and US should have stayed out of WWI. its not like there was any difference morally between France/Germany/UK. they were all european powers jostling for supremacy

if WWI had ended differently there is no soviet russia, hitler would have died as an unknown artist in vienna, no iron curtain, mao etc

in fact we are still dealing with the aftereffects of WWI and strictly speaking WWI itself was due to Napoleon. Basically Napoleon disturbing the European status quo with his quest for a world empire was the seminal moment in modern european/world history and everything else is just aftershocks of that earth quake - prussian empire, german reunification, france's thirst for revenge leading to WWI which led to WWII, communism, nazism etc

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131311&forum_id=2#37218424)

not to mention that UK had already transitioned into a parliamentary democracy by the time rousseau

but a guy like napoleon just like genghis was a historical accident. if they had died in their youth it is extremely unlikely that the events that followed their rise would have occurred. sure there may have been other turbulent events and points of friction - the most obvious being the conflict between northern protestant german states and HRE, serfs/jews vs tsars that might have still led to events like WWI/WWII but it wasn't inevitable

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131311&forum_id=2#37218542)

french revolution/rousseau was predated by english commonwealth so it wasn't even the first occurrence of an absolute monarchy being overthrown for democracy in europe

as i said democracy and weakening of monarchy was inevitable and if not for rousseau it would have been some other philosopher causing a revolution - french or german or whatever. french revolution was a direct result of western enlightenment, european renaissance, spread of literacy and awakening of peasants/common people

genghis/napoleon were historical flukes. some other mongol might have been content to be a tribal leader ruling a territory the size of rhode island and a different french autocrat would never be audacious enough to dream of conquering moscow

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131311&forum_id=2#37218587)

what is fascinating is that they continue to be bailed out repeatedly by foreigners (martel/germans, british/WWI, americans/WWII) and yet have a snobby superiority complex

BISMARCK DID NOTHING WRONG (if anything he went easy on those scumbags)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131311&forum_id=2#37218610)

A better general would never have sent troops to Lorraine and weakened the right wing. A better general wouldn't have split troops off to face Russia. A better general would have taken Paris

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131311&forum_id=2#37218616)

he panicked and diverted troops to the eastern front when it wasn't necessary. and bulow made it worse by being too timid

two blunders by German generals - Moltke weakening the western army and Bulow being timid and pulling back Von Kluck ==== macron/merkel/DIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131311&forum_id=2#37218626)

hitler just didnt believe anglo-americans could possibly side with the evil bolshevik apes--because siding with the soviets was objectively insane. he realized too late (((who))) was in complete control.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131311&forum_id=2#37218627)

you agree that US should have stayed out of WWI and Germany victory at Marne would have been much better for europe/mankind?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131311&forum_id=2#37218643)

but yes oc we should have stayed out of WWI

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131311&forum_id=2#37218650)

that was simply a literary device to highlight how bad communism was

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131311&forum_id=2#37218654)

Would Britain have stayed out or gotten involved? I think that depends on the Kaiser's moves with respect to naval policy.

Would the inevitable Japanese American war involved Russia or Britain?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131311&forum_id=2#37844863)

Socialism/communism was basically born on the leftist fringes of the French Revolution and was a powerful social force in many countries by WWI

If Germany wins at the Marne and France is required to pay the massive indemnity, why wouldn't there have been a Paris Commune redux with resurgent French nationalism leading to a communist overthrow of that government

Or why do you assume that the German unification/expansionist project wouldn't have continued to extend to Poland/Eastern Europe, causing continual friction with the csarist regime in Russia leading to its eventual downfall to the Bolsheviks

Communism still would have been a powerful force in the colonized states of SE Asia and S America. Remember communism spread not just as a result of Lenin getting on the train, but because it became deeply interwoven with anticolonialist sentiment. Any shifts in the European balance of power would give communism daylight in China, Vietnam, etc. In all likelihood European power politics/domination of non Western powers would still have led to communist overthrow of colonial or puppet regimes in some of these places and formation of a communist bloc in some form.

Germany winning at the Marne wouldn't have prevented the broader trend, it just might have played out differently.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131311&forum_id=2#37844906)

The allies were mostly democracies. We shared common values with the democracies in the UK and France and not with the Austro-Hungarian, Ottomon, and German empires.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4131311&forum_id=2#37845070)