Playing with history

[bluesdave]

Let's do a little playing with history, and use some philosophy and hypothetical thinking to see where this story might end. Assume that the President of the United States in 1938 is George W. Bush. Hitler has reoccupied the Rhineland, and annexed his homeland, Austria, and wants to break up Czechoslovakia and occupy the Sudetenland. Would George have taken the risk to take on Hitler, and in so doing, precipitate the war that so many feared was coming. Or would he have followed Roosevelt's stand, and back off - keeping to America's isolationist policy (at that time). Would he have gone against public opinion in order to restrain Hitler, or would he have let events unfold, as we now know only too well?

If he decided to play safe and backed off, when would he have stepped in when Hitler invaded Poland, and Britain declared war, or would he had waited, and taken action when Hitler invaded Belgium, and then France?

Assuming Bush is still out of the picture when the British and French evacuate from Dunkirk, would he have finally stepped in in 1940 when Hitler started to bomb Britain?

I am not trying to comment on Bush's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am just wondering if Bush could have prevented WW2, or would he have simply provoked action earlier than history records? Which scenario would have been better for the World?