What if? I would like to indicate a good article on the partition of India and Pakistan....
I love history. It has been my passion since childhood, many years (decades) ago. The question here is what would have happened if India had not been partitioned in 1947 into two countries: India (mostly Hindu) and Pakistan (land of Islam). The theoretical aspect of this 'what if' question is fascinating, but I really don't think there was any better solution. Had not Britian opted for two separate nations, the bloodshed would have been much worse. As it was, it was bad enough. For the most part the author, Irfan Husain (no relation to our Irf), does not address religious issues, but concentrates on secular and social outcomes resulting from the partition. As with all history, there is a lesson for all of us here, somewhere. The Indies and Pakis are the same race, the only difference being the amount of curry on the food (a joke!). The reason for the 60 years of hostility is mostly religion - and cricket. One of the states is based upon religion, look what it did to them. For 50 years India adopted a socialist model based on the soviet system, and look what it did to them. Anyway, it is a good article and food for thought. It is about people and the place of religion in society. It is relevant today. Here is the article:
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/ColumnistHomeNew.asp?section=irfanhusain&col=yes

From the story:
"In their idle moments, historians often indulge in a game known as “What if?” in which they try to picture a world where a different set of decisions had been taken at critical moments in history. For example, what would have happened had Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union?"
...What would the Indian subcontinent be like today had it not been partitioned 60 years ago?
...Living under a secular constitution (like that of India) would have made life a lot easier for our minorities. They would not have to live in fear under our iniquitous Blasphemy Laws, and would be equal citizens. Women, too, would not be subject to random prosecution under Zia ul Haq’s infamous Hudood Ordinance for trumped-up morality charges.
...Many Pakistanis are of the view that had Partition not taken place, Muslims would have been oppressed by the Hindu majority.

This was a great (or tragic) moment in history. It shows what a government based upon religion does to a country. Note that the Muslim author never stops to consider the the fate of the Hindu minority in Pakistan, only the Muslims in India. This is so typical of Islam. Other people don't count. On any day of the year, the India treats Muslims better than Pakistan treats Hindus (the few that are left).

The author, to his credit, does recognize the vile nature of the Blasphemy Laws, and that non-Muslims are not equal citizens. And Muslims around the world - including Australia - want to impose their religion on secular governments. They want sharia for all of us.

The question is 'what if' if Muslims ever gained power in the west. Actually, there is no doubt at all. You could kiss notions of human rights, equality and all basic freedoms good-bye. Non-Muslims would immediately become 3rd class citizens (after 2nd class women). That is Islam. That is Pakistan and all other Islamic societies.

Kactuz

Kactuz

I know that this was a sideline to your thread, "what would have happened had Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union?" but the answer has been addressed.

The Soviet army and air force were deployed along the German and Rumanian borders, poised to attack in Operation Groza 'Thunderstorm', scheduled for 6th July 1941. Lined up along the frontier were 30 armies, including 60 tank divisions. 16 of these armies were 'Shock Armies', specifically trained for invasion. Each army had massive tank and artillery support. There were also five airborne corps in addition to the Osoaviakhim (like the US national Guard) and dispensable troops from the Gulags. The Red Air Force was prepared for full support. Stalin's plan was to invade when Germany was engaged in the west against Britain and France. Then he would push on to the Atlantic.
Luckily, Hitler was informed of the massive Soviet troop deployments and moved his western armies (thereby cancelling any chance of the invasion of Britain) back to face the Soviet menace.
Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa, pre-empting the Soviet attack by two weeks. The Soviets were prepared for a massive offensive and, when put on the defensive by the surprise attack, crumbled. The rest is history.

sources...'Icebreaker - Who Started World War II' by Victor Suvorov and 'Hitler:Stalin's Stooge' by James B. Edwards.

JSP,

Umm what? Hitler had always planned on invading Russia. He viewed communism and slavs about the same way as he viewed Jews. Plus there was the whole lebensraum thing sort of required that they actually take that living room from the nations to the east.

While not invading Russia would have freed up resources and men to face the western powers, it would still have delayed the inevitable. While Nazi Germany was ruled by Hitler, it faced a hamstrung military.

JSP
The day that Hitler invaded the USSR was probably the biggest turning point of the 20th Century. No other event put in motion so many major changes. Some observations:
1. There was no way Britain could have beat Germany by itself, and no way that Germany could have invaded England.
2. It would have been a stalemate and maybe a scientific arms race to see which side (UK vs Germany) would develop atomic weapons first.
3. The Russians would not have conquered Eastern Europe (until the 1960s?). No cold war, maybe.
Don't know. It is very hard to even think about all that could have happened - there are so many possibilities. Some times, it is not even the big things that change history (wars, battles, plagues), but small things one doesn't notice at the time (ideas, people).

One thing I do know. The future is never like it is supposed to be. New things happen that no one could foresee. The Sci Fi movies are a good example. They always get most of it wrong, not only timewise, but also basic technology and habits - but they are still fun.

Another thing that is important is that people can change things. In the early 1970s it looked very bad for the West. The Communists had taken Vietnam and were advancing in Africa and Latin America. Along came Reagan, Thatcher and of people with backbone (many leaders in Europe), saying things that nobody had the guts to say. They were honest about the issues and threats. I remember very clearly the hundreds of thousands of people marching for 'peace' in Europe and the courage that men and women had to stand up and say peace is fine but not when our enemies want to subdue us. They were reviled. It is so easy to say sweet things like 'peace' and 'love' but it is more important to be honest. There is a lesson here for the West today as we face new threats from an enemy that wants us to submit to their values of intolerance and hate.
Kactu

James, of course Hitler intended to invade the USSR, but not until the war in the west was over. He didn’t want a war on two fronts. When he learned of the massive Soviet army and air force build-up on the frontiers, he had to act to pre-empt the Soviet attack. As for facing a hamstrung military, surely you aren’t referring to the Soviets? They vastly outnumbered the Germans in men and materiel, but they were geared up for a surprise invasion with such equipment as fast, light tanks that were designed to zoom down the autobahns. The Soviet pre-invasion positions lacked defences (In fact, Stalin had his frontier defences dismantled in anticipation of his invading the West) and were very vulnerable to an attack. That’s what Hitler gave them, destroying the unsuspecting invasion forces.

Kactuz, if Hitler hadn’t pre-empted the Soviet invasion, Stalin’s plan was to roll into Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia while Germany was locked in war in the west. Another army group was poised to take the Ploesti oilfields in Romania. Then it would be a drive to the Atlantic coast. This scenario puts not only Eastern but also Western Europe under Soviet rule in the 1940’s. If Japan still brought the USA into the war, it’s debatable if they would have taken on the Soviet European behemoth or concentrated on a Pacific war.
BTW, I share your views on the so-called ‘peace’ movement and the current threats to the West.