Hello Amigos! Today I Will Make The (Probably) First ``What If´´ Discussion!
So,In This Timeline... WW1 Was A Stalemate
Neither Saide Could Get The Win.
After 6 Years Of War 1914-1920,They Made White Peace.
And One Of The Articules Said That Poland Would Get It´s Independence.
And Poland Was Fully Recgonized In 1925.
Hitler Was One Of The German Soldiers That Dies On Battle Of Verdun.

Well,That Is All The Information I Can Give You.
One MoreThing: Poland Is In A Battle With Czechslovakia (New Country Created By Rebels) Because There Is Border Agiung.

New Countries:
Poland --- Lithuania --- Finnish-Estonian Commonwealth --- Latvia --- Czechslovakia --- Bavaria --- USSR --- Napoli ---- And Ukrania.

(I Know This Is KINDA Stupid,But Just Get Along With it.)
-Nobody (Nobody Here)

Poland was fascist.

To an extent, yes. Piłsudski did install a dictatorship. I don't know that much about it, so I won't make arguments to support the idea of Poland not being fascist, but hey, it still got invaded by the Nazis, didn't it? :p

It doesn't matter if Poland was fascist,dictatorship,republic,monarchy,communist. It WOULD get SMASHED by USSR and Germany.

^ can't deny that, lol.

If Germany and USSR decided to gangbang Poland (which they did), Poland's ideology does not matter at all.

Well from what I see, you could probably make the distinction between it and fascism and just call it a junta (military government) but Hitler did admire Piłsudski.

>White Peace
>Sides make demands of each other

Sounds like you don't know what a white peace is...

It doesn't matter if Poland was fascist,dictatorship,republic,monarchy,communist. It WOULD get SMASHED by USSR and Germany.

Poland had already been awfully smashed by Germany for a month before the Soviets occupied Eastern Portions of it. And if it had been, say, allied to Czechoslovakia and prevented Czechoslovakia from being annexed puppeted by Germany, it isn't a stretch to say Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania couldn't beat Germany in a war, considering the best German tanks by the time Germany engaged in war with Poland were Czech made, and the Sudentanland was defended by a line comparable to the Maginot line. Especially with French and Soviet support if the pact manages to hold.

Not sure if Piłsudski can be called fascist. He was very much authoritarian, and bit of the fascist block, made deals with Germany, planned for a joint invasion of Russia with Germany, giving full military access, but eventually relations soured when Poland refused to give the Gdansk hallway.

Hitler said he didn't really care about the corridor and just wanted Poland itself.

With minor exceptions German national unification has been achieved. Further successes cannot be achieved without bloodshed. Poland will always be on the side of our adversaries... Danzig is not the objective. It is a matter of expanding our living space in the east, of making our food supply secure, and solving the problem of the Baltic states. To provide sufficient food you must have sparsely settled areas. There is therefore no question of sparing Poland, and the decision remains to attack Poland at the first opportunity. We cannot expect a repetition of Czechoslovakia. There will be fighting.

- Hitler, May of 1939 while addressing German Generals.

Comes from Kursk: The Greatest Battle: Eastern Front 1943 on page 26.

And no, you cannot claim everything that opposes your worldview a forgery.

Most lorewriters consider that book a falsehood maker, and yes I have, I have shown where it is from, go to that book for more, anyway, you and X are wrong.

This thread was not made to be a debate. Rather, it was supposed to a fun topic for the imagination to wander around.

There's absolutely no point taking it literally though. Of course the scenario makes no sense. That's why it didn't happen! Events revolve more around the balance of everything, rather than it does probabilities. There are of course exceptions to this, but that's not the point.

Let's now just take it at a chill, grab a few jelly beans from the jar and throw them out. Just don't spill it. :)

Edited 7/14/2016 21:47:19

Citation: a quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, especially in a scholarly work.

Lloyd Clark is a senior academic in the Department of War Studies at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and Professorial Research Fellow in War Studies, Humanities Research Institute, University of Buckingham.

You're really grasping at straws Lawlz :)

Give me a real reason why this isn't a citation considering the person who wrote it is educated and generally respected, Lawlz.

Note: Claim to authority argument isn't always a fallacy, and about half the time is considered a valid argument.

Edited 7/14/2016 23:50:54

>Lawlz
>generally respected

>Lawlz
>generally respected

Wasn't calling Lawlz generally respected, I was calling Karl Lawlz.

It is a citation, the definition fits it and the person is an expert in the field. Applying your logic to everything means that there is no validity in any major non fiction media, and if there is validity in non fiction media it means your logic is faulty. Let's see: The newscaster said it would be around 100 degrees F today, and what do you know, it is.

Your logic and argument is faulty.