From: billy@anon.com 
  
 "Max Demian"  wrote in message 
 news:107n6eq$13dqm$1@dont-email.me... 
 > On 14/08/2025 21:59, JNugent wrote: 
 >> On 14/08/2025 04:25 PM, The Todal wrote: 
 >>> On 14/08/2025 15:17, JNugent wrote: 
 >>>> On 12/08/2025 04:43 PM, JNugent wrote: 
 > 
 >>>>> As you were well aware, the reference was to the post-1945 settlement 
 >>>>> with Poland possessing a large part of what had been Germany and the 
 >>>>> Soviet Union possessing another large part (though smaller than the 
 >>>>> portion subsumed into Poland). 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> Was / is that acceptable? 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> It's a straightforward enough question, well capable of a "Yes" or "No" 
 >>>>> answer. 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> Or, one supposes, an "I don't know" answer. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> I wonder whether an answer to that is going to appear? 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Or perhaps someone has realised the obvious implications of any answer 
 >>>> of "Yes" or "No"? 
 >>> 
 >>> Or perhaps nobody cares very much or nobody is reading this thread now. 
 >>> So why not answer your question yourself? 
 >> 
 >> I'm in two minds about it. I'm still not sure that the accommodations with 
 the Soviet 
 >> Union accepted by Roosevelt (later, Truman) and Churchill (later Attlee) 
 were proper. 
 > 
 > The four victors of WW2 (UK, US, France, Russia) were left with the spoils 
 of war. Each 
 > administered their parts according to their preferred ideologies: democracy 
 or 
 > communism. 
 >> Eastern Europe was not theirs to give away to Stalin, yet that's what they 
 did. Ironic 
 >> that the UK went to war over Poland but left Poland completely in the 
 hands 
 of one of 
 >> the two 1939 invaders until 1989/90. 
 > 
 > Russia didn't invade Poland, Germany did. 
 >> If the freedom of Poland wasn't all that important to the UK in the forst 
 place, one 
 >> wonders whether the war could really have been worth it. Just imagine a 
 world where 
 >> WW2 hadn't happened. 
 > 
 > No nukes for a start. A lot less militaristic. No holocaust (probably). I'm 
 sure that 
 > the Nazis would have mellowed in time. Look at all the extremism we have 
 today. WW2 
 > didn't eliminate that. 
  
 If the UK hadn't entered WW2 ,then the US wouldn't have been able to 
 enter it subsequently, either. As you can't launch it a seaborne invasion 
 over thousands of miles of ocean. 
  
 So the Nazis would have had free rein in Europe, up to the Soviet Border. 
 With no sideshows to distract them, and no Allies supplying the 
 Soviets, its likely they'd have eventually over-run the Soviets as 
 well 
  
 Then they could have turned their attention to the "neutral" countries 
 including the UK. 
  
 The Holocaust was entirely separate from the War. Except to the extent 
 that each country they conquered produced even yet more victims. 
  
 The US only developed the bomb in response to Einstein and others 
 warning of ,German developments There's no reason to think that 
 German research wouldn't have continued; eventually allowing a 
 pre-emptive strike on the US. Maybe then triggering retaliation. 
  
 That's leaving Japan out of the equation of course. With the Japanese 
 overrunning Singapore and then invading Burma neutrality in that 
 theatre was clearly never an option. 
  
 And with Germany being Japan's Axis ally, that would be an indirect 
 declaration of War on Germany in any case. Just as Hitler declared 
 war on the US 4 days after Pearl Harbour. 
  
  
  
 bb 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)