U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-27-2019, 06:25 AM
 
Location: SE UK
7,816 posts, read 6,642,259 times
Reputation: 5326

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post

Would you have democracy?

No.


.
Democracy wasn't 'invented' in America! It has been around for centuries before the US (or even England) were countries! It is an ancient Greek word, the ancient Greeks gave us Democracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 11:59 AM
 
2,852 posts, read 4,243,006 times
Reputation: 2126
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbioman23 View Post
If European explorers never settled in America, what would of happened throughout the course of history as a result? What would of happened in terms of the spread of democracy, industrial revolution, rise of nationalism, world wars, and spread of communism? I know that America and none of us Americans would be existing right now, but try to look at all of the other aspects as well.

The world would have been better off. You mess with nature, it can be "all bad."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,010 posts, read 18,578,670 times
Reputation: 18680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay100 View Post
The world would have been better off. You mess with nature, it can be "all bad."
Nature is neither good nor bad in moral terms. Nature is the result of a series of accidents which caused the earth to form and life to emerge. Living entities are the product of a series of accidents which produced specimen variety, and those varieties produced living things which were best adapted to the prevailing conditions. The difference between a Beaver's dam and the Hoover dam is complexity, not that one is natural and the other a violation of nature. To deny the title "natural" to the products of human engineering is to deny that humans are products of nature.

"Better off" is an entirely human concept, without humans it would not exist, so the notion of the earth being better off without humans is a non starter. The earth itself has no actual preferences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:43 PM
 
Location: Beaverton, OR
5,580 posts, read 5,919,959 times
Reputation: 6421
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgsing View Post
What if the History Forum never had a what if question? Inquiring minds seek answers.
What if people writing posts actually understood there’s no such thing as “would of” and it’s what would HAVE happened?! That would be equally amazing!

Who knows what would HAVE happened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:21 PM
 
2,852 posts, read 4,243,006 times
Reputation: 2126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Nature is neither good nor bad in moral terms. Nature is the result of a series of accidents which caused the earth to form and life to emerge. Living entities are the product of a series of accidents which produced specimen variety, and those varieties produced living things which were best adapted to the prevailing conditions. The difference between a Beaver's dam and the Hoover dam is complexity, not that one is natural and the other a violation of nature. To deny the title "natural" to the products of human engineering is to deny that humans are products of nature.

"Better off" is an entirely human concept, without humans it would not exist, so the notion of the earth being better off without humans is a non starter. The earth itself has no actual preferences.

We're not talking about science. We're talking about if Europeans had not invaded America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,010 posts, read 18,578,670 times
Reputation: 18680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay100 View Post
We're not talking about science. We're talking about if Europeans had not invaded America.
You raised the issue to which I was responding, so your complaint here seems an oblivious one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:14 AM
 
Location: Texas
35,272 posts, read 19,303,116 times
Reputation: 20904
Lightbulb More "what if?" instead of history...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbioman23 View Post
If European explorers never settled in America, what would of happened?
Different stuff.

Let your imagination run wild.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:48 PM
 
9,200 posts, read 9,278,507 times
Reputation: 28816
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbioman23 View Post
If European explorers never settled in America, what would of happened throughout the course of history as a result? What would of happened in terms of the spread of democracy, industrial revolution, rise of nationalism, world wars, and spread of communism? I know that America and none of us Americans would be existing right now, but try to look at all of the other aspects as well.
A spaceship would have probably landed with martians who would have taken the place of the European settlers and colonized America.

Honestly, why are people here unable to do anything, but ask endless "what if" questions?

Why are they so damn appealing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:51 PM
 
9,200 posts, read 9,278,507 times
Reputation: 28816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
The US and Britain allowed communism to expand. If the US did not exist, it's unlikely Churchill would have given away Eastern Europe just like he did.

Right? Because Britain would need Eastern Europe, since the US does not exist, and there's no large pit-bull to back or support Britain.
What did America owe to the people in Eastern Europe?

Zero, nada, zip.

We had no intention of expending anymore blood and treasure after World War II ended, fighting a former ally.

Eastern Europe was not a vital interest of the USA and it was never anyplace we would go to war over. That's why we never engaged in this scenario that you have described several times over the years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:03 PM
 
707 posts, read 154,557 times
Reputation: 2457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
The US and Britain allowed communism to expand. If the US did not exist, it's unlikely Churchill would have given away Eastern Europe just like he did.

Right? Because Britain would need Eastern Europe, since the US does not exist, and there's no large pit-bull to back or support Britain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
What did America owe to the people in Eastern Europe?

Zero, nada, zip.

We had no intention of expending anymore blood and treasure after World War II ended, fighting a former ally.

Eastern Europe was not a vital interest of the USA and it was never anyplace we would go to war over. That's why we never engaged in this scenario that you have described several times over the years.
Beyond that, Mircea is ignorant of British overtures to the USSR. Rather ignorant of Churchill, too.

In 1940, MP Stafford Cripps, on behalf of Churchill, was in Moscow appealing to Stalin for both a trade pact and a non-aggression pact. In October of that year, Cripps assured Moscow that postwar, Britain would be amenable to accepting Soviet sovereignty where it had already seized entire countries (the Baltics) or chunks of them (Poland, Romania). Stalin spurned the UK, because he was bent on cozying up to Germany at the time (Stalin got played, and played badly, by Ribbentrop and Hitler).

In 1945, after Yalta, Churchill spoke to Parliament and was effusive in his opinion of Stalin honoring agreements regarding the postwar governments of places like Poland. The Prime Minister assured the MPs that Poland would be free and independent, and directly compared his trust of Stalin with Chamberlain's trust of Hitler, noting that while Neville was misguided he - Churchill - was confident that Stalin would reward his confidence. This is not the happy public face of someone dragged into something by an American President - Churchill was very much at the fore at Yalta, and he was certain that Stalin would respect the agreements made there.

And blaming FDR for that is the height of nonsense.

On a side note, the idea that the UK could do squat about it militarily - or, for that matter, that the U.S. could, given domestic political considerations - is absurd.

Also, I don't blame Churchill. Soviet control of Eastern Europe was a fait accompli, and anyone who thinks anything could have been done about it is delusional.

Last edited by 2x3x29x41; Today at 04:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top