“Thus there never would have been a second world war.”
Apparently, they’ve never heard of Japan.
‘Is this the way American History is being taught these days?’
Yep, it is.
Keep in mind there is a huge percentage of teachers that are ‘liberal’ and then remember one of the basic tenets of liberalism is America can’t win a war.
So, they feel the need to explain away any ‘win’ you might bring up. WWI, WW2, Gulf War, etc.
Its always the same.
Its telling that in 1960, they would have either supported the South, or if ‘up north’ they’d have supported McClellan in 1864’s general election against Lincoln.
You understood that? I’m either impressed or afraid that you have been exposed to too much liberal speak. What does it say?
>>>>The most likely outcome of World War I sans our misguided participation would have been a stalemate with both sides exhausted from 5 years of trench warfare. The rise of Hitler and Mussolini probably would have been precluded. Thus there never would have been a second world war.<<<<
None of this would have happened if America was never founded. Its all George Washingtons Fault!
That was the standard thinking 30 years ago. Nothing new.
“Lefty navel gazers are just the dim landing lights on the moonbat runway” (c)
Are you one of those guys who think that history is just some dust under the rug? Don’t you know that history is a living, breathing thing, changing as fast as the culture allows?
Time to pick up the carpets, give them a good shake and clean house!
Read the book “A peace to end all peace” and then go back and read what this article says again.
No, if Wilson hadn't hoodwinked the American people, the likely outcome of World War I would have been a German victory. Once they took Russia out of the war, the troops from the Eastern Front would have been available to go after the British and French.
The 1920s and 1930s would have been much different.
If my aunt had any balls, she’d be my uncle.
This is an old "America Firster" argument for isolationism.
The reality is that Germany would likely have conquered France and become a hostile superpower equal in size, wealth and technology to the USA.
The original alliance was France-England-Russia versus Germany and Austria.
By 1917, England was close to exhaustion, Russia was having its own internal revolution and German forces were 70 miles from Paris, shelling the city with long-range guns.
If America hadn't reinforced the crumbling British and French lines, Paris could well have been swept by Germany's 1918 spring offensive in April 1918, giving Germany a decisive victory.
Mussolini's Italy was one of the winning parties in World War I.
The idiot who wrote this is complaining that Germany's defeat fueled fascism in Germany - why did Italy's victory fail to stop fascism in Italy?
It is pointless to wrestle a pig in the mud because you just get yourself dirty, and after a while you figure out that the pig is enjoying it.
Until there is a CLEAR winner and loser, the war will continue on, pause for a while, and continue again at a later date.
Had WWI resulted in stalemate, the Germans would have had a net gain of territory and there would have been a time of “peace” during which both sides would have built bigger and badder weapons to ultimately resolve the conflict.
Hmmm, sounds a lot like WWII.
On the other hand Germany might have won.
The big questions are 1) what would have become of the Bolsheviks (we were going to have to fight them sooner or later) and 2) Would the British Empire have survived.
I do a lot of historical gaming. The idea that the USA made little difference in either war and that the USSR would have won regardless is very prevalent, especially in Europe. They even tend to beef up the USSR for WWII games to match the moonbats’ expectations.
One thing you should be able to bring up on WWI: The Second Battle of the Marne turned on the use of USA troops. Without the US divisions, the Germans would not likely have been stopped. The subsequent TE assaults relied heavily on US soldiers.
The lodestar of their argument is always this: Whatever war America participated in, it did so with only base motives to oppress and exploit other peoples. With that any argument can have its facts conveniently adjusted or ignored. You will also hear “imperialism” when somebody wishes to show how much Marxist scholarship they understand. I don’t argue with them, I poke fun. If they get angry I show some pictures I have of what American teenagers had to die for in order to stop.
BUSH'S FAULT!
This has been going on a long time. If you really want to hear alternative history arguments, hang out on the threads where the WBTS gets chewed over.
To some, if the South had won the war, only good things would have resulted. The US would now be a libertarian/conservative paradise, with no welfare state or socialism. World history in the 20th would have been no different, with both fascism and communism being defeated despited what is now the US divided and perhaps even on opposite sides in world conflicts.
Of course, whether you talk WWI, WBTS, Vietnam or any other conflict, there are lots of other possible outcomes, some perhaps worse than what actually did happen. But few ever want to talk about those.
Of course, back during the war, he'd been as desperate as anyone else in the British government to get American help, so the argument doesn't reflect well on Winston.
I suppose it's as valid as any other counterfactual argument. But the problem is that it relies too much on hindsight, on information one couldn't have had at the time.
By that line of reasoning there would never have been an American Revolutionary War and our citizens would have been conscripted by our rulers, Great Britain, to fight in WWI.