bintananth
behind a desk
I wouldn't say he was a great President, but I will say that he was one of the better ones. He did oversee most of the Roaring 20s ...
History What are some of your most contraversial takes on history?
- Thread starter Winston Bush
- Start date
It helped that there was no NATO back then and that this was the pre-Hitler era and when Europe could still handle the Communist threat by itself.
Buba
A total creep
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Was this a joke? Because the viewpoint that it was not is promoted by literally entirety of the mainstream historiography.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Today's mainstream is literally far-Left...
Well, for most of those previous centuries, "Germany" was a loose collection of small kingdoms and principalities, nominally all part of one empire, but in practice each doing their own thing.
It would have made some difference whether you were fighting against Bavaria or Prussia.
Napoleon never had to take on Bismark's Kaiserreich.
Batrix2070
RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
In the 10th and 11th centuries, rather Prussia or Bavaria as separate countries did not exist, it was still an organized structure which, although it had loopholes that we exploited every time, it is still possible to talk about Germans. And these Germans did not manage to impose their supremacy on Poland as they did on Bohemia, even though they stood at a higher technological and organizational level.
The disparity of power was the greatest at the time, and yet the Germans did not succeed.
The republic looks good until you really look at it, then you realize the left started a fight they couldn't win and most likely deserved what they got.
TheRomanSlayer
Kayabangan, Dugo, at Dangal
Another Philippines related controversial take:
- The Philippines is doomed to be a colony of whichever nation wants it. China, Japan, Brunei (the Bolkiahs did rule parts of Luzon, including the city of Manila), Spain, Portugal, Britain, US, Netherlands.
Main reason being is that the Philippines straddles on a vital sea lane that is crucial to commercial trade on the seas. Heck, in any modern military operation, the Philippines would be high priority target. If held by the US, they can easily launch a naval blockade of China, with Japan and Taiwan's help. If held by China, they can easily attack Taiwan and Japan, making American resupply efforts more difficult. It explains why they're so gung ho on stealing all of the Spratly Islands.
- The Philippines is doomed to be a colony of whichever nation wants it. China, Japan, Brunei (the Bolkiahs did rule parts of Luzon, including the city of Manila), Spain, Portugal, Britain, US, Netherlands.
Main reason being is that the Philippines straddles on a vital sea lane that is crucial to commercial trade on the seas. Heck, in any modern military operation, the Philippines would be high priority target. If held by the US, they can easily launch a naval blockade of China, with Japan and Taiwan's help. If held by China, they can easily attack Taiwan and Japan, making American resupply efforts more difficult. It explains why they're so gung ho on stealing all of the Spratly Islands.
The Filipinos or the Chinese?
Possibly. Depends on whether Hitler would have invaded a republican Spain that had heavy Communist influence. Though if Spain goes Commie and then breaks up, then we could see an independent Catalonia and Basque Territory right now.
TheRomanSlayer
Kayabangan, Dugo, at Dangal
Chinese. Which explains their whole "Muh 9 dash line!" crap, and the fact that any Chinese military unit stationed at Kalayaan Island could easily strike targets within Manila. My hometown would also be within striking range of Chinese military forces.
Anyway, another unpopular take:
The US would have been better off arbitrating a settlement to World War I rather than directly entering the war. That way, at least democracy in Russia would have had much higher odds of surviving. Edward "Colonel" House was already aware of this back in 1917:
The Deluge
A searing and highly original analysis of the First World War and its anguished aftermath—from the prizewinning economist and author of Shutdown, Crashed and The Wages of Destruction Winner of the Los Angeles Times Book Prize - History Finalist for the Kirkus Prize - Nonfiction In the depths...books.google.com
Or, alternatively, the US should have militarily removed the Bolsheviks from power in Russia after it helped defeat Germany on the Western Front in late 1918.
Some more discussion of this here:
H-Diplo Roundtable XXIII-41 on Zelikow. The Road Less Traveled: The Secret Battle to End the Great War, 1916-1917 | H-Net
H-Diplo Roundtable XXIII-41Philip Zelikow. The Road Less Traveled: The Secret Battle to End the Great War, 1916-1917. New York: Public Affairs, 2021. ISBN: 978-1-5417-5095-1 (hardcover, $30.00).
TheRomanSlayer
Kayabangan, Dugo, at Dangal
Kerensky should have sued for peace with the Central Powers instead of pushing on with the war. That might make him unpopular, but at least it would deny the Bolsheviks a chance to launch their attempted coup.
bintananth
behind a desk
Weird thing: when the US got the Phillipines the US didn't actually want to be colonial masters. Once things in the Phillipines settled down the US was more than happy to let go of the Phillipines. The US also wasn't going to fuck it up like so many other colonial powers did and wanted a smooth transition.
Prove me wrong, he is only bad because he didn't do more is that it? If your measure of being a president is only measured by the number of policies, he implements is it really a wonder we live in a society where the government is ever expanding?
How is this controversial? It's a known fact that within three days of the Battle of Manila Bay ending both a German and British Cruiser squadron showed up expecting American defeat hoping to establish protectorates, they along with Japanese had been funding rebel groups for years in the hopes that they could use a revolution as an excuse to get the islands.
It is mainstream.
Have no doubt Franco was horrible for overthrowing a democratically elected government even if socialist, but the majority of those who bemoan Republican Spain tend to be on the left and they frequently have a bad habit of ignoring the fact that Republican Spain was a house of cards with no clear established ideology,
Most likely had the left won, they would have fell into division the moment the SCW ended in a victory for them as very well happen in OTL in Barcelona when the Spanish Communist Party and their much vaunted and bemoaned international brigades started attacking pretty much every other Left Wing faction that up until then had been allied with the Popular Front including the Trotskyites, Anarcho-Syndicalist, which was so bad, it delusional a man named George Orwell from actually taking cause with any particular group again, even though he did remain somewhat left in his thinking.
The communist and international brigades labeled opposing leftist groups as 'fascist' instituted censorship and every other thing you would expect, so I don't generally understand those who cry out about them losing as once the SPC ended these people would turn on the rest and with Soviet backing attempt to enforce a Marxist state..
The U.S. offered to arbitrate the conflict multiple times; it didn't work. WW1 was a war where both sides decided they were playing for blood and keeps so no arbitration was ever taking place. I admit the U.S. would have been better kept out of the war though honestly.Anyway, another unpopular take:
The US would have been better off arbitrating a settlement to World War I rather than directly entering the war. That way, at least democracy in Russia would have had much higher odds of surviving. Edward "Colonel" House was already aware of this back in 1917:
The Deluge
A searing and highly original analysis of the First World War and its anguished aftermath—from the prizewinning economist and author of Shutdown, Crashed and The Wages of Destruction Winner of the Los Angeles Times Book Prize - History Finalist for the Kirkus Prize - Nonfiction In the depths...books.google.com
We tried, we lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_Siberia#:~:text=The American Expeditionary Force, Siberia (AEF in Siberia),part of the larger Allied North Russia intervention.
I know what you are going to argue and technically 'yes' we could have like every other power involved taken out the Bolsheviks, the problem is that we were already tired from the Western Front and defeating the reds offered no rewards for the amount gained much like that conflict, the public had no real want of further battle for nothing.
Agreed.
The entire Philippines occupation was just a debacle from the start, unlike in Cuba or Puerto Rico the U.S. had no real contacts with the locals nor a keen sense of the political situation, to say nothing of the fact that multiple bunglers committed atrocities, immediately souring any positive relations and inciting future uprisings.
bintananth
behind a desk
He was very good at keeping his mouth shut and only speaking when he had to. He was nicknamed "Silent Cal" for a reason. He was not a grandstanding "look at me" politician.
bintananth
behind a desk
Could the US have done better? Yes
Did the US want to be there? No