Update: WE ARE BACK ONLINE! The Forum has been RESTORED! See announcement here. If there are any problems or issues, please report them in the announcement thread. Note: Unfortunately I was not able to import the posts made after the crash (on Sept 18) into the restored forum. However, I exported all the posts submitted after the crash into a Word file, so you can download it, find your posts and re-post them. Download the posts here. Thanks for your patience and welcome back everyone!
Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
If you're a history buff, love to talk about history and watch the History Channel, this is the board for that.
5 posts • Page 1 of 1
Here Dutton in an interview opines that Winston Churchill basically destroyed the world. If his upbringing was a bit different then Churchill may not have become a POS and we might be a lot better off.
Historical revisionists will never go out of business thanks to the lack of any means of falsifying claims made by playing the "What if?" game.
What if Britain had not gotten involved with Hitler's Germany? My guess, if forced to make one, is that Hitler would have gone on to get spanked by Stalin just the same, but I don't know this. Nobody knows this because history can only take one course and all else is speculation. The Nazis could still be in power to this day. Or something worse. Or something better. Who can say.
It is neither impressive nor difficult to point out faults and actions resulting in negative consequences made by a head of state and assert that better consequences would have occurred if he had not been in power and therefore this person was a horrible leader (conveniently ignoring positive consequences, or positive intentions for that matter). No head of state in history no matter how well loved or respected is safe from this speculative game, particularly wartime heads of state since everyone loathes war and the urge is strong to imagine that a historical path in which nothing bad happened could have existed.
Has there ever been a wartime head of state who didn't get this post-hoc treatment?
If you're right then of course Britain and the world generally would have been way better off if Britain had not gotten involved.
What if I'm wrong? Was that chance worth taking?
My perspective has the enormous advantage of being able to see what actually happened when Nazi Germany tried to invade Russia, but even with that perspective I could be wrong.
And I don't even agree that Britain and the world would have necessarily been better off if I am right. A zillion possibilities can be imagined. Maybe Stalin develops the atomic bomb first and the entire map of the world is different from how it is today.
The chance of what? European Christendom prevailing over Satanic Judaism? White people not being demographically replaced as we are now? Well heaven forfend.
It would be less likely that Russia would have developed nukes.