What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I had to look up all of these references. I've never seen Airplane



(I did get the surely reference though)
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
That is quite the alternate history fantasy. Perhaps Oliver Stone should make a movie about it. :D
Click to expand...

The Brits definitely wanted us in. Their shipping definitely carried war materiel which under international law made it a fair target.

Pat is... well, he's Pat, he does his thing and I'm not always on board (to call him xenophobic is an understatement, which is pretty ironic considering Irish Catholics used to be The Mortal Threat to earlier incarnations of his reflexive paranoia about furners).

Our involvement in WW1 was avoidable, and was primarily motivated by profit. Where Pat loses me is when he tries to argue that in WW2 while we had a bone to pick with Japan we shouldn't have declared against Germany. That makes him his own reductio ad absurdum.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

He lost me when he said that America staying out would've resulted in a truce instead of the Allies kicking Germany in the nutsack via the Treaty of Versailles, and therefore Hitler would've never come to power. Where is that "Jump to Conclusions!" mat when you need it?
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
He lost me when he said that America staying out would've resulted in a truce instead of the Allies kicking Germany in the nutsack via the Treaty of Versailles, and therefore Hitler would've never come to power. Where is that "Jump to Conclusions!" mat when you need it?
Click to expand...

Because without Hitler Germany would never have had any problem with conservative extremism, militarism, expansionism, and anti-semitism... :eek:
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

ISIS/L beheads Steven Sotloff US journalist.

CNN confirms. WH cannot confirm.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Kepler said:
Because without Hitler Germany would never have had any problem with conservative extremism, militarism, expansionism, and anti-semitism... :eek:
Click to expand...
It's a very interesting question of what would have become of Germany if Hitler wasn't in the picture. We'll never know, but certainly he was a rather unique figure who was able to grab the reigns of power and then push all the ills that resulted. Nobody else in the Nazi camp strikes me as being remotely as capable of doing what Hitler did, but certainly Germany had a lot of challenging issues at the time and was a setting ripe for extremism to take root, whether Nazi or otherwise.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Bob Gray said:
It's a very interesting question of what would have become of Germany if Hitler wasn't in the picture. We'll never know, but certainly he was a rather unique figure who was able to grab the reigns of power and then push all the ills that resulted. Nobody else in the Nazi camp strikes me as being remotely as capable of doing what Hitler did, but certainly Germany had a lot of challenging issues at the time and was a setting ripe for extremism to take root, whether Nazi or otherwise.
Click to expand...

I lean towards "social forces" rather than "exceptional men" in history (though I give the latter some importance). For example: Alexander is important, but he gets nowhere without the rise of Macedonia under the centralizing power of the warlords and the internal collapse of Persia. Likewise Mohammed and the rapid expansion of Islam into a regional power vacuum (geez, it's always Persia that's collapsing...), and Charlemagne and the temporary union of Franks.

I agree Hitler had particular public speaking abilities, but if I were playing Alt-Hist I would say a radical right, xenophobic, anti-semitic force would still rise and enjoy populist fervor without him. After all, most of Europe was swept by far right, ultra-moralist, nationalist ideologies in the aftermath of WW1.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top