles about the camps in American newspapers (and more articles supressed or put on the back pages of newspapers) and people refused to believe them -- or care -- sad to say, especially the American government at the time. Also Britain's Prince Edward (the guy who abdicated) was pro-Nazi. So support in Britain for a German invasion would have been tentative at best and the aftermath would have been disastrous for the political party in power.

    Besides, in 1938 the concentration camps were forced labor camps and not the death camps they became when WWII started. The "horror level" would have been less.

    And you also assume the world would have had pictures about what went on. Not necessarily so. We know about the concentration camps because General Eisenhower, as Supreme Allied Commander, ordered the press corp to take pictures. That's why we have all that newsreel footage and photos of the survivors and the mass graves, etc. He wanted evidence. Otherwise, this atrocity might have been swept under the carpet -- as politicians had been doing before 1941.

    If you think about how America has been discredited because of Iraq, then France and Britain surely would have been equally discredited. And the Nazis would have just gone underground and waited for another day.

    Source(s): Programs on the History Channel and other documentaries. Wikipedia
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The seeds of WWII were sown back in the 30 years war in the 17th century if not before. WWI also set the stage for WWII. At the end of WWI Germany was in a state of chaos and civil war. The terms which the Allies imposed on Germany were bound to cause massive resentment; it could not even be said that Germany was solely to blame for WWI - all parties (including the allies) were to blame - although the Treaty of Versailles would place the blame solely on Germany. So WWI and the Treaty of Versailles set the foundations for WWII.

    History books seldom truly reflect what happened. They give a lopsided view in favor of the victor. If Hitler had won WWII the quote you cite would never have been made and if the Allies had carried out a preemptive strike and defeated Germany again it would have been 'justified'. WWII was provoked, in part, by the Treaty of Versailles so the quote is wrong in any event. But you a re right that a the Allies would never be portrayed as the bad guys. it will take a few centuries to pass before History is 'revised'.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    That's a question with a political agenda.

    OK I'll play. I think that with the confirmation of the death camps, the world would have felt the war was justified. Millions of people being incinerated and processed for soap would be a hard thing to justify.

    Now if you are trying to make some kind of parallel to Iraq, I don't see it. Hitler was actively expanding, invading surrounding countries; his military was massive, his war programs so massive they could not be hidden or dismantled at a moments notice. None of this was true of Saddam. He was beaten back from Kuwait in the first Gulf War.... he dismantled his weapons programs by 1993. Saddam was a jerk, and a dictator, like many others, but he was not Hitler or even close to it.

    What I always wondered about was the US at the time. We didn't make any particular stand against Hitler... do you think if the Japanese hadn't dragged us into the conflict, we would have allowed Hitler to take Europe?

    And yes, my counter question has a political agenda.

    Source(s): Actual history, not Fox talking points.
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    the time to have stopped Hitler would have been in 1936, when Germany reoccupied the Rhienland. At this time, the French could have marched and swatted the Germans, caused an interal crisis that would have lead to the political downfall of the Nazis.

    Probably.

  • 1 decade ago

    France has always come out second best when allied with Britain. Safe from invasion, Briatain has consistently incited wars in Europe since the 1500's, ostensibly to "maintain the balance of power".

  • 1 decade ago

    England and France were in no position to attack Germany at that time. Thier respective militarys were found wanting, which is why Germany got as far as it did before the US got involved.

  • 1 decade ago

    The allies did nothing and watched Checkoslovakia and the Sudetland fall under Nazis rule without a wimper....

  • 1 decade ago

    Probably; though they would've prevented the Holocaust from even happening.

  • 1 decade ago

    I think this is our history and we couldn't change it

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.