He brings up an interesting question. What would Europe look like if the U.S. did not intervene in WWII? Would it be better?

titan said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

He brings up an interesting question. What would Europe look like if the U.S. did not intervene in WWII? Would it be better?

---

No, but things probably would be better if the Central Powers had won World War One.

WW II was somewhat pre-destined. Better diplomacy might prevent the Pacific War, but once you have the ComIntern after WW I and the clash developing between Marxism and Fascism in Germany (and Italy) after WW I its hard to change the course much. Hitler was bent on expansion and did not seek peace. He wanted peace with Britain, but not peace overall. I don't think WW II in Europe is preventable unless you had been lucky in geography.

What do I mean? I mean if Poland hadn't been between Germany and Soviet Union. If Hitler has to break his word (at Munich) only ONCE, and September 1939 is him invading Stalin --- Britain and France do not go to war.

---

Western Europe would,have been drawn in anyway. Mussolini still wanted North Africa and so war with France and England would,have occurred then you get Germany into war with Western Europe

Plus Hitler wanted all of Europe, he would have found a reason to go to war eventually

Fails to consider what it would look like had they lost WW2 imo. I get his sentiment but you can't possibly know what's going to happen 70-80 yrs later with the Nazi wolf trying to kick your door in.

BQ_90 said:

---

titan said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

He brings up an interesting question. What would Europe look like if the U.S. did not intervene in WWII? Would it be better?

---

No, but things probably would be better if the Central Powers had won World War One.

WW II was somewhat pre-destined. Better diplomacy might prevent the Pacific War, but once you have the ComIntern after WW I and the clash developing between Marxism and Fascism in Germany (and Italy) after WW I its hard to change the course much. Hitler was bent on expansion and did not seek peace. He wanted peace with Britain, but not peace overall. I don't think WW II in Europe is preventable unless you had been lucky in geography.

What do I mean? I mean if Poland hadn't been between Germany and Soviet Union. If Hitler has to break his word (at Munich) only ONCE, and September 1939 is him invading Stalin --- Britain and France do not go to war.

---

Western Europe would,have been drawn in anyway. Mussolini still wanted North Africa and so war with France and England would,have occurred then you get Germany into war with Western Europe

Plus Hitler wanted all of Europe, he would have found a reason to go to war eventually

---

That's the conventional view, but it overlooks Hitler's desire to take out Russia from early on. Hidden in his speechs of 36 and 37 dedicating buildings he alludes to the space he is going to get from the East.

I am not as sure as you that England and France wanted war if HItler doesn't push it. Digesting Russia was going to take time if he did pull it off. Who knows what his health would be and what follows.

I think its way too simplistic to assume things go the same way. Hell, even Mussolini only was forced into Hitler's camp somewhat by the reaction of Britain and France. Again, clever diplomacy can separate him.

halfastros81 said:

---

Fails to consider what it would look like had they lost WW2 imo. I get his sentiment but you can't possibly know what's going to happen 70-80 yrs later with the Nazi wolf trying to kick your door in.

---

I think alternate path for Britain would have been path of neutrality similar to Switzerland or Spain while the Nazis and Marxists fought it out.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

titan said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

He brings up an interesting question. What would Europe look like if the U.S. did not intervene in WWII? Would it be better?

---

No, but things probably would be better if the Central Powers had won World War One.

WW II was somewhat pre-destined. Better diplomacy might prevent the Pacific War, but once you have the ComIntern after WW I and the clash developing between Marxism and Fascism in Germany (and Italy) after WW I its hard to change the course much. Hitler was bent on expansion and did not seek peace. He wanted peace with Britain, but not peace overall. I don't think WW II in Europe is preventable unless you had been lucky in geography.

What do I mean? I mean if Poland hadn't been between Germany and Soviet Union. If Hitler has to break his word (at Munich) only ONCE, and September 1939 is him invading Stalin --- Britain and France do not go to war.

---

Hitler may have never come to power had Germany been victorious in WW1.

---

Exactly. You don't get the Holocaust. You might get a White Russian victory in their Civil War (from Central power support being more full throated--a possibility) And if the Ottoman Empire doesn't fall as well, you may not get the Mideast mess quite the way it is.

If they had taken that path then there would have been no sacrifice to make theoretically, however narcissistic madmen like Hitler or Stalin , whoever came out on top, would have eventually gone after the rest imo.

Its worth mentioning though, that I don't think this vet's conclusion means Buchanan's controversial claim we should not have entered WW II in Europe is sound. It just means McCarthy right and its a pity that "intolerance" to Marxism didn't actually further here and in Europe after WW II.

Once you have W II as setup after Sept 1938 and Munich --- our options are few. The time to prevent the Pacific War is earlier. No way to avoid that either unless you choose true neutrality -- and do not side with China. But much earlier, it can be more easily avoided.

titan said:

---

BQ_90 said:

---

titan said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

He brings up an interesting question. What would Europe look like if the U.S. did not intervene in WWII? Would it be better?

---

No, but things probably would be better if the Central Powers had won World War One.

WW II was somewhat pre-destined. Better diplomacy might prevent the Pacific War, but once you have the ComIntern after WW I and the clash developing between Marxism and Fascism in Germany (and Italy) after WW I its hard to change the course much. Hitler was bent on expansion and did not seek peace. He wanted peace with Britain, but not peace overall. I don't think WW II in Europe is preventable unless you had been lucky in geography.

What do I mean? I mean if Poland hadn't been between Germany and Soviet Union. If Hitler has to break his word (at Munich) only ONCE, and September 1939 is him invading Stalin --- Britain and France do not go to war.

---

Western Europe would,have been drawn in anyway. Mussolini still wanted North Africa and so war with France and England would,have occurred then you get Germany into war with Western Europe

Plus Hitler wanted all of Europe, he would have found a reason to go to war eventually

---

That's the conventional view, but it overlooks Hitler's desire to take out Russia from early on. Hidden in his speechs of 36 and 37 dedicating buildings he alludes to the space he is going to get from the East.

I am not as sure as you that England and France wanted war if HItler doesn't push it. Digesting Russia was going to take time if he did pull it off. Who knows what his health would be and what follows.

I think its way too simplistic to assume things go the same way. Hell, even Mussolini only was forced into Hitler's camp somewhat by the reaction of Britain and France. Again, clever diplomacy can separate him.

---

I never said France and England wanted war. Clearly they did not. Even to the point of doing nothing when war was declared

But neither France or England could allow their colonies or access to India to fall into hands of the axis. They would,have been drawn in one way or another.

Serotonin said:

---

Wow, took a lot of courage to say that given the social pressure to sit there and answer softball questions like a puppet.

Very powerful.

---

It took more courage to do what he's done in WWII. This is the Greatest Generation.

Belton Ag said:

---

titan said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

titan said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

He brings up an interesting question. What would Europe look like if the U.S. did not intervene in WWII? Would it be better?

---

No, but things probably would be better if the Central Powers had won World War One.

WW II was somewhat pre-destined. Better diplomacy might prevent the Pacific War, but once you have the ComIntern after WW I and the clash developing between Marxism and Fascism in Germany (and Italy) after WW I its hard to change the course much. Hitler was bent on expansion and did not seek peace. He wanted peace with Britain, but not peace overall. I don't think WW II in Europe is preventable unless you had been lucky in geography.

What do I mean? I mean if Poland hadn't been between Germany and Soviet Union. If Hitler has to break his word (at Munich) only ONCE, and September 1939 is him invading Stalin --- Britain and France do not go to war.

---

Hitler may have never come to power had Germany been victorious in WW1.

---

Exactly. You don't get the Holocaust. You might get a White Russian victory in their Civil War (from Central power support being more full throated--a possibility) And if the Ottoman Empire doesn't fall as well, you may not get the Mideast mess quite the way it is.

---

It might not even have taken any effort by the United States to get an peaceful settlement to the war in 1916. Had Wilson simply followed Bryan's wishes that the US to be truly neutral and not sell any war materiel to the Allied Powers, the reliance on using their own means of producing necessary supplies might have driven both to realize the futility of continuing the war.

One of the myriad reasons that Wilson was probably the worst president of the 20th Century. His ****ty legacy lingers to this day.

---

The US was making too much money to be neutral. We picked the side who owed us the most money

BQ_90 said:

---

titan said:

---

BQ_90 said:

---

titan said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

He brings up an interesting question. What would Europe look like if the U.S. did not intervene in WWII? Would it be better?

---

No, but things probably would be better if the Central Powers had won World War One.

WW II was somewhat pre-destined. Better diplomacy might prevent the Pacific War, but once you have the ComIntern after WW I and the clash developing between Marxism and Fascism in Germany (and Italy) after WW I its hard to change the course much. Hitler was bent on expansion and did not seek peace. He wanted peace with Britain, but not peace overall. I don't think WW II in Europe is preventable unless you had been lucky in geography.

What do I mean? I mean if Poland hadn't been between Germany and Soviet Union. If Hitler has to break his word (at Munich) only ONCE, and September 1939 is him invading Stalin --- Britain and France do not go to war.

---

Western Europe would,have been drawn in anyway. Mussolini still wanted North Africa and so war with France and England would,have occurred then you get Germany into war with Western Europe

Plus Hitler wanted all of Europe, he would have found a reason to go to war eventually

---

That's the conventional view, but it overlooks Hitler's desire to take out Russia from early on. Hidden in his speechs of 36 and 37 dedicating buildings he alludes to the space he is going to get from the East.

I am not as sure as you that England and France wanted war if HItler doesn't push it. Digesting Russia was going to take time if he did pull it off. Who knows what his health would be and what follows.

I think its way too simplistic to assume things go the same way. Hell, even Mussolini only was forced into Hitler's camp somewhat by the reaction of Britain and France. Again, clever diplomacy can separate him.

---

I never said France and England wanted war. Clearly they did not. Even to the point of doing nothing when war was declared

But neither France or England could allow their colonies or access to India to fall into hands of the axis. They would,have been drawn in one way or another.

---

Well Mussolini is very manageable if you don't have the setup forced by Poland being between Germany and Russia. That was my point. Had Czechsolvakia, and not Poland, been the last "excess" by Germany before he launches the invasion of the Soviet Union -- and we are one country from it -- it changes the whole thing and also offers a better way to understand why WW II so relentlessly follows Munich. The Allies were not going to be "fooled again" but Hitler was determined to have his front with Russia. The really amazing thing is some of the revelations from the Soviet archives reveal that Stalin actually believed the man more than any would expect. Hitler never intended to honor the pact.

That is what I meant by saying France and England would need to want war in your scenario --- they can instead, arm up and use the time to mobilize while the Wehrmacht is in the Russian mire. Not sure anything in North Africa forces them to go to war with Germany unless Hitler goes down there -- but if you don't have the declaration of war with Britain and France he probably wouldn't choose to start it over that. He was mad enough at Mussolini opening another Mediterranean front invading Greece.

And don't forget Hitler's health. We know he was on something of a clock.

Now access to India -- that's a whole other matter, and you are right. But that too, is a product of the declaration of war on 9/3/1939. It doesn't follow its being threatened by Germany during the war with Russia.

titan said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

He brings up an interesting question. What would Europe look like if the U.S. did not intervene in WWII? Would it be better?

---

No, but things probably would be better if the Central Powers had won World War One.

WW II was somewhat pre-destined. Better diplomacy might prevent the Pacific War, but once you have the ComIntern after WW I and the clash developing between Marxism and Fascism in Germany (and Italy) after WW I its hard to change the course much. Hitler was bent on expansion and did not seek peace. He wanted peace with Britain, but not peace overall. I don't think WW II in Europe is preventable unless you had been lucky in geography.

What do I mean? I mean if Poland hadn't been between Germany and Soviet Union. If Hitler has to break his word (at Munich) only ONCE, and September 1939 is him invading Stalin --- Britain and France would not go to war.

---

Didn't fascism arise because of the condition Germany was left in after being defeated in WWI?

TexAgs91 said:

---

titan said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

He brings up an interesting question. What would Europe look like if the U.S. did not intervene in WWII? Would it be better?

---

No, but things probably would be better if the Central Powers had won World War One.

WW II was somewhat pre-destined. Better diplomacy might prevent the Pacific War, but once you have the ComIntern after WW I and the clash developing between Marxism and Fascism in Germany (and Italy) after WW I its hard to change the course much. Hitler was bent on expansion and did not seek peace. He wanted peace with Britain, but not peace overall. I don't think WW II in Europe is preventable unless you had been lucky in geography.

What do I mean? I mean if Poland hadn't been between Germany and Soviet Union. If Hitler has to break his word (at Munich) only ONCE, and September 1939 is him invading Stalin --- Britain and France would not go to war.

---

Didn't fascism arise because of the condition Germany was left in after being defeated in WWI?

---

If you mean because of Versaille's terms, that is a big part. But it is also the ComIntern --- the struggle with Marxism right in the wake -- in fact, the war isn't even fully over before you have some communist uprisings. Left and right wing groups clashing -- Bavaria in 1920s is a study in turmoil.

Fascism might not arise if you didn't have the Marxism that it sprang and reacted from. Depends on how much you think Weimar Republic can weather the Great Depression if you have no Nazi Party nipping at its heels. Fascism arose from the Marxism, not by itself. Mussolini himself started out that way.

BQ_90 said:

---

Belton Ag said:

---

titan said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

titan said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

He brings up an interesting question. What would Europe look like if the U.S. did not intervene in WWII? Would it be better?

---

No, but things probably would be better if the Central Powers had won World War One.

WW II was somewhat pre-destined. Better diplomacy might prevent the Pacific War, but once you have the ComIntern after WW I and the clash developing between Marxism and Fascism in Germany (and Italy) after WW I its hard to change the course much. Hitler was bent on expansion and did not seek peace. He wanted peace with Britain, but not peace overall. I don't think WW II in Europe is preventable unless you had been lucky in geography.

What do I mean? I mean if Poland hadn't been between Germany and Soviet Union. If Hitler has to break his word (at Munich) only ONCE, and September 1939 is him invading Stalin --- Britain and France do not go to war.

---

Hitler may have never come to power had Germany been victorious in WW1.

---

Exactly. You don't get the Holocaust. You might get a White Russian victory in their Civil War (from Central power support being more full throated--a possibility) And if the Ottoman Empire doesn't fall as well, you may not get the Mideast mess quite the way it is.

---

It might not even have taken any effort by the United States to get an peaceful settlement to the war in 1916. Had Wilson simply followed Bryan's wishes that the US to be truly neutral and not sell any war materiel to the Allied Powers, the reliance on using their own means of producing necessary supplies might have driven both to realize the futility of continuing the war.

One of the myriad reasons that Wilson was probably the worst president of the 20th Century. His ****ty legacy lingers to this day.

---

The US was making too much money to be neutral. We picked the side who owed us the most money

---

This is true, but initially Wilson had agreed that US banks should not be making loans to the belligerent powers. It was his reversal of that policy that led to Bryan's departure as Secretary of State. Of course by the end of 1917 we were pot committed as a nation to having the Allied Powers win.

The loans and sales of goods eventually led us down a path that cost Americans and the rest of the world dearly.

Belton Ag said:

---

BQ_90 said:

---

Belton Ag said:

---

titan said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

titan said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

He brings up an interesting question. What would Europe look like if the U.S. did not intervene in WWII? Would it be better?

---

No, but things probably would be better if the Central Powers had won World War One.

WW II was somewhat pre-destined. Better diplomacy might prevent the Pacific War, but once you have the ComIntern after WW I and the clash developing between Marxism and Fascism in Germany (and Italy) after WW I its hard to change the course much. Hitler was bent on expansion and did not seek peace. He wanted peace with Britain, but not peace overall. I don't think WW II in Europe is preventable unless you had been lucky in geography.

What do I mean? I mean if Poland hadn't been between Germany and Soviet Union. If Hitler has to break his word (at Munich) only ONCE, and September 1939 is him invading Stalin --- Britain and France do not go to war.

---

Hitler may have never come to power had Germany been victorious in WW1.

---

Exactly. You don't get the Holocaust. You might get a White Russian victory in their Civil War (from Central power support being more full throated--a possibility) And if the Ottoman Empire doesn't fall as well, you may not get the Mideast mess quite the way it is.

---

It might not even have taken any effort by the United States to get an peaceful settlement to the war in 1916. Had Wilson simply followed Bryan's wishes that the US to be truly neutral and not sell any war materiel to the Allied Powers, the reliance on using their own means of producing necessary supplies might have driven both to realize the futility of continuing the war.

One of the myriad reasons that Wilson was probably the worst president of the 20th Century. His ****ty legacy lingers to this day.

---

The US was making too much money to be neutral. We picked the side who owed us the most money

---

This is true, but initially Wilson had agreed that US banks should not be making loans to the belligerent powers. It was his reversal of that policy that led to Bryan's departure as Secretary of State. Of course by the end of 1917 we were pot committed as a nation to having the Allied Powers win.

The loans and sales of goods eventually led us down a path that cost Americans and the rest of the world dearly.

---

This is appalling. I will be the first to admit if missing a bit of awareness of a subject and the internal machinations behind why we went into World War I, rather than those of World War II, are one of them. That's mildly astonishing and sobering. So banking issues drove our entering WW I when neither side had that "objectively evil" characteristics that you would see important in WW II.

So the greater pressure on Germany by Wilson to was driven by finance?

titan said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

titan said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

He brings up an interesting question. What would Europe look like if the U.S. did not intervene in WWII? Would it be better?

---

No, but things probably would be better if the Central Powers had won World War One.

WW II was somewhat pre-destined. Better diplomacy might prevent the Pacific War, but once you have the ComIntern after WW I and the clash developing between Marxism and Fascism in Germany (and Italy) after WW I its hard to change the course much. Hitler was bent on expansion and did not seek peace. He wanted peace with Britain, but not peace overall. I don't think WW II in Europe is preventable unless you had been lucky in geography.

What do I mean? I mean if Poland hadn't been between Germany and Soviet Union. If Hitler has to break his word (at Munich) only ONCE, and September 1939 is him invading Stalin --- Britain and France would not go to war.

---

Didn't fascism arise because of the condition Germany was left in after being defeated in WWI?

---

If you mean because of Versaille's terms, that is a big part. But it is also the ComIntern --- the struggle with Marxism right in the wake -- in fact, the war isn't even fully over before you have some communist uprisings. Left and right wing groups clashing -- Bavaria in 1920s is a study in turmoil.

Fascism might not arise if you didn't have the Marxism that it sprang and reacted from. Depends on how much you think Weimar Republic can weather the Great Depression if you have no Nazi Party nipping at its heels. Fascism arose from the Marxism, not by itself. Mussolini himself started out that way.

---

During World War I, Germany arranged for Lenin's safe passage from his exile in Switzerland to Russia. They provided him a sealed train to travel through Germany with the hope that Lenin would incite revolution and unrest in Russia, thereby weakening Russia's war effort against Germany.

This strategy was aimed at destabilizing Russia and easing the burden on Germany fighting on the Eastern Front.

If the US didn't enter WWI then Germany might not have done that. Communism might not have spread the way it did and therefore maybe not Fascism either.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

When this shows up at your door to arrest you for thought crime and you realize WW2 was for nothing.

---

The fact that they apparently have no shortage of clones to work as enforcers is unreal. There's no way in heck I could go to work every day knowing that I'm being used for thought crime enforcement.

And "IF" a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt when he jumps.
Lots of speculation… everything happens for a reason.

This isn't really a what-if though. Its a thought model to explain why WW II unfolds as it does after Munich. Hitler is determined to invade Russia. He used up all his "believability" making the promises about Czechoslovakia. When he takes the rest of it in 1939 and shreds his word, he then tries to use the same contrived arguments to set up invasion of Poland complete with a fake incident. Naturally, the Allies know is full of it by now beyond question and this time when he enters Poland, they declare war, as they very well might have, Czechslovakia.. Now imagine the border with Germany is already Russia --- you don't have the confrontation with France and Britain in 1939. The "Barbarossa" War by Germany with Russia starts then or in 1940. That Hitler had to lie his way through invading east twice before could invade Russia is no small thing.

I'm certainly NOT a historian, I just read and watch docs.

In addition to the money and banking interests, Germany did nothing to endear itself to the US. The Zimmerman Telegram, sinking of Lusitania, submarine warfare, all drove American public opinion against Germany. It provided cover for Wilson to enter and "tip the scales" so to speak.

But my opinion is that 1916 was the year that Britain, France and Germany could have realized the futility of the war, had Britain and France especially not been receiving war loans and materiel from overseas. One of Falkenheyn's goals for Verdun was to punish the whole French army into submission. That battle certainly left a lasting impression on the French army and was part of reason for the mutiny.

If there is a peace in 1916, Wilhelm remains in power, gets his seat at the big boy table like he always wants, and there is no need for Hitler and his thugs later on. Does Germany try to expand later, causing more conflict? I don't know. It's an interesting discussion anyway.

Belton Ag said:

---

I'm certainly NOT a historian, I just read and watch docs.

In addition to the money and banking interests, Germany did nothing to endear itself to the US. The Zimmerman Telegram, sinking of Lusitania, submarine warfare, all drove American public opinion against Germany. It provided cover for Wilson to enter and "tip the scales" so to speak.

But my opinion is that 1916 was the year that Britain, France and Germany could have realized the futility of the war, had Britain and France especially not been receiving war loans and materiel from overseas. One of Falkenheyn's goals for Verdun was to punish the French army into submission. That battle certainly left a lasting impression on the French army and was part of reason for the mutiny.

If there is a peace in 1916, Wilhelm remains in power, gets his seat at the big boy table like he always wants, and there is no need for Hitler and his thugs later on. Does Germany try to expand later, causing more conflict? I don't know. It's an interesting discussion anyway.

---

Germany was very, very close to winning in 1914 or early 1915. Let's say Germany takes Paris, they sign a peace treaty, German empire, Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary survive. It avoids the quagmire of trench warfare and millions of casualties. Germany and A-H are able to put down the reds in Russia. No fascism no communism no WW2.

The Germans losing at the battle of the Marne was the worst thing that happened to Western civilization

TexAgs91 said:

---

titan said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

He brings up an interesting question. What would Europe look like if the U.S. did not intervene in WWII? Would it be better?

---

No, but things probably would be better if the Central Powers had won World War One.

WW II was somewhat pre-destined. Better diplomacy might prevent the Pacific War, but once you have the ComIntern after WW I and the clash developing between Marxism and Fascism in Germany (and Italy) after WW I its hard to change the course much. Hitler was bent on expansion and did not seek peace. He wanted peace with Britain, but not peace overall. I don't think WW II in Europe is preventable unless you had been lucky in geography.

What do I mean? I mean if Poland hadn't been between Germany and Soviet Union. If Hitler has to break his word (at Munich) only ONCE, and September 1939 is him invading Stalin --- Britain and France would not go to war.

---

Didn't fascism arise because of the condition Germany was left in after being defeated in WWI?

---

I would agree to some extent.

The issues that led to WW I were unresolved at the end of it. One of Hitler's primary motivations was anger at how Germany was treated at the end of WW I. The Ottoman empire was carved up in ways that suited France and Britain, not the people who lived there, and it was done so by breaking promises, this created conflicts that are still ongoing today. It created an environment that allowed authoritarian regimes hell bent on revenge to come to power as opposed to democratic governments interested in peaceful co-existence. This includes Japan, who felt they were treated as inferior and secondary at the Treaty of Versailles.

There's an entire discussion about resource availability driving a lot of the conflict that can be had as well.

Belton Ag said:

---

I'm certainly NOT a historian, I just read and watch docs.

In addition to the money and banking interests, Germany did nothing to endear itself to the US. The Zimmerman Telegram, sinking of Lusitania, submarine warfare, all drove American public opinion against Germany. It provided cover for Wilson to enter and "tip the scales" so to speak.

But my opinion is that 1916 was the year that Britain, France and Germany could have realized the futility of the war, had Britain and France especially not been receiving war loans and materiel from overseas. One of Falkenheyn's goals for Verdun was to punish the whole French army into submission. That battle certainly left a lasting impression on the French army and was part of reason for the mutiny.

If there is a peace in 1916, Wilhelm remains in power, gets his seat at the big boy table like he always wants, and there is no need for Hitler and his thugs later on. Does Germany try to expand later, causing more conflict? I don't know. It's an interesting discussion anyway.

---

Well nevr mind thinking you are not a historian. You are doing well for just looking at things.

Meant to praise this earlier post too -- its amazing how much ruin traces to Wilson; who in some ways also went on later to become a Biden president with his wife running things by some accounts. The point that we rarely are absolutely neutral when we get pulled into something has other instances --- and that is something to note.

Quote:

---

It might not even have taken any effort by the United States to get an peaceful settlement to the war in 1916. Had Wilson simply followed Bryan's wishes that the US to be truly neutral and not sell any war materiel to the Allied Powers, the reliance on using their own means of producing necessary supplies might have driven both to realize the futility of continuing the war.

One of the myriad reasons that Wilson was probably the worst president of the 20th Century. His ****ty legacy lingers to this day.

---