Artabax wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 1:24 am
6) Oh no it doesn't: most alt-histories assume WWI would have happened anyway.
As I have said before on the subject, and was quite correctly corrected, there are numerous reasons for WW1. That said, my initial view of ''it was inevitable as that is what happens when you cram half a dozen expansionist empires onto one piece of land'' still rings true with me.
Realistically, what else was going to stop the European empires than all out war? I certainly wonder what would have happened if a ''not diminished by two world wars'' Europe went up against Cold War era US and Russia.
I said it before, I'll say it again - a huge area I disagree with Chuck is that he seems to not understand why any man would feel uncomfortable working in a mostly female environment, even seems offended by that. But men like that exist, they've been referenced in studies where there's anxiety about women coming into primarily male-dominated areas. I do think Chuck would, quite possibly, consider such a man an idiot, and while that's not technically inaccurate, I think it does relate to a larger problem in today's world, where certain right-leaning people (no matter to what degree, big or small) think that women and minorities have gotten too much power now, that men and whites are the real victims. I've seen this mindset, and I disagree with it, heavily. But I'm not suggesting Chuck is that way. I guess my overall point is it ties into the larger divide of left vs. right, especially in today's hyperpolarized world.
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
Artabax wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 1:24 am
6) Oh no it doesn't: most alt-histories assume WWI would have happened anyway.
As I have said before on the subject, and was quite correctly corrected, there are numerous reasons for WW1. That said, my initial view of ''it was inevitable as that is what happens when you cram half a dozen expansionist empires onto one piece of land'' still rings true with me.
Realistically, what else was going to stop the European empires than all out war? I certainly wonder what would have happened if a ''not diminished by two world wars'' Europe went up against Cold War era US and Russia.
Why would France and Britian go to war with the USA?
Artabax wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 1:24 am
6) Oh no it doesn't: most alt-histories assume WWI would have happened anyway.
As I have said before on the subject, and was quite correctly corrected, there are numerous reasons for WW1. That said, my initial view of ''it was inevitable as that is what happens when you cram half a dozen expansionist empires onto one piece of land'' still rings true with me.
Realistically, what else was going to stop the European empires than all out war? I certainly wonder what would have happened if a ''not diminished by two world wars'' Europe went up against Cold War era US and Russia.
Why would France and Britian go to war with the USA?
Why would two expansionist empires want a country as wealthy and vast as the USA?
But that is not what I meant, I meant it more as ''what if there was a third player in the Cold War?'' And the British Empire that was not diminished by the world wars would have been that.
Artabax wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 1:24 am
6) Oh no it doesn't: most alt-histories assume WWI would have happened anyway.
As I have said before on the subject, and was quite correctly corrected, there are numerous reasons for WW1. That said, my initial view of ''it was inevitable as that is what happens when you cram half a dozen expansionist empires onto one piece of land'' still rings true with me.
Realistically, what else was going to stop the European empires than all out war? I certainly wonder what would have happened if a ''not diminished by two world wars'' Europe went up against Cold War era US and Russia.
Why would France and Britian go to war with the USA?
Why would two expansionist empires want a country as wealthy and vast as the USA?
But that is not what I meant, I meant it more as ''what if there was a third player in the Cold War?'' And the British Empire that was not diminished by the world wars would have been that.
Because it's wats territory is hard top control and it has an amazing anti dictatoship immune system.
Artabax wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 1:24 am
6) Oh no it doesn't: most alt-histories assume WWI would have happened anyway.
As I have said before on the subject, and was quite correctly corrected, there are numerous reasons for WW1. That said, my initial view of ''it was inevitable as that is what happens when you cram half a dozen expansionist empires onto one piece of land'' still rings true with me.
Realistically, what else was going to stop the European empires than all out war? I certainly wonder what would have happened if a ''not diminished by two world wars'' Europe went up against Cold War era US and Russia.
Why would France and Britian go to war with the USA?
Why would two expansionist empires want a country as wealthy and vast as the USA?
But that is not what I meant, I meant it more as ''what if there was a third player in the Cold War?'' And the British Empire that was not diminished by the world wars would have been that.
Because it's wats territory is hard top control and it has an amazing anti dictatoship immune system.
I mean I'll give you the first because American's tend to be belligerent assholes. But the second?
Artabax wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 1:24 am
6) Oh no it doesn't: most alt-histories assume WWI would have happened anyway.
As I have said before on the subject, and was quite correctly corrected, there are numerous reasons for WW1. That said, my initial view of ''it was inevitable as that is what happens when you cram half a dozen expansionist empires onto one piece of land'' still rings true with me.
Realistically, what else was going to stop the European empires than all out war? I certainly wonder what would have happened if a ''not diminished by two world wars'' Europe went up against Cold War era US and Russia.
Why would France and Britian go to war with the USA?
Why would two expansionist empires want a country as wealthy and vast as the USA?
But that is not what I meant, I meant it more as ''what if there was a third player in the Cold War?'' And the British Empire that was not diminished by the world wars would have been that.
Because it's wats territory is hard top control and it has an amazing anti dictatoship immune system.
Still doesn't mean they wouldn't want to try. The British and French conquered all sorts of shit that logically they shouldn't have done - one of the reasons the British Empire fell was terrible strategic thinking.
Still doesn't mean they wouldn't want to try. The British and French conquered all sorts of shit that logically they shouldn't have done - one of the reasons the British Empire fell was terrible strategic thinking.
Like what post 1900?
TrueMetis wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 7:46 pm
I mean I'll give you the first because American's tend to be belligerent assholes. But the second?
It had brief periods of overreach but is pretty much desinged in way taht can be the host of an overseas Empire but it cannot opressed like the Soviet Union did to it's own citizens or even like France during ww2.
Still doesn't mean they wouldn't want to try. The British and French conquered all sorts of shit that logically they shouldn't have done - one of the reasons the British Empire fell was terrible strategic thinking.
Like what post 1900?
And that is unbelievable why? Do you realise, and seemingly you don't, just how much the world wars advanced American power whilst simultaneously castrating the British? Without the world wars, we are looking at a completely different USA. One that most likely would never have developed the A-bomb in 1945 let alone rose as quickly as it did to become THE superpower without the need to dedicate so much effort to advancing its industry base to fight the Nazis and the Japanese. One that would have been competing with a Britain that hadn't lost the bulk of its army to the Somme and the Blitz, one that still had half the planet as its industry base.
Would the USA still have rose to what it is today? Who knows, this is informed guesswork. But the 20th century would have been WILDLY different.
Still doesn't mean they wouldn't want to try. The British and French conquered all sorts of shit that logically they shouldn't have done - one of the reasons the British Empire fell was terrible strategic thinking.
Like what post 1900?
And that is unbelievable why? Do you realise, and seemingly you don't, just how much the world wars advanced American power whilst simultaneously castrating the British? Without the world wars, we are looking at a completely different USA. One that most likely would never have developed the A-bomb in 1945 let alone rose as quickly as it did to become THE superpower without the need to dedicate so much effort to advancing its industry base to fight the Nazis and the Japanese. One that would have been competing with a Britain that hadn't lost the bulk of its army to the Somme and the Blitz, one that still had half the planet as its industry base.
Would the USA still have rose to what it is today? Who knows, this is informed guesswork. But the 20th century would have been WILDLY different.
The debate started about why on the devil's green hell woudl Britain attack the United States and how would it even attempt top conquer it.
