Question to history lovers

[miko2d]

Originally posted by Pongo:
should be titled
"Question for History Butchers"?

I am not proposing to change or even rewrite history. In fact I am trying to get a better view of it from contributions of valuable insights like yours: "The relations of Britian with every other colony were hugley impacted by the American Revolution. ..."

If you had limited yourself to one small side effect and established a plausible csse for that it might be interesting.As it is its just babble
 I guess you are not in a habit of visiting bookstores? Otherwise you would have seen that many people are making millions by writing much sillier alternative histories.  

So to say that the US might have gained independence any way is silly. You can not know what would have happend to the US or the other colonies in the absence of the revolution.
 So we would have still been citizens of democratic Great Britain - kind of like big Unites States but with more states and capital in London. Not the worst that could have happened (besides me not being born of course).

You think that the US wouldnt have taken the opertunity to revolt while Napoleon had isolated Britian from the continent?
 Or common struggle would have united them forever...

Basically you are saying that Hitler was possible because of the American Revolution...
 I am saying that Hitler was in the same history as American Revolution, along with the birth of all present company. I bet Washington did not think much about Hitler.

 I see where you are trying to goad me and grant you an opening. Even if I said something much less stuid then that - like US was responcible for raise of Taliban? So what? Only Pope is infallible - the rest of us, including countries, make mistakes. Would you love you country any less if you were persuaded it made one too?

Where you watching old reruns of Connections while you where on acid or something
 If you are so touchy as to get personal, you should probably stay away from the internet.

 miko

[miko2d]

Originally posted by Tah Gut:
And what if our universe was all just part of a molecule in someones thumb? DUDE!?
 

 What if it's a simulation running on some computer?  

 miko

[MrBill]

Quite an interesting question.  methinks that jumping from revolution to civil war, let alone  to WW1, is a bit to far as the events that really "made" America were before the civil war.

 The Louisiana purchase (to help Nappy finance his war in Europe) effectively doubled the size of the U.S. in 1803.  The Russians still owned Alaska and had settlement's as far south as FT Ross CA.  Mexico, Spain, France, whomever was in control today, claimed most of the southwest and CA up to San Francisco up until 1853 when the Texas revolution, Gadsden purchase, and Mexican cession, 1845 to 1853 added another million sq. miles to the U.S. territory.
 It seems to me that France would not have "sold" the French American territory to the British let alone that they would buy it to help finance a war against themselves.  
 Now without most of the northwest, and everything west of the Mississippi, even had the Texas revolution been successful (no U.S. help).  Would Britain have declared war on Mexico and had them cede Arizona, New Mexico, Southern Colorado, California (south of San Francisco) and parts of Utah and Nevada? And we still have not resolved the Spanish claim in the southeast (Florida et el)
 I think before we even get to the civil war we would have to speculate on what "north america" would have looked like without the American Revolution.

[straffo]

Originally posted by miko2d:


 Forgot to add that french are famous for their sense of humor!  
 Seriously, about french treating germans well and helping them fight brits in North Africa - I got it first from Erich von Manstein's "Lost Victories".
 But what does reknown british strategist/historian Sir Liddel Hart say about that: "...the Allied landings were to have taken place only on the atlantic coast of Morocco. That would have meant a purely frontal advance, giving the French forces the fullest chance of effective resistance. The advance would have started 1,200 miles distant brom Bizerta, the key to the North African theater of war, so that Germans would have had time and opportunity to stiffen the French resistance to the Allied invasion."
 "Strategy" p.268

 Oh-la-la!

 miko

It's a particuliar case  
French Navy (and in a lesser degree the Army) have some ... "hate" for the British (because of Trafalgar among other reasons I won't go further it's history...)

But the resistance of french was (I could be wrong) because :

• Mers el Kebir (IMO the number one reason)
• It was Vichy France not Free French
• There was not official cassus belly nor agreement between allied and France at this time. So the regular army HAS to resist (there is not other choice except surrender ... but they were not willing to do so ... obviouly).

Even if I don't agree with the decision of the Army chief in 1942(1943 ?) in North Africa the "legal" governement of French was the governement of Pétain not the Governement of a general in London quite unknown (and rebel).

[straffo]

Originally posted by MrBill:
Quite an interesting question.  methinks that jumping from revolution to civil war, let alone  to WW1, is a bit to far as the events that really "made" America were before the civil war.

 The Louisiana purchase (to help Nappy finance his war in Europe) effectively doubled the size of the U.S. in 1803.  The Russians still owned Alaska and had settlement's as far south as FT Ross CA.  Mexico, Spain, France, whomever was in control today, claimed most of the southwest and CA up to San Francisco up until 1853 when the Texas revolution, Gadsden purchase, and Mexican cession, 1845 to 1853 added another million sq. miles to the U.S. territory.
 It seems to me that France would not have "sold" the French American territory to the British let alone that they would buy it to help finance a war against themselves.  
 Now without most of the northwest, and everything west of the Mississippi, even had the Texas revolution been successful (no U.S. help).  Would Britain have declared war on Mexico and had them cede Arizona, New Mexico, Southern Colorado, California (south of San Francisco) and parts of Utah and Nevada? And we still have not resolved the Spanish claim in the southeast (Florida et el)
 I think before we even get to the civil war we would have to speculate on what "north america" would have looked like without the American Revolution.

We have some plan to invade USA but currently it's secret so I won't say more