"[Expletive] the Jews. They didn't vote for us anyway": Republicans and Israel

The following piece was produced by Huffington Post's OffTheBus.

Has George Bush ever been to a bar mitzvah or eaten a blintz? Rudy Giuliani has -- dozens of times. The Bush family has been never been very popular with Jews, but Giuliani won a big majority of the Jewish vote in the world's biggest Jewish city both times he ran for mayor. He's the Republican front runner; if he wins the nomination, could the Republican relationship to Jewish voters be transformed? That question lurked in the background when Giuliani and other GOP candidates spoke earlier this week in Washington at a forum sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition.

The traditional Republican stance was expressed eloquently back in 1992, when James Baker, at the time Secretary of State to President George H. W. Bush, said "[Expletive] the Jews. They didn't vote for us anyway."

Baker had his facts right: Bush Senior got only 11 per cent of the Jewish vote that year. Bill Clinton got about 80 per cent of the Jewish vote in both 1992 and 1996. Al Gore got the same in 2000. Even John Kerry got 76 of the Jewish vote in 2004.

But could that pattern change if Giuliani is the candidate in 2008? He got two-thirds of the Jewish vote in New York City when he ran against Democrat David Dinkins. He got three-quarters of the Jewish vote when he ran for reelection against Ruth Messinger, herself Jewish.

The Bush family was always more pro-Arab, especially pro-Saudi, than they were pro-Israel. Back in 1992, Baker was arguing for a tougher policy with Israel, pressing them to settle with the Palestinians. He reiterated that position last year in the Baker-Hamilton report, also known as the Iraq Study Group report, which argued we could weaken the appeal of Islamic terrorism by creating a viable Palestinian state, returning the Golan Heights to Syria, and negotiating with Iran.

Rudy is emphatically not that kind of Republican. He made that perfectly clear in his pitch at the Republican Jewish Coalition. As Maureen Dowd reported in the New York Times, he reminded listeners that he refused to accept a $10 million check for 9/11 families from the Saudi prince who urged America to "adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause." He reminded listeners that he threw Yasser Arafat out of a Lincoln Center concert held in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations.

Giuliani's pitch to Jews is all about Israel. "If I'm president," he said this week, "I'm not going to let any man destroy Israel" -- just in case you were wondering about that. He draws an analogy between the situation in Iraq and Gaza: if we pull out of Iraq, he says, Iraq will end up looking like Gaza after the Israelis pulled out. It will become another base for terrorists -- but one that is much bigger. And, of course, he talks about Hitler: "If Europe had confronted Hitler at an earlier stage," he said, "there would have been millions and millions of lives saved." That's why he would refuse to negotiate with today's Hitler, located in Iran.

Nevertheless it's unlikely that any Republican candidate, even Giuliani, will win Jewish votes away from the Democrats because of their positions on Israel. First of all, the Democratic candidate will be 100 per cent "pro-Israel" (meaning they support the parties on the Israeli right).

Secondly, only a handful of Jews vote on the basis of the candidates' "support for Israel." "Jewish voters look like other voters with high levels of education," says Ira Foreman, co-editor of Jews in American Politics, writing in the Israeli daily Haaretz. The main difference is that they are more liberal: "Jews place more emphasis on civil liberties than their non-Jewish counterparts. Jews support abortion rights at higher levels than other Americans. Jews support the concept of separation of church and state. Jews support gay marriage and civil unions at higher levels than non-Jews."

Finally, when Giuliani won those Jewish majorities in New York City, the city was in a steep economic decline, the South Bronx was burning, the crack epidemic seemed unstoppable. Rudy's tough-guy stance worked in that context, but the country has different concerns today. In 2008, the great majority of Jews once again will vote for the Democrat, even if the Republican is Rudy.

Comments

[cognate]

The issue is not how American Jews vote, but how certain powerful Jews affect the perception of issues / politicians / candidates by all Americans, Jewish or not.

Some of these powerful Jews are committed to expending American power regardless of consequences to ensure Israel's military dominance over its enemies.

Since the Arabs and other Muslims are putting up more resistance than expected by the original Zionists, we are looking at indefinite war. This is what feeds the so-called clash of civilizations with the so called Islamo-Fascists.

[dr7854]

Great revisionist history Cognate! How quickly you forget it was Bush, a fundamentalist Christian nut job, who not only made the CHOICE to attack Iraq, and made the CHOICE to give ALL Muslims the fear that Christians were re-starting their "Crusade" against them, by actually being that much of a moron to have even used the word "Crusade" to describe his personal war against Muslim fundamentalists. If I were a Muslim, and not a Jew, I know that's how I would have felt the moment I heard Bush utter that word, along with his actions, and other hate filled words, just like AS a Jew I feel, and understand that Christian Fundamentalists, including Bush, want to "perfect" me, as if being a Christian makes someone "perfect!"

[cognate]

The present conflict didn't start with Bush's attacking Iraq in 2003. It started with the European Zionist idea at the end of the 19th century. As European Jews immigrated to British-controlled Palestine there was instant Arab resistance including the uprisings in the 1930's.

Permanent war with Arabs / Moslems started in 1948 with the establishment of Israel. And please don't bring up the Romans or I'll bring up the Canaanites.

You may argue that Jews also deserve their state, but you'll have a hard time convincing the region's prior inhabitants that they should just pack up and leave. Or submit to second-class citizenship in what is after all a nationalist theocracy.

[Boobaloo]

You are exactly right cognate.

[NicoleAnonymous]

The biggest Jewish city in the world?

Anyone heard of Tel Aviv?

[GladysKnightsPIP]

Tel Aviv doesn't have 10 million people.

[dictatortot]

And NYC doesn't have 10 million Jews.

In fact, the majority of the world's 17 million+ Jews now live in Israel.

http://www.newsprism.com

[emmaco]

First, I'm not a Republican, nor a racist, nor an evangelical Christian, nor do I assume that any group of voters are "one-note Johnnies".

I did go to a friend's daughter's bat mitzvah last weekend (three hours?), and I guess I forgot to wear my stormtrooper's ensemble. If we can get past that nonsense for a moment...

I asked a simple question, which still hasn't been answered, only obfuscated with nonsensical poorly thought through rhetoric. I'll try again.

To recap, Jewish votes in the United States have statistically voted 90%+ for Democratic candidates. I don't think that's arguable.

It would appear that Republican Presidents (at least from Nixon on) have been far better at protecting Israel's security than Democratic Presidents.

Why?

Note that the article underlying premise had no problem asking the question from a more perverse perspective with no complaints.

[NicoleAnonymous]

I don't get it. What does this have to do with anything?

I did go to a friend's daughter's bat mitzvah last weekend (three hours?), and I guess I forgot to wear my stormtrooper's ensemble. If we can get past that nonsense for a moment...

[emmaco]

OK, NicoleAnonymous I'll try and explain. It was sarcasm. Ask a question on this site, and if it's contrarian to a liberal viewpoint one will get their character attacked each and every time.

I put the sarcastic comment in as a premptive strike- something done to keep one better protected against future attacks.

You may note in earlier responses it was assumed I had a limited attention span and was an evangelical Republican.

I asked a question twice, and have yet to receive a logical on-topic answer that is relevant to the article's premise.

[dr7854]

emmaco- 1st, I completely disagree that Republican Presidents have been far better at protecting Israel. Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter did more in the name of bringing peace to the Middle East, which would be the BEST thing for Israel's security, than all the Republican Presidents of the last 30-40 years(at least)did for Israel combined.

2nd-It may appear to you that Bush, and the rest of his Fundamentalist Christian nut jobs support Israel's security, and in some ways they do. The question is why? It's because they are "end timer's" who believe that all of the land that was considered Israel in ancient times must be back in the hands of Jews, before Christ will return, and then all those Jews(of which I am one,by the way) must choose to convert to Christianity, or in Anorexic Ann's words, we must be "perfected," or we will go to hell with all those who are not Christians.

Now you know WHY it APPEARS to you the Republican Presidents have done more for Israel. I ASSURE you though, that appearances not only can be deceiving, but in this case THEY ARE DECEIVING!

[epotruchyeahright]

You're kidding, right?

Jimmy Carter -- recent anti-Semitic rhetoric notwithstanding -- did more to advance mideast peace by uniting Israel with Egypt than any president before or since. Clinton's work during his tenure makes what Reagan or either Bush has done look like child's play.
All W has done is push Israel and the Jews to give up land that they recaptured 40 years ago after having it stolen from them.
I hope this post gets approved; for some reason the last two I posted got held up.

[Andreas]

"It would appear that Republican Presidents (at least from Nixon on) have been far better at protecting Israel's security than Democratic Presidents."

I don't see how you reach that conclusion. Hence, your question makes no sense to me, either.

1) You're assuming 'Israel's security' is a concept we somehow all agree about. That is certainly not true.
(Some may favor an aggressive stance towards Israel's neighbors and support for a Jews-only definition of Israel to reach security, others think political conciliation and economic co-operation is the only way to peace, and that a two-state model is only a transitory step towards a united region of Palestine)

2) Your assertion includes an element of speculation. Each President acts under an unique set of conditions. It's simply impossible to know what the respective other guy would have done differently concerning specific policy decisions.

3) You overstate the influence of an individual President's maneuvering space vis-a-vis the institutionalized policies of the NSC, the State Department and Department of Defense. There is a lot of continuity over all those years in the ranks of these bureaucratic structures. Until Bush II, you didn't just go in and make policy against their longstanding wisdom, so they always had a say.

Perhaps, you mean to say that Republicans are happy to give Israel money and weapons, and to cheer every military or other expedition Israel undertakes while Democrats - sometimes - feel compelled to recognize the Palestinians as human beings?

[Andreas]

That should read:

You overstate the influence of an individual President's position and his maneuvering space vis-a-vis...

[pkafin]

Andreas, I agree,

Republicans were President in:

'56 when Israel was part of France and Britian's poorly conceived Suez canal fiasco (Though, as I understand it, Eisenhower was pissed about it).

'73 when Israel was subjected to a lousy war that they came close to losing.

'82 Israel and the PLO duke it out in Lebanon and Israel gets stuck there for decades.

'87-'91 when the first intefada was up and running.

'91 when Saddam sent 37 or so scuds into Israel and Israel, who had stayed completely out of the first gulf war, had their hands tied by the US.

'2001-present -- second intefada not a peaceful time for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict at all.

'05 -- Hezbullah v. Israel at Lebanon's expense

Conversely,

Democrats were in the Whitehouse in:

'48-'49 Israels founding and defensive war for independence

'67 Israel's quickest victory which gave it the territorial capital to make peace with Egypt.

'77 Peace deal with Egypt

1990's in which the basic framework for a settlement with the Palestinians was worked out (yet to implemented, but in the end it will look like what the Clinton/Barak/PA discussions had come up with).

1999 -- Israel left Lebanon and seemed to have an internationally recognized (U.N. certified) and respected border established.

It seems that Israel fares far better both in peace (which is preferable) and in war (which, at times, appears unavoidable if not inevitable) when a Democrat is in the Whitehouse.

[newyork444]

When Rudy won NYC mayor it was against a Black mayor who mis-handled the Crown Heights riots where Hasidic Jews were victimized by a Black mob. That is why Jews in New York voted for him. He just was in the right place at the right time.

Indeed, I remember being at a political dinner sponsored by NCFJE well before the first Rudy election that was attended by future candidate Rudy with his wife Donna. She was dressed in a strapless and lowcut gown (offensive to Hasidics) and reached out and attempted to shake hands with the major kingmaking rabbi ( a really naive move -- Hasidic men don't touch women they aren't married to -- ever -- at least in public). Dinkins and his wife were there too. They were appropriately dressed and mannered, and Dinkins went on to win the nomination and the election -- carrying Brooklyn (which at the time couldn't be done without NCFJE support.

Draw your own conclusions.

[PerryWhite]

Donna Hanover is history.

[newyork444]

your point?

[Boobaloo]

newyork444;Hasidic Jews were victimized by a Black mob
=======

Are you referring to the mob that was angry because a Hasidic driver ran over a black teenager and just left him on the road to die?

Is that the poor victimized Hasidic Jew you're referring to?

[Nommo]

One child was killed, a boy. His older sister was maimed for life.

[horseface]

Gee Whiz! For once I'd like to hear or read an article, column, or blog by a Jewish person that isn't about ISRAEL, ISRAEL, ISRAEL. What about becoming interested in the fate of U.S. instead of the money that can be sucked out of the U.S. Treasury?

[SouthJerseySteve]

Well, since this article IS ABOUT ISRAEL, what else shall we blog about?

[horseface]

Don't Jews have interests, other than themselves? I mean does everything they write, think or say have to be so focussed on JEWS? Why not expand your horizons?

[Johnz52]

(Expletive) the Jews is as good a start as any. Israel is responsible for the terrorist bombing of the USS Liberty in 1967. Pollard spied for Israel. AIPAC is also embroiled in the stealing of top secret documents, and this is supposed to be an ally. Right. Not since Eisenhower has a U.S. president put any type of real pressure on Israel's rogue actions in an attempt to reign them in. That is exactly why most Muslim countries perceive the U.S. as biased, because it is. Israel has violated international law and countless U.N. resolutions for nearly 6 decades. They refuse to join the IAEA, sign a nuclear non-proliferation treaty and allow inspections of their facilities. Israel has illegally confiscated Palestinian and Syrian lands in direct violation of international law. It is time for the next U.S. President to have policies that favor America first and not be concerned how the outcome will affect a rogue nation that masquerades as a democracy while embracing policies of apartheid and ethnic cleansing.

[ProgressiveChange]

That's why we are The Chosen People ... to absorb the shock propaganda perpetrated by imbeciles and idiots.

The entire State of Israel is smaller than New Jersey and large than Rhode Island. Its population, including a million Arabs, wouldn't equal Chicago and its suburbs.

If lunatics are running out of scapegoats for terrible foreign policy initiatives by the U.S., look in the mirror. We continue to elect mopes and narcissists, cowboys and mental midgets to run the nation. Nobody to blame but the values voters, hypocrites, and intellectual non-starters in this falling empire.

[MrLiberal53]

Israel has held land it gained in 1967 during a defensive war against several Arab states. It is neither illegal nor is it against existing international law.
The USS Liberty was attacked by mistake following its failure to move away from the coast with the rest of the US 6th Fleet. Israel did pay compensation to the crew and families of the ship.

[MsLiz]

Please keep writing on this and related subjects. I get so confused, because there is so much propaganda.

[warwick2005us]

The bottom line is: while most American Jews are indeed socially liberal (I am a proud social liberal myself), a large proportion (not just Republican Jews) show behavior and opinions regarding the Palestinian issue that are more in line with Netanyahu´s than anything else... There is indeed a minority of peaceniks out there, but, unfortunately, their voice is not heard through AIPAC, ADL, and other Jewish organizations, which have been hijacked by the Neocons and the so-called "Liberal Hawks"...

[Kendo Nagasaki]

The arab world has plenty of money from oil to assist Palestinians, but they do not. This seems to been deliberate policy to foment trouble against Israel.

The Israelis are no angels either, grabbing land in the West Bank.

Biblically speaking no particular ethnic group has a divine right to the land of Canaan. Read about it in Exodus.

[babylonandon]

The whole "grabbing land in the West Bank" bit came about because the Arabs kept using the West Bank as the primary invasion route to cut Israel in half.

None of this would have occured had the Arabs not invaded Israel FIRST.

The Israelis drove the Arabs out of Israel and OUT OF WHAT WAS PART OF JORDAN (the West Bank) all the way across the Jordan River.

It is far easier to defend from the banks of the Jordan River than it is to try to hold the thin middle of Israel (which the '47 partition placed at only 12 miles across in places) so the Israelis kept the West Bank part of Jordan to give them a defense in depth to keep the Arabs out.

[samguy]

If the Palestinians and Arab world had accepted the partition plan in '48, things would be a lot better for the Palestinians. Pure and simple. Let's not forget that there are about 150 million Arabs with how many countries? Israel is one tiny strip of land, not even one with oil.

As Martin Luther King said "Anti-Zionism is anti-semetism"

[Dansden]

If Republicans liked presidential candidate Michael Dukakis sitting in a tank w/ a super-sized helmet,
then REPUBLICANS will LOVE Rudy Guiliani in a DRESS
followed by pics of his 'boy friend', Larry Craig
followed with pics of David Vitter, Mark Foley and Ted Haggard, and
of course, Karl Rove, that dancing fool on YouTube...et al.....
Those 'fun-loving' Republicans-
favorites of the Christian-­'fight-win­g' extremists....

[GrannyBgood]

You're kidding, right?
The Neocons ARE mostly Jewish, or even dual-citizenship Israelis!

Their sticky fingers are in everyone's pie, mostly via AIPAC. Time to kick these traitors out of our country and restore our Democracy for AMERICANS.

[Hume]

Granny

Our uncle Gino often said that the ethnic enmities were kept alive by old aunts and grandmothers who taught the old hatreds to the younger generation.

Are you working on another iteration of the "stabbed-i­n-the-back­-by-the-Je­w argument"?

I think we can disagree on policy without making reference to whether it's a Jew or Presbyterian making the the argument. The facts either support the proposition or they do not. Ad hominem comments in the tradition of Julius Streicher do not help provide clarity.

[avergejoe]

I think we can agree on who is forcing policy.

From HumanEvents 03/20/07:
For it was Pelosi who quietly agreed to strip out of the $100 billion funding bill for Iraq a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before launching any new war on Iran.
Why did Pelosi capitulate? Answer: She was "under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC),"
"Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received a smattering of boos when she bad-mouthed the war effort during a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the Democratic leadership, responding to concerns from pro-Israel lawmakers, was forced to strip from a military appropriations measure a provision meant to weaken President Bush's ability to respond to threats from Iran."

[CaptainObvious]

Yeah, but that doesn't make it any less true.

[jhNY]

Granny's jingoism and prejudice notwithstanding, ashe makes a point which you have ignored entirely. Why?

The so-called neocons (Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz-- and their supporters in print and soundbite--Kristol, Podhoretz) have managed to exert an influence on mid-East and foreign policy generally which, however helpful to their own causes and hopes for Israel, have done little to improve the security of the United States and a great deal of harm to our status and image among the other nations in the area and beyond.

[EdRocktober]

Is this part of Coulter's drive to "Perfect" the Jews?

The Nazi's had a perfection plan too

[CheGuevara1]

Not true. Try again.

[dr7854]

Hey Granny! You do realize, as has been stated in many of the comments in this blog, that MOST Americans who are Jewish, like myself, are pro-Democrat, and anti-Republican, and therefore we are AGAINST the Neo-Con criminals who are destroying our country. You also must realize the top 2 Neo-con thugs are Bush, and Cheney, who last I checked, neither are Jewish! Cheney is pure fascist to the bone, and Bush is nothing but a Christian Fundamentalist hate monger, as I'm guessing you are as well!

Nice try Granny!

[emmaco]

Wiener continues to avoid the elephant in the closet:

Why do American Jews continue to support a Democratic party that does not defend Israel to the best of its abilities and conversely remain hostile to a President that does support Israel.

Until the issue is fully addressed all the other rhetoric on this site seems damned silly and downright superfluous.

Based on results, it would seem the Israelis would not want Hillary in office...

[azstrummer]

I don't know but it feels like the elephant in the closet has nothing to do with why Jews do this or do that but why we, after all these years put some sort of magical importance to their label. It seems to me that the very act of distinguishing the behavior of an individual in this country by their chosen religion or cultural heritage is an act of bigotry in itself even if the distinction is pushed upon us by the members of that very group.

Notice in this discussion there's nobody caring who the Lutherans or the Atheists are going to vote for. I'm sure I'm not the only one that sees this hypocrisy.

Art Martin

[epotruchyeahright]

emmaco, we American Jews are not Israelis; we are Americans. What happens in Israel, while it does inform our thinking, is not all we think about. As a father of two young boys, I care more about the quality of the public schools in our neighborhood than what happens in East Jerusalem. I care more about the flagging support nationwide of scientific research and rational thought, while religious fundamentalism saps more and more of our collective intelligence, than I do about who wins the election is Israel.
It's frustrating that so many Americans think in such one-dimensional terms. One is either this way or that way. Personally, I a social liberal who hates abortion (but knows that having the choice is better than not having it if we want to reduce unwanted births and teen pregnancies), tolerate gay marriage (if just to shut its supporters up -- it's just no big deal), loves the environment but also loves business expansion, loves the government safety net but hates the big spending on social welfare, loves diversity but hates the sacrifice of common sense in favor of said diversity, and votes his conscience rather than his party.
Honestly, if Giuliani wasn't such a populist putz, he might have gotten my vote. I hate the way he panders to the religious conservatives, dressing in their dress, while he supports more liberal ideals than Arnold Schwarzenegger. He hates taxes -- as I do -- supports abortion right and gun control -- as I do -- and favors capitalism over socialism -- as I do. Where he loses me, however, is his support of continuing the war in Iraq. And -- dig this -- continuing the war in Iraq has major benefits for Israel.
Are you dizzy yet with all of this nuance, emmaco? Probably not. You stopped reading after the first sentence, didn't you?

[emmaco]

Actually I didn't stop reading.

Do you really think the Democratic Party is interested in improving American Schools? Out here in California the teacher's union spent $100 million to defeat such measures just two years ago with massive Democratic support.

Do you really think that religious fundamentalism is strictly a Republican trait? An Islamic one? A Jewish one?

Obviously many Jews in America do vote along party lines or this discussion would never have come about.

Do you believe that Congress or the courts should write our laws? I think that responsibility is pretty well spelled out in the Constitution. Yet the Democratic party is intent on using the courts to create new law.

So we've killed off 45 million Americans since Roe v. Wade- it's OK- we replaced them with 38 million illegals that won't be paying into your "safety net". Makes perfect sense to me!

I don't care if you vote for Guiliani or not. There are only three things I know for sure:

1. Every candidate will come here begging for money and rarely make a single public appearance.

2. California will get screwed no matter who wins. Would that unbuilt border fence be to keep them thar immigrants out or in?

3. People on the East Coast will continue to think they're smarter than everyone else.

[nihilon x]

As an African-American, I agree with you on this.

People seem to immediately want to assume that just because I am black, I have to fit the stereotype -- they tend to want to focus on the "African" rather than the "American".

Hopefully there will one day come a day where we are indeed judged by our own individual actions rather than our race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc -- but apparently we have a long way to go before people can put such thinking behind them.

Much respect to you for speaking out on this issue.

[Honest George]

I hope the last sentence of yout article is correct.
But I am wondering.. When are the political ads showing Rudy in a dress coming out. Certainly not Presidental.

[Donald Wolberg]

I think we need to separate the views of Jewish folks in New York, likely very pro-Rudy for the obvious reasons, from those elsewhere. I would suspect that just as any other group one might construct, the defining edges are sharper on paper than in reality. I suspect that American Jews are much like other folks and more in keeping with a larger array of issues than Rudy cleaning up Times Square. One might suspect that Jewis voters in Lincoln, Nebraska, just might be mode concerned with the high cost of medical insurance and energy, or the price of corn.

[newyork444]

MHO, based on living in NYC for many, many years, is that NY Jews (or any other New Yorkers), having been fully familiar with RG, would likely vote for anyone else, rather than endure his pathetic shtick one more second. And the minority -- to think they are VERY pro-Rudy -- even if they lean towards Rudyfascism as an idealism -- never. His personal life is an embarrassment to New Yorkers who fear he somehow might be taken to exemplify values most don't share.

[Boyarina]

"If Europe had confronted Hitler at an earlier stage," he said, "there would have been millions and millions of lives saved."

He should speak for himself - Europe confronted Hitler in 1939 while prominent American families and corporations had been bankrolling Hitler for years, and the USA didn't confront Hitler until the spring of 1942...

[Hume]

Boyarina,

In 1939, as now, the American capitalist mind saw the opportunity for Marks in the newly awakened Deutschland. As Mr. Black describes the story, IBM's Thomas Watson was busy providing Hollerith punchcard technology to der Fuhrer, even to the point of having the technical support follow the Reich troops into Poland where the names of Jews could be gathered, under force, from different Judenrate -- some of the members of which chose death over divulging names to be recorded on punchcards. The "invisible hand" of the free market is not a discerning hand, it will strangle an intruder bent on murder and mayhem as quickly as it will strangle its own child.

[MagisterLudi]

In all truth non one really knows what would've happened if England and/or France declared war on Germany prior to Danzig corridor stint.
There's some chance that Stalin would've joined with Hitler, or Poland would've joined USSR or could've been the trench warfare again.We will never know.
And those who say they do are lying, are being ignorant or selling something.

Sorry Matushka Boyarina.