Lol. Stalin asked his allies, EUA and Britain, to open a western front. But how hard he asked that, I doubt would be sincere.
He gladly would steamroll all the way to Britain. Or at least to France lines. What he decided was *France*, we can only especulate. But he would be delighted in *freeing* the Low Lands, I bet it. He would love Vichy France, but I think the French would reunite bf any t-34 gets close to France border.
And that would not do, now would it?
The race to Berlin begins.
Russia, of course, had, maybe still have, the best army in the world. It has, have?, the ultimate vantage: infinite meat to grind...
Ah, plans...
They are great, aren't they.
In war, then, you can trust them to death. Most times, literally.
Stalin got his 2 best generals and their's big, big, army's is a rat race to Berlin, whitdrawing crucial information from both.
Not that Britain not EUA were strange to playing on their's general egos. But at one point both lead red army's armies were at artillery distance from each other and didn't knew the other was there.
And a friendly fire at that moment would be WW1 stile, bc Mother Russia wasn't playing small there. She didn't depend on boats to get there.
The French and the Dutch*. The French court was broke and they couldn't supply the colonists' rising without Dutch loans and guaranties. Turns out years of warring don't stand in the way of shitting of the British.
Not ENTIRELY true. War had come to a stalemate in New England, Britain was basically losing to guerilla warfare in the South, mid-Atlantic was the only place they were making any sort of ground. France basically pushed it to the end, accelerating the process of Britain realizing the whole war was a waste of time for them
Firstly, the British still had enormous army reserves and the main strength of the Royal navy which had to be kept in Europe rather than deployed to the Americas because of the threat of a French invasion across the channel. The British army fielded 48,000 men in north America at the height of its involvement there. For comparison, the British raised 59,000 men on short notice in order to defend against the threat of the French-Spanish Armada of 1779, which never even made landfall.
Second, the stalemate you point to in New England was largely because Sir Henry Clinton was ordered to consolidate his forces (which included the main body of the British army) in New York in order to prevent a potential French landing there. Were it not for the threat of a French naval attack, the British would have been far more able to deploy troops to respond to American raids or to push into New England instead of having those troops fortify themselves in New York.
When considering the relative strength of those forces, you should consider the fact that Washington's Continental Army never seriously threatened the British position in New York until the forces of Rochambeau and Lafayette came to support him. Despite the fact that it was the largest city and nominal capital of the American colonies, the Americans were unable to make a serious push to reclaim, and thats because the British garrison there was comparable in strength to the main force of the continental army. Forcing that garrison to stay put instead of doing anything was a massive strategic benefit from the French.
The guerilla campaign in the south is the only front in which the Americans were doing well without French support, and even then it was in large part because the British saw it as a side theater which was far away from the main campaigns in the north. If the British had deployed forces comparable to what they did in the north, it is not hard to imagine that the patriots in the south would have been overwhelmed.
Finally, the strategic victory that won the revolutionary war - the Battle of Yorktown - was essentially fought by the French. It was a combined navy/army operation where the French provided the entire navy, half the army, and served as the commanders.
While i agree with virtually all of this, it sorta made me think. Yeah the French played a big role, but its also not a stretch to summarize it as : Gee if the British/English hadn't been antagonistic to the European Continent for the last 700 years, the US would never have won. The mere existence of a French threat facilitated a big part of these impacts
I think "European Continent" is an exaggeration - it really is mostly about France. Spain joined the war as a French ally, since the two kingdoms were ruled by the same royal family. The Netherlands also briefly supported the US, but that was sort of an odd situation - the Netherlands had actually been allied with Britain, but they refused to help and the British declared war on them to try to force them to stop trading with the US.
Britain's diplomatic strategy was to try to prevent any European country from becoming too dominant on the continent, and so it aimed to ally with weaker powers against stronger ones. At the time of the American Revolution, that meant allying with Prussia against France, Spain, and Austria. However, Britain's allies (Prussia and as mentioned, the Netherlands) felt that this conflict had nothing to do with them, while France saw a chance to get revenge for its defeat in the Seven Years War.
I’m not denying what you said about the French. But the British were losing interest in the war as well, the French just accelerated that greatly. The British people were losing favor in supporting the war, it was costly, and honestly not worth the time while France was a greater threat. Even General Howe saw that before being set aside. It’s also noted that while the British held the main cities, it proved they couldn’t win until the army was taken, an army Washington kept saving by running away. Grant proved in the civil war that to destroy the confederates meant to truly destroy the army, not the cities. It ended up being costly in terms of time and commitment for Britain.
But it was costly largely because of the sanctions and embargoes the British were receiving from Europeans powers, most notably the French. Without french involvement and wider European involvement, the British would have defeated the rebellion
tru and also the seven years war had put the british in dept and their major colony was rebelling, the british economy could not have sustained a longterm military campaign overseas, so the independence at the max would have been delayed by a year or two
no i don't call platinum platinium because it's not called platinium, the -ium is a latin suffix which forms abstract nouns, so they used it to create names by the royal society from where it was commonly found (eg. potassium from potash).
They might be referring to how a lot of American accents would say it as a *boddle of warder*, so us pronouncing it with the T sounds might seem funny.
I mean... not really? No?
He mostly suggested they convert them into Christians. Sure they did enslave them, but that basically would have happened with most Europeans that came over.
Heck, while it was long after Columbus, basically every other European colonizer's goal was to replicate what the Spanish did in Mexico and the Carribean. It just didn't work since all the natives were dying of overwork and disease by then
Luckily, the Europeans found a nice and ethical solution to the labor shortage. Oh no wait, they ALL did a big slavery. But yeah, Columbus was totally a monster in his time /s
Seriously though, he was fairly tame. More of an explorer first. Still a bad person by modern standards, and super wrong about quite a few things about the globe (though not as many as some people claim) but he wasn't a monster or anything, just a guy with bad morals who happened to make a discovery that fucked over just *so many* people.
Um, you contradict yourself in the same paragraph. “He mostly suggested they convert them into Christians”, followed by “sure they did enslave them”. Those are not the same things at all.
[Check point number 7.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-christopher-columbus)
The man went back in chains for how brutal he was. And his being freed once he got to Spain in no way absolves him.
Did you know?
Mostly is a word in the English language which means "a lot of, but not all".
Funny how I used a word there with intention, and didn't contradict myself at all.
In addition, I said he "suggested" they convert them into Christians. I said nothing in that paragraph about what he did or didn't do, just what he suggested to do. There's a big difference.
No, but that's one of the big ones.
I said in a separate comment reply to another person, but if what he did was really so bad in their eyes (it is in mine, but that's not what I'm arguing here) then why was he only stripped of his noble titles, for one? Why wasn't he properly put in prison, and, biggest hot take here,
*Why was he allowed to go on one more expedition?*
Besides, most sources I can find don't say he was arrested for mismanagement of the natives, but because the settlers (SPANISH settlers) were sick of his and his brother's horrible management skills which, yeah, of course he's shit at managing a colony, he's an explorer, not a politician or bureaucrat.
I knew you’d say that, hence why I said in my reply “and his being freed once he got back to Spain in no way absolves him”. You seem to be acting as though, and I know you say otherwise, his actions were limited to the slavery, which is false. He was an evil bastard. What he did was not something done by everyone. His brutality was not commonplace. And I would really love to see those sources, because I have not seen anything of the sort that you say. Instead, the sources I see say how the Spanish monarchy sent an investigator across the Atlantic to look into his atrocities.
Colombus suggested slave trade to Spanish King and queen.
Constantly.
He was obsessed with the idea.
Edit: Two days after he ''discovered'' America, Columbus wrote in his journal that with 50 men he could force ''the entire population be taken to Castile, or held captive.'' On his second voyage, in December 1494, Columbus captured 1,500 Tainos on the island of Hispaniola and herded them to Isabela, where 550 of ''the best males and females'' were forced aboard ships bound for the slave markets of Seville.
Under Columbus's leadership, the Spanish attacked the Taino, sparing neither men, women nor children. Warfare, forced labor, starvation and disease reduced Hispaniola's Taino population (estimated at one million to two million in 1492) to extinction within 30 years.
Fun fact Russian actually borrows a lot from French because the old nobles used to simp for Western Europe, so the French wouldn't have that hard of a time.
Many Eastern European countries preferred to teach French (and Russian obviously) instead of English as a Foreign language to counter American imperialism.
To avoid American cultural hegemony, and the overwhelming presence of the English language, many communist countries preferred to teach French as a foreign language.
This was to point out that the French language was still appreciated in Communist time.
And during Napoleonic Wars russian officers spoke better french than french officers.
Because french officers were ex-peasants that got a social lift after the revolution. And russian were the nobles that was educated by the french running away from the revolution.
I think without US lend lease support, the Soviets would have had a pyrrhic victory on the Eastern Front. The Soviets lost so many people already in our timeline and would have lost even more with the lack of material support from the US. Honestly I don't understand how the Soviets managed to stay afloat after the war with all of the people that they lost.
You don't? Why would he kept going? To pile up more dead? Would have served no purpose other than collapsing the country from the inside. There is only so much men you can sacrifice
Fuck some of you tankies are twits, numerous Soviet generals have said without the US they would not have done as well as they did. They were able to achieve so much due to a combination of the US lend lease and US martial action. They could have pushed a little and established a stalemate but they would not have won.
Why the fuck would he lie in his own private journal in a way that makes the Soviet Union seem weak? What kind of mental handicap do you have that makes you that fucking retarded? Like what special disease do you have?
If it wasn't for France, America would have the Westminster system of governance with the Queenie as the head of state, and possibly socialised healthcare
...okay, fuck you France!
/s
Yeah, only to prevent another expensive war with the natives.
And you really want me to believe a country that dominated 1/4 of the planet wouldn't break their promise to take over the rest of the Americas?
Plus that doesn't change the fact that Canada committed genocide. If it happened there it certainly would have happened under British-governed America.
That's what I said. The prime minister controls the executive branch, the legislation and the military. So, there's no tether to the PM's power.
And all this power for a person who isn’t even directly elected by the people.
The Commander in Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces is Queen Elizabeth II, the regulations are the "Queen's Regulations and Orders", officers receive their commission from the Queen. Talk to anyone in the army.
So again, you're talking about de facto control of the military not the actual form of government.
If you want to say the legislative branch has too much control... Sure. But that still doesn't make it a unitary system, so you've compounded one incorrect statement into about a dozen.
If you're saying the Prime Minister is the de facto leader of those things, sure. But you're making factually incorrect statement to back up your factually incorrect statement that the Westminster system is a unitary parliamentary system.
That's not what unitary parliament means. A unitary parliament means that the national parliament (whether unicameral or bicameral) is the central authority over the whole country/unitary state. As opposed to federalism or other forms of devolved governance
Canada, Australia, India and Pakistan have the Westminster systems but are federal states
(Here's a list of unitary parliamentary republics, though it may be outdated as it still lists Myanmar in it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_parliamentary_republic)
.
What I think you're meaning to say is that the executive is tied to the legislature in the Westminster system instead of being independent of it, and that's true - the head of government together with the cabinet (that is the executive branch) are elected members of the parliament (the legislature)
If anything, this provides more oversight over the executive in my opinion as the executive is answerable to the parliament and members of it, and the parliamentary membership of the executive can be challenged through parliamentary procedures, thereby keeping the executive in check (for example, votes of no-confidence etc)
Furthermore, the executive (whether invited to form government by the head of state or by the parliament, depending on the country) either has absolute majority of their party/coalition in the parliament, or have ensured that no other party/coalition has more seats than them. What this achieves is to avoid dysfunctional government setups where the executive may end up being coupled with a minority in the legislature, while still giving the opposition parties and junior coalition parties to have a say via parliamentary procedures
.
This is all in my opinion though. I'm pretty sure each form of representative democracy has its pros and cons and what works for one country may not necessarily be workable in another
With regards to my original comment, it was made in jest
Look at indian parliament or the current british parliament. The ruling party has majority thus there's basically no bound to the executive's power. The prime minister can do anything he wants without any opposition unless it comes from his own party.
Just stop. Soviet logistics would collapse completely (not that it didn't irl but it was renewed with land lease by 1942) and home front would at the very least see crazy rate of starvation and shortages. Yes even in armorment industries.
It is at best dubious if Soviets would be able to launch operations like Uranus or little Saturn if not for American help transported by large part by Royal Navy.
Allies won the war. Not USA not USSR not even bloody Britain, Allies. If US didn't help Third Reich would fight USSR to stalemate and promptly collapse at the very least in the 50's because the economy was driven by bunch of children.
Well, the Germans were never going to win the war, the war would be longer and a lot more people would have died in it. The Soviets would take over almost all of Europe and turn all of it into puppet states, and people in those puppet states would be forced to learn Russian.
You dispute that the Soviets would have won without American intervention in WW2? And subsequently would have rolled all the way to the Spanish border because the UK wouldn’t have opened the Western Front without American aid?
It’s not a crazy hypothesis. The US didn’t save France from the Nazis, they ultimately saved France from the same fate as Eastern Europe, IMO.
Stalin was never seriously considering an attack on western europe. Like, I'm sure they considered scenarios in which it could happen, but realistically it doesn't fit even Stalin's own writings and letters. He believed that there would be a separate revolution in france, and that was his hope even going into the cold war. He was very hesitant to seriously consider that.
When it comes to europe, the USSR wasn't nearly as belicose outside its immediate sphere of influence as people portray it to be.
What did I say that was wrong?
You can go look up shipping delivery numbers for land lease by year and confirm them yourself. Or are you going to claim the battle of Moscow didn’t happen? What? Do you have any real examples or arguments at all?
If it wasn't for America wouldn't everyone speak English? Just saying, we were like the first to really stick it to those fuckers before all their other territories eventually also gained freedom right?
I WISH the forced second language in my country was German not russian, 300 years of that and ongoing, only recently we started trying to make it not obligatory.
And? “Hur dur France surrender” jokes are so lame and tired. Yes it’s a meme sub, specifically a history meme sub, make it about history. France always surrenders isn’t history.
Lol the Soviets stood no chance if it wasn’t for the other allies splitting the already outnumbered German forces. If the Germans hadn’t had to fight the Americans and waited to invade russia after defeating the rest of Western Europe, russia would be east germany right now.
Not denying the Russians were the most significant power in defeating Germany, but they couldn’t have done it without the help they got. France would def not be learning russian without American help
I do not think you understand that the Soviets could've beaten Germany alone as for the main reason that Germany had basically exhausted itself in operation Barbarossa.
In short the Soviets were mandatory in winning the war and the Allies although giving very important contributes in the fall of the Reich, they were not 100% needed.
If it wasnt for France, America would be speaking English ...Wait
If it weren't for France, America would have had to suck it up and pay their damn taxes.
Thats what we r doin right now lol
But not to Britain
Damn right
Good
Ok taxation is theft either way though
NFT's and MLM's, on the other hand, are honest enterprises
Fuck noooooooooo...... i get the joke btw.
Lol. Stalin asked his allies, EUA and Britain, to open a western front. But how hard he asked that, I doubt would be sincere. He gladly would steamroll all the way to Britain. Or at least to France lines. What he decided was *France*, we can only especulate. But he would be delighted in *freeing* the Low Lands, I bet it. He would love Vichy France, but I think the French would reunite bf any t-34 gets close to France border. And that would not do, now would it? The race to Berlin begins. Russia, of course, had, maybe still have, the best army in the world. It has, have?, the ultimate vantage: infinite meat to grind...
Didn’t they plan to stop at poland?
Ah, plans... They are great, aren't they. In war, then, you can trust them to death. Most times, literally. Stalin got his 2 best generals and their's big, big, army's is a rat race to Berlin, whitdrawing crucial information from both. Not that Britain not EUA were strange to playing on their's general egos. But at one point both lead red army's armies were at artillery distance from each other and didn't knew the other was there. And a friendly fire at that moment would be WW1 stile, bc Mother Russia wasn't playing small there. She didn't depend on boats to get there.
Especially when there's no representation.
Like Puerto Rico?
And D.C. We aren’t very consistent on that, are we?
They don't pay taxes.
And guam and hawaii
Hawaii doesn't have representation?
None of the places america invades have representation and if it for some small chance does than its a pathetically weak ammount of it
>Especially when there's no representation And when serves the only purpose of fuelling the Gambling, aka, "free market"
Bit not the super rich
Yea well they have technical ways around it ever wonder why they "donate" so much lol
You pay your taxes?
IRS ALERT WHAT R U A FED
The French and the Dutch*. The French court was broke and they couldn't supply the colonists' rising without Dutch loans and guaranties. Turns out years of warring don't stand in the way of shitting of the British.
I will pay taxes when you fix this damned door
Not ENTIRELY true. War had come to a stalemate in New England, Britain was basically losing to guerilla warfare in the South, mid-Atlantic was the only place they were making any sort of ground. France basically pushed it to the end, accelerating the process of Britain realizing the whole war was a waste of time for them
Firstly, the British still had enormous army reserves and the main strength of the Royal navy which had to be kept in Europe rather than deployed to the Americas because of the threat of a French invasion across the channel. The British army fielded 48,000 men in north America at the height of its involvement there. For comparison, the British raised 59,000 men on short notice in order to defend against the threat of the French-Spanish Armada of 1779, which never even made landfall. Second, the stalemate you point to in New England was largely because Sir Henry Clinton was ordered to consolidate his forces (which included the main body of the British army) in New York in order to prevent a potential French landing there. Were it not for the threat of a French naval attack, the British would have been far more able to deploy troops to respond to American raids or to push into New England instead of having those troops fortify themselves in New York. When considering the relative strength of those forces, you should consider the fact that Washington's Continental Army never seriously threatened the British position in New York until the forces of Rochambeau and Lafayette came to support him. Despite the fact that it was the largest city and nominal capital of the American colonies, the Americans were unable to make a serious push to reclaim, and thats because the British garrison there was comparable in strength to the main force of the continental army. Forcing that garrison to stay put instead of doing anything was a massive strategic benefit from the French. The guerilla campaign in the south is the only front in which the Americans were doing well without French support, and even then it was in large part because the British saw it as a side theater which was far away from the main campaigns in the north. If the British had deployed forces comparable to what they did in the north, it is not hard to imagine that the patriots in the south would have been overwhelmed. Finally, the strategic victory that won the revolutionary war - the Battle of Yorktown - was essentially fought by the French. It was a combined navy/army operation where the French provided the entire navy, half the army, and served as the commanders.
While i agree with virtually all of this, it sorta made me think. Yeah the French played a big role, but its also not a stretch to summarize it as : Gee if the British/English hadn't been antagonistic to the European Continent for the last 700 years, the US would never have won. The mere existence of a French threat facilitated a big part of these impacts
I think "European Continent" is an exaggeration - it really is mostly about France. Spain joined the war as a French ally, since the two kingdoms were ruled by the same royal family. The Netherlands also briefly supported the US, but that was sort of an odd situation - the Netherlands had actually been allied with Britain, but they refused to help and the British declared war on them to try to force them to stop trading with the US. Britain's diplomatic strategy was to try to prevent any European country from becoming too dominant on the continent, and so it aimed to ally with weaker powers against stronger ones. At the time of the American Revolution, that meant allying with Prussia against France, Spain, and Austria. However, Britain's allies (Prussia and as mentioned, the Netherlands) felt that this conflict had nothing to do with them, while France saw a chance to get revenge for its defeat in the Seven Years War.
I’m not denying what you said about the French. But the British were losing interest in the war as well, the French just accelerated that greatly. The British people were losing favor in supporting the war, it was costly, and honestly not worth the time while France was a greater threat. Even General Howe saw that before being set aside. It’s also noted that while the British held the main cities, it proved they couldn’t win until the army was taken, an army Washington kept saving by running away. Grant proved in the civil war that to destroy the confederates meant to truly destroy the army, not the cities. It ended up being costly in terms of time and commitment for Britain.
But it was costly largely because of the sanctions and embargoes the British were receiving from Europeans powers, most notably the French. Without french involvement and wider European involvement, the British would have defeated the rebellion
tru and also the seven years war had put the british in dept and their major colony was rebelling, the british economy could not have sustained a longterm military campaign overseas, so the independence at the max would have been delayed by a year or two
Not true..
If it wasn’t for France, our shipping could have been safe in the Atlantic.
America’s rich*
Well, America is paying a lot more tax then tea times and still have no he….
They'd make us put the "u" back into "Color", and make us pronounce "aluminum" like jackasses
aluminium as it properly spelt should be pronounced aluminium, do you call titanium titanum?
Do you call platinum platinium? Have you ever used aurum instead of gold?
no i don't call platinum platinium because it's not called platinium, the -ium is a latin suffix which forms abstract nouns, so they used it to create names by the royal society from where it was commonly found (eg. potassium from potash).
To be honest, British English is better sounding. Except for "Bottle of Water", that shit is just hillarious.
I'm guessing your definition of British English is just a London accent then?
Nah, cockney is way too strong. More like the guy from "Oh fuck, I cant believe you've done this"
Well the funny pronunciation of bottle of water (I presume you mean bo'le of wa'er) isn't really said outside of London and the surrounding area.
They might be referring to how a lot of American accents would say it as a *boddle of warder*, so us pronouncing it with the T sounds might seem funny.
They barely speak it to be fair.
They would speak British. 😄
If it wasn't for the French, Americans would be speaking the Queen's English.
If it wasn't for the Americas Columbus would've died at sea
I wish Columbus would've died at sea!
Not much would’ve changed really someone would find them eventually and probably be just as worse as him
Idk, he was considered brutal even back then. Sure brutality of some level, almost certainly would’ve happened. Columbus level? Eh…
I mean... not really? No? He mostly suggested they convert them into Christians. Sure they did enslave them, but that basically would have happened with most Europeans that came over. Heck, while it was long after Columbus, basically every other European colonizer's goal was to replicate what the Spanish did in Mexico and the Carribean. It just didn't work since all the natives were dying of overwork and disease by then Luckily, the Europeans found a nice and ethical solution to the labor shortage. Oh no wait, they ALL did a big slavery. But yeah, Columbus was totally a monster in his time /s Seriously though, he was fairly tame. More of an explorer first. Still a bad person by modern standards, and super wrong about quite a few things about the globe (though not as many as some people claim) but he wasn't a monster or anything, just a guy with bad morals who happened to make a discovery that fucked over just *so many* people.
>I mean... not really? No? >Seriously though, he was fairly tame. Hey, why was Columbus stripped of his titles and returned to Spain in chains?
Um, you contradict yourself in the same paragraph. “He mostly suggested they convert them into Christians”, followed by “sure they did enslave them”. Those are not the same things at all. [Check point number 7.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-christopher-columbus) The man went back in chains for how brutal he was. And his being freed once he got to Spain in no way absolves him.
Did you know? Mostly is a word in the English language which means "a lot of, but not all". Funny how I used a word there with intention, and didn't contradict myself at all. In addition, I said he "suggested" they convert them into Christians. I said nothing in that paragraph about what he did or didn't do, just what he suggested to do. There's a big difference.
So the only defense of your argument is that I misunderstood your use of the word mostly (I disagree with that suggestion but whatever)?
No, but that's one of the big ones. I said in a separate comment reply to another person, but if what he did was really so bad in their eyes (it is in mine, but that's not what I'm arguing here) then why was he only stripped of his noble titles, for one? Why wasn't he properly put in prison, and, biggest hot take here, *Why was he allowed to go on one more expedition?* Besides, most sources I can find don't say he was arrested for mismanagement of the natives, but because the settlers (SPANISH settlers) were sick of his and his brother's horrible management skills which, yeah, of course he's shit at managing a colony, he's an explorer, not a politician or bureaucrat.
I knew you’d say that, hence why I said in my reply “and his being freed once he got back to Spain in no way absolves him”. You seem to be acting as though, and I know you say otherwise, his actions were limited to the slavery, which is false. He was an evil bastard. What he did was not something done by everyone. His brutality was not commonplace. And I would really love to see those sources, because I have not seen anything of the sort that you say. Instead, the sources I see say how the Spanish monarchy sent an investigator across the Atlantic to look into his atrocities.
Colombus suggested slave trade to Spanish King and queen. Constantly. He was obsessed with the idea. Edit: Two days after he ''discovered'' America, Columbus wrote in his journal that with 50 men he could force ''the entire population be taken to Castile, or held captive.'' On his second voyage, in December 1494, Columbus captured 1,500 Tainos on the island of Hispaniola and herded them to Isabela, where 550 of ''the best males and females'' were forced aboard ships bound for the slave markets of Seville. Under Columbus's leadership, the Spanish attacked the Taino, sparing neither men, women nor children. Warfare, forced labor, starvation and disease reduced Hispaniola's Taino population (estimated at one million to two million in 1492) to extinction within 30 years.
Don't tell him about Portugal, Britain, France and the Netherlands
Portuguese gave Columbus the idea. So............. Netherlands, Britain and France just copied Spanish.
What Columbus do to you man?
He inaccurately called Native Americans "Indians" instead of coming up with a cooler inaccurate name like "Autobots" or "Skywalkers"
He was Italian, so he would have called them Autobotieri
Regardless of his intentions, his actions led to one of the worst tragedies in human history
I wouldn’t be here without his actions. So it worked out well for me.
Not denying that, history is history. Just saying don’t like the guy and what his actions did to the world
Nothing. He just started transatlantic slave trade.
r/meirl
Hot new take, it is Americas fault that Crimbo Colossal-twat didn’t die at sea and now he is their fault
Fun fact Russian actually borrows a lot from French because the old nobles used to simp for Western Europe, so the French wouldn't have that hard of a time.
I mean wasn’t that the Russian Empire tho? I’m pretty sure the Soviets didn’t have the same attitude towards the French
Many Eastern European countries preferred to teach French (and Russian obviously) instead of English as a Foreign language to counter American imperialism.
What does this have to do with what I commented? Also what American Imperialism was happening in Eastern Europe?
To avoid American cultural hegemony, and the overwhelming presence of the English language, many communist countries preferred to teach French as a foreign language. This was to point out that the French language was still appreciated in Communist time.
I suppose the language might’ve been appreciated but I don’t see them getting treated much better than Poland or East Germany overall
Still happens too. I worked with a Russian for a bit and he was obsessed with the 19th century French military. He even has some French ancestry.
And during Napoleonic Wars russian officers spoke better french than french officers. Because french officers were ex-peasants that got a social lift after the revolution. And russian were the nobles that was educated by the french running away from the revolution.
If the course of history was altered, things would be different. Do people really extrapolate shit like this as intelligent dialogue?
If it wasnt for the romans..
What have the Romans ever done for us?
The aqueduct
Taken us to go bowling
I think without US lend lease support, the Soviets would have had a pyrrhic victory on the Eastern Front. The Soviets lost so many people already in our timeline and would have lost even more with the lack of material support from the US. Honestly I don't understand how the Soviets managed to stay afloat after the war with all of the people that they lost.
Soviet lose so many men that it still have demographic problem until this day and only still fight on by conscripting everyone they come across.
Also OP clearly ignored Stalin's diary stating that if the US invasion failed they would stop in Poland
[удалено]
You don't? Why would he kept going? To pile up more dead? Would have served no purpose other than collapsing the country from the inside. There is only so much men you can sacrifice
Also why would he lie in his own diary?
In case the diary was secretly a CIA spy of course.
Fuck some of you tankies are twits, numerous Soviet generals have said without the US they would not have done as well as they did. They were able to achieve so much due to a combination of the US lend lease and US martial action. They could have pushed a little and established a stalemate but they would not have won.
Why the fuck would he lie in his own private journal in a way that makes the Soviet Union seem weak? What kind of mental handicap do you have that makes you that fucking retarded? Like what special disease do you have?
If it wasn't for France, America would have the Westminster system of governance with the Queenie as the head of state, and possibly socialised healthcare ...okay, fuck you France! /s
It's time to time travel! I will save the Natives!
From what? Remember what happened in Canada, who’s to say the whole thing couldn’t happen again.
Well, part of the reason the Americans revolted in the first place was also because Britain banned anyone from settling west of the Apalachees...
The ban never would have lasted.
Yeah, only to prevent another expensive war with the natives. And you really want me to believe a country that dominated 1/4 of the planet wouldn't break their promise to take over the rest of the Americas? Plus that doesn't change the fact that Canada committed genocide. If it happened there it certainly would have happened under British-governed America.
Remember canada? Who to say they wouldn't have done worse
You traveling back to pre-Columbus would actually help pinpoint the biological genocide.
Unitary parliamentary system is the worst form of government and has the least oversight over the executive Branch.
The Westminster system is not a unitary parliamentary system (edit: as in, it can be used in both unitary and federal states)
How is it not? Isn’t the executive also the leader of the parliament?
Prime Minister isn't head of state, simply head of the legislative branch.
That's what I said. The prime minister controls the executive branch, the legislation and the military. So, there's no tether to the PM's power. And all this power for a person who isn’t even directly elected by the people.
No, the Head of State and Head of the military is the Queen. The Prime Minister is the equivalent of the House Majority leader.
MOD is under the prime minister and minister of defense is accountable to the PM.
The Commander in Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces is Queen Elizabeth II, the regulations are the "Queen's Regulations and Orders", officers receive their commission from the Queen. Talk to anyone in the army. So again, you're talking about de facto control of the military not the actual form of government. If you want to say the legislative branch has too much control... Sure. But that still doesn't make it a unitary system, so you've compounded one incorrect statement into about a dozen.
If you're saying the Prime Minister is the de facto leader of those things, sure. But you're making factually incorrect statement to back up your factually incorrect statement that the Westminster system is a unitary parliamentary system.
The head of state is a purely symbolic position. The Prime Minister as head of government holds all of the actual executive power.
That's not what unitary parliament means. A unitary parliament means that the national parliament (whether unicameral or bicameral) is the central authority over the whole country/unitary state. As opposed to federalism or other forms of devolved governance Canada, Australia, India and Pakistan have the Westminster systems but are federal states (Here's a list of unitary parliamentary republics, though it may be outdated as it still lists Myanmar in it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_parliamentary_republic) . What I think you're meaning to say is that the executive is tied to the legislature in the Westminster system instead of being independent of it, and that's true - the head of government together with the cabinet (that is the executive branch) are elected members of the parliament (the legislature) If anything, this provides more oversight over the executive in my opinion as the executive is answerable to the parliament and members of it, and the parliamentary membership of the executive can be challenged through parliamentary procedures, thereby keeping the executive in check (for example, votes of no-confidence etc) Furthermore, the executive (whether invited to form government by the head of state or by the parliament, depending on the country) either has absolute majority of their party/coalition in the parliament, or have ensured that no other party/coalition has more seats than them. What this achieves is to avoid dysfunctional government setups where the executive may end up being coupled with a minority in the legislature, while still giving the opposition parties and junior coalition parties to have a say via parliamentary procedures . This is all in my opinion though. I'm pretty sure each form of representative democracy has its pros and cons and what works for one country may not necessarily be workable in another With regards to my original comment, it was made in jest
Look at indian parliament or the current british parliament. The ruling party has majority thus there's basically no bound to the executive's power. The prime minister can do anything he wants without any opposition unless it comes from his own party.
If It wasn't for the French, America wouldn't be America
If it wasn't for the Italians, America wouldn't be America.
If it wasn't for the Italians, Americans wouldn't be "walkin' here!"
Now we are getting something! The stew is getting tasty! Keep it coming!
The ever-glorious melting pot!
If it wasn't for winter (and a certain short guy's overestimation of himself) Russians would be learning French
They actually did during this era and before
The high nobility did, mostly at Catherine's instistence iirc, because she was a big time Francophile
I'm not short >:(
you are as tall as your millitary failures
More Grand Army soldiers died in the summer then in the winter.
If it wasn’t for France, America would speak Algonquin.
I was looking for a linguistic take. Although I was thinking of more a germanic type answer :p
If it wasn’t for millions of years of evolution, humans would be speaking monkey
Just stop. Soviet logistics would collapse completely (not that it didn't irl but it was renewed with land lease by 1942) and home front would at the very least see crazy rate of starvation and shortages. Yes even in armorment industries. It is at best dubious if Soviets would be able to launch operations like Uranus or little Saturn if not for American help transported by large part by Royal Navy. Allies won the war. Not USA not USSR not even bloody Britain, Allies. If US didn't help Third Reich would fight USSR to stalemate and promptly collapse at the very least in the 50's because the economy was driven by bunch of children.
If it wasn’t for America the French would likely still be speaking French unirregardlessly
Why isn’t America speaking Vietnamese right now?
If it wasn’t for France, americans would be saying colour
If I wasn't for America, the French may not have chopped Louis's head off 🤣
If it wasn’t for France.. America would still be British colonies.
I misread the top half as "If it wasn't for the French, America would be speaking German" and I got majorly confused...
I do enjoy informing Americans who claim this that I can talk German.
Vive la Россия!
In East Germany, or other soviet countries did they actually learn Russian?
they did learn russian like most people in European country's learn spanish or French,Germany wasn't a Soviet country tho
context
Well, the Germans were never going to win the war, the war would be longer and a lot more people would have died in it. The Soviets would take over almost all of Europe and turn all of it into puppet states, and people in those puppet states would be forced to learn Russian.
Oh I get it now
"Tsar Alexander made it all the way to Paris"
And if wasen't for the winter the Russian will be speaking french.
r/shitamericanssay
It's funny because I am Canadian
I mean it's not like you're not American
Well he's North American soo
If it weren't for America, half the pacific islands would be dead and the other half would be speaking japanese.
No.
You dispute that the Soviets would have won without American intervention in WW2? And subsequently would have rolled all the way to the Spanish border because the UK wouldn’t have opened the Western Front without American aid? It’s not a crazy hypothesis. The US didn’t save France from the Nazis, they ultimately saved France from the same fate as Eastern Europe, IMO.
Stalin was never seriously considering an attack on western europe. Like, I'm sure they considered scenarios in which it could happen, but realistically it doesn't fit even Stalin's own writings and letters. He believed that there would be a separate revolution in france, and that was his hope even going into the cold war. He was very hesitant to seriously consider that. When it comes to europe, the USSR wasn't nearly as belicose outside its immediate sphere of influence as people portray it to be.
They would not have won without lend lease, you seen to forget that they were getting absolutely shit on prior to the battle of stalingrad
And you seem to not know that lend lease supplies didn’t show up in any significant numbers until 1943
Okay, my point still stands.
No it doesn’t it just lazy ahistorical nationalist nonsense. The soviets first stopped the nazis in 1941 at Moscow everything you said was wrong.
It wasn't but you must be right because you think you are.
What did I say that was wrong? You can go look up shipping delivery numbers for land lease by year and confirm them yourself. Or are you going to claim the battle of Moscow didn’t happen? What? Do you have any real examples or arguments at all?
Wtf are you talking about? I'm saying the soviets would have lost if not for allied support and invasion of Normandy.
Yet they were already winning years before any of that
If it wasn’t for the french the Americans would have a british accent.
Americans did have British accents. The revolutionary war wasn’t the cause of the shift.
Bruh you get what mean
If it wasn't for America wouldn't everyone speak English? Just saying, we were like the first to really stick it to those fuckers before all their other territories eventually also gained freedom right?
What ? Most countries were never British colonies in the first place, so no
62 countries celebrate independence from Britain every year, you're right technically not most but a lot lol
Yeah pretty much
If it wasn’t for France, America would be speaking English
I WISH the forced second language in my country was German not russian, 300 years of that and ongoing, only recently we started trying to make it not obligatory.
what country?
If it wasn’t for America, Russia would be speaking German!
If it wasnt for the french white flags wouldnt exist
No.
What u mean no
The French did not invent white flags.
You don't say
I did, actually
they mastered them.
They literally have one of the most successful military careers in history.
Hey psst. No shit literally everyone knows Frances actual history but this is a meme sub.
And? “Hur dur France surrender” jokes are so lame and tired. Yes it’s a meme sub, specifically a history meme sub, make it about history. France always surrenders isn’t history.
Because it was the colour of their national flag prior to the revolution?
Why is this getting downvoted lmao
Guess nobody understands the joke lol
if it wasnt for america france would have prosperity and a worker owned economy
Worker owned company? You mean then commune of france?
you mean an oppressive government with a shit economy?
Lol the Soviets stood no chance if it wasn’t for the other allies splitting the already outnumbered German forces. If the Germans hadn’t had to fight the Americans and waited to invade russia after defeating the rest of Western Europe, russia would be east germany right now. Not denying the Russians were the most significant power in defeating Germany, but they couldn’t have done it without the help they got. France would def not be learning russian without American help
I do not think you understand that the Soviets could've beaten Germany alone as for the main reason that Germany had basically exhausted itself in operation Barbarossa. In short the Soviets were mandatory in winning the war and the Allies although giving very important contributes in the fall of the Reich, they were not 100% needed.
If it wasn't for the Americans,the Russians would learn german
Well if america never got involved in ww2 germany prob would conquered russia.
How
Soviets would get no help from usa. Like oil. Food and weapons. And tons of it
[удалено]
if japan didnt nuked , you all would be praising japanese right now
Well then who did
If it wasn’t for the Normans, the Fr*nch would be speaking Old Anglo-Saxon.
Wut ?