If Germany was shown some mercy during the aftermath of WWI, Hitler and Nazis wouldn't have had an cause to rally people....... it was the feeling of sorrow, loss, unjust and carving of Germany and its lands that made people sympathetic with Nazi propaganda, which, ultimately, pushed things towards war. Unfortunately, Men are not learning from mistakes...... The same is happening nowadays in the Arab and Islamic world, the feeling of "everybody wants to kill muslims and destroy their land and religion" is rallying young muslims for the aid of people like Bin-Laden.......... After all, evil begets evil, you can't expect to kill people, occupy their lands, dominate their politics by pupit-rulers, and undermine their cultural heritage (the handling of the Holy Quran in Guantanamo being the latest) and think you can get away with it!! In the end, Justice will prevail. Salam.
Then again look at Isreal and how the Arabs took it over for thousands of years. Then there's Arabs that become terrorists and blow people and places up (like 9-11 the world trade center) and that doesn't sit well with others either. To think that terrorism hits those outside Arabic countries when manyArabic countries themselves are run by dictators is amazing to me. Women in Arabic countries are worthless and are not allowed to vote or hold a job. Women are treated like dirt and Arabs will kill a woman who has been raped which makes no sense. Arabs should try to realize they live in the 20th century and try and become part of it instead of trying to take the world backwards in time to the days when only the clerics have power by force and corruption.
If germany had WON WW1, WW2 would not have happened. Hitler and the holocaust, etc. would not have happened. Also, a common misconception is that the Kaiser and the Germans wanted all of Europe in WW1. This is total BS. If anything, all the Kaiser wanted was overseas territory, and some part of Lithuania. If anything. The world would've been a much more peaceful place in the Centrals had won WW1. And, also, the great depression wouldn't have hit Germany so hard, because all of europe would be tied into a germany-austria centered Economic Union (kinda like the early E.U), and economic problems would've been somewhat muffled.
Yes... Or, consequently, if the Romans had won Teutobergerwald, they could've taken over Germania, and none of the crap would've happened. Semper Romanorum. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
my history prof told me not to ask such questions. my faborite question used to be" what if paul didnt get converted on the road to tarsus. i dont want to open religious discussion! ursula
Here's an interesting idea. What if the future Edward VII had died of the flu instead of Prince Albert? Then Prince Albert could have stayed alive for who knows how long--he was only comparitively young when he died--and he would have had a major influence on English foreign policy during the remainder of the 19th Century. Possibly Britain would have helped the Prussians against France in the war of 1870, instead of staying out on the sidelines as they did (although the Prussian leadership did ask for England's help against their traditional enemy, France, and were rebuffed, much to their chagrin). Also, without Edward VII becoming king in 1901, would the subsequent raproachment with France have taken place? If not, woulf Britain have taken part in World War I, or would it have been a purely European continental war, with no input from the British (unless, ironically, they had fought alongaside Germany against their traditional enemies, the French. In that case, would World War II have even happened?
Nothing would of stopped Britain from entering that war , Britain had to , it was an imperial war of survival . WWl was an Anglo-Franco attempt to stop German Economic ascendancy over Europe . France used the German declaration of war against Russia to enter war against Germany . Britain used the invasion of Belgium as pretext to enter war against Germany .
And Germany only declared war on Russia because Russia declared war on Austria, because Austria declared war on Serbia, because the Serbian Government were responisible for the assassination of Francis Ferdinand. And the whole mess could have been avoided if Russia had stayed in the Three-Emperor-Alliance instead of allying with Serbia.
I think the Russian Tzar would care less if he new what would become after he took that decision..... only if he knew that this would be used by the Bolshevics to overthrow him, no doubt!!
Originally posted by Ursula "what if paul didnt get converted on the road to tarsus. i dont want to open religious discussion!" I doubt that paul did convert to christianity, historically speaking, the Church changed alot from what it was after Christ and what it became after the alleged conversion of Saul.
Or, even better, if gavrilo princip was never fucking born, the great powers would still be around, and the world would be a much better place, i.e not US-dominated.
All true, to an extent. But the other poster was wondering whether or not a different king may have influenced British policy in a different direction. And judging from events during the reign of Victoria, the answer can be supposed in the affirmative. Fisher, for instance, should probably have quickly found himself commanding a fleet of rubber duckies in a bathtub half way up the Yangtze River had he persisted with his silly "Copenhagen" comments while Vicky was on the throne! Russia did not declare war on Austria-Hungary. Rather, the converse was true (August 6th, 1914, 5 days after the Germans declared war on Russia). The Austrians did not declare war on Serbia because it was felt they were responsible for the events of June 28th, 1914. Rather, the Austrians accused the Serbian Government of complicity in the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne.
And there's a difference between complicity and responsibility in this situation? It's serbia's fault. Let's put it at that.
