Ignorance Of History

[+ tassojunior]

Are you being sarcastic or are you delusional???!!!!!

 

I think there's consensus recognition that WW1 became or at least caused WW2.

[+ WilliamM]

We got into WWII because of Pearl Harbor yet our emphasis was on Europe. What would we have done if Hitler had not declared war on the USA a few days after Pearl Harbor?

 

The UK and France went to war over Poland yet did nothing when the Soviets invaded Poland shortly after the nazis. And they didn't care that the Soviets imposed Communism on Poland for 40 years.

 

You know very well that Russia was an ally during World War ll. And FDR wanted Russia help against Japan at Yalta. One can argue Roosevelt was wrong

[+ WilliamM]

There is a difference between reading History Books and the study of History. The Study of History is the examination of primary source documents created during a given period. These can be as dry as laws passed, and editorial discussion of the same in Newspapers, census information, shipping records, etc. It can also include, church sermons, political speeches, magazine articles, pamphlets, and essays. It can even include the examination of literature, poetry, popular music, plays, and painting, drawing, and sculpture. All these elements can be examined for their Political, Religous, Intellectual, Social, and Economic content (Historians call it the PRISE system or approach). The most important thing to consider is the Bias of the author or creator of any source. Who were they, what axe did they have to grind? If you don’t understand the author’s bias, then you will never have a clear, honest picture of what you are reading or studying.

 

Completely agree, but you need to know langages other English --French perhaps -- unless your study only includes countries that use mainly the English language.

[+ WilliamM]

Local police and if need be call out the National Guard.

 

Rather than the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force. I was drafted and served in the Army. I hated it. But, I at least can tell you directly you have no idea what you are writing about.

[Epigonos]

Unfortunately Avalon the reality in today's world is that the two oceans do NOT provide a whole lot of protection. 9/11 amply proved that point. We are a part of this fucked up shrinking world whether we like it or not.

[+ quoththeraven]

Local police and if need be call out the National Guard.

The police had their hands full responding to the attack and they don't have the capacity to monitor or chase down planes. (And they're already too militarized.) You really want to rely on a patchwork of state volunteer militias (which is what the National Guard is) rather than a central force for this type of emergency response?

 

I can't take such unsound and unworkable ideas seriously.

Edited August 1, 2018 by quoththeraven

[+ quoththeraven]

There is a difference between reading History Books and the study of History. The Study of History is the examination of primary source documents created during a given period. These can be as dry as laws passed, and editorial discussion of the same in Newspapers, census information, shipping records, etc. It can also include, church sermons, political speeches, magazine articles, pamphlets, and essays. It can even include the examination of literature, poetry, popular music, plays, and painting, drawing, and sculpture. All these elements can be examined for their Political, Religous, Intellectual, Social, and Economic content (Historians call it the PRISE system or approach). The most important thing to consider is the Bias of the author or creator of any source. Who were they, what axe did they have to grind? If you don’t understand the author’s bias, then you will never have a clear, honest picture of what you are reading or studying.

I just saw a tweet from a real live history professor that it's reasonableness and how it fits with other evidence, rather than bias, that is the most important way of evaluating evidence.

 

Put another way, bias is something to look out for, but not all evidence from people on one side or another is biased. And there are sometimes documents that originate from sources that don't have a particular alliance or axe to grind.

[+ Avalon]

The police had their hands full responding to the attack and they don't have the capacity to monitor or chase down planes. And they're already too militarized.) You really want to rely on a patchwork of state volunteer militias (which is what the National Guard is) rather than a central force for this type of emergency response?

 

I can't take such unsound and unworkable ideas seriously.

 

My point is with the background history I proposed - border from Atlantic to the Rockies, no foreign involvement etc., 9/11 would not have happened.

[+ WilliamM]

My point is with the background history I proposed - border from Atlantic to the Rockies, no foreign involvement etc., 9/11 would not have happened.

 

Not if you exclude Texas, California and other western states. The U.S. military would have been much weaker in World War Two. Significant political figures like Earl Warren and LBJ would live in another country. Pure nightmare with a bit snob appeal to some historians.

[+ Avalon]

Not if you exclude Texas, California and other western states. The U.S. military would have been much weaker in World War Two. Significant political figures like Earl Warren and LBJ would live in another country. Pure nightmare with a bit snob appeal to some historians.

 

I do not include Texas and California. The USA would consist of the 13 Colonies, the Louisiana Purchase and the Two Floridas (East and West). People like Earl Warren and LBJ would probably still exist but from one of the 30 states that would comprise the Union.

 

And embassies? Canada and Mexico because they are our neighbors. The various European countries. And Israel of course if it exists in this timeline.

 

The USA would have stayed out of all foreign wars after 1776.

[Epigonos]

Avalon you make the Isolationists of the 20th Century seem like total pikers. I'm not convinced isolationism was ever possible and I'm definitely convinced that it isn't possible in today's or tomorrow's world.

[+ tassojunior]

My point is with the background history I proposed - border from Atlantic to the Rockies, no foreign involvement etc., 9/11 would not have happened.

 

A wall in the Rockies is absurd.

 

 

The police had their hands full responding to the attack and they don't have the capacity to monitor or chase down planes. (And they're already too militarized.) You really want to rely on a patchwork of state volunteer militias (which is what the National Guard is) rather than a central force for this type of emergency response?

 

I can't take such unsound and unworkable ideas seriously.

 

Their only enemies are other nations' tax departments, but the Swiss have no army. Not even a national guard although every citizen is armed and trained to shoot. For some reason no one has invaded them, not even Hitler, and the EU leaves them alone. Of course an invader would have to put up with all those cow bells and long horns.

[+ WilliamM]

I do not include Texas and California. The USA would consist of the 13 Colonies, the Louisiana Purchase and the Two Floridas (East and West). People like Earl Warren and LBJ would probably still exist but from one of the 30 states that would comprise the Union.

 

And embassies? Canada and Mexico because they are our neighbors. The various European countries. And Israel of course if it exists in this timeline.

 

The USA would have stayed out of all foreign wars after 1776.

 

Embassy in Israel, but not Asia, Africa, South America or anywhere else in the Middle East?

[+ Avalon]

Embassy in Israel, but not Asia, Africa, South America or anywhere else in the Middle East?

 

Because of the immigration demographics would be way different in my scenario. In fact I'd have embassies only in European countries where 2% of US citizens have come from.

 

The USA would stay out of the affairs of other nations.

[+ Avalon]

A wall in the Rockies is absurd.

 

They'rd be no wall in the Rockies. In my scenario the lands between the five states that border on the west side of the Mississippi River and the Rockies would belong to the Native Americans.

[+ Charlie]

Thomas Jefferson was opposed to a standing army, because he thought that a republic could always count on its citizens to rise up and join voluntary militias to defend themselves against foreign enemies. He tried to cut off support for the army academy at West Point and any support for a navy. (He also insisted that any money appropriated by Congress for naval vessels should be spent on ones he designed himself, which turned out to be worthless in combat, as the naval professionals had predicted.) When the British declared war in 1812, the country was caught unprepared, and Madison found himself a Commander in Chief with almost no organized military to command. It was mainly luck and the British distraction by Napoleon in Europe that enabled the US to avoid being defeated by the British and potentially absorbed back into British North America. Believing in the possibility of non-involvement with the rest of the world was unrealistic then, and it is no more reasonable now.

[+ tassojunior]

Thomas Jefferson was opposed to a standing army, because he thought that a republic could always count on its citizens to rise up and join voluntary militias to defend themselves against foreign enemies. He tried to cut off support for the army academy at West Point and any support for a navy. (He also insisted that any money appropriated by Congress for naval vessels should be spent on ones he designed himself, which turned out to be worthless in combat, as the naval professionals had predicted.) When the British declared war in 1812, the country was caught unprepared, and Madison found himself a Commander in Chief with almost no organized military to command. It was mainly luck and the British distraction by Napoleon in Europe that enabled the US to avoid being defeated by the British and potentially absorbed back into British North America. Believing in the possibility of non-involvement with the rest of the world was unrealistic then, and it is no more reasonable now.

 

Just maybe there's something between no foreign involvement and trying to dominate and micro-manage the world.

[+ Avalon]

Thomas Jefferson was opposed to a standing army, because he thought that a republic could always count on its citizens to rise up and join voluntary militias to defend themselves against foreign enemies. He tried to cut off support for the army academy at West Point and any support for a navy. (He also insisted that any money appropriated by Congress for naval vessels should be spent on ones he designed himself, which turned out to be worthless in combat, as the naval professionals had predicted.) When the British declared war in 1812, the country was caught unprepared, and Madison found himself a Commander in Chief with almost no organized military to command. It was mainly luck and the British distraction by Napoleon in Europe that enabled the US to avoid being defeated by the British and potentially absorbed back into British North America. Believing in the possibility of non-involvement with the rest of the world was unrealistic then, and it is no more reasonable now.

 

Thanks! Jefferson was right!

 

I think that most of the European immigrants who came to this country wanted to free from the entanglements and wars in their home countries.

[+ WilliamM]

Because of the immigration demographics would be way different in my scenario. In fact I'd have embassies only in European countries where 2% of US citizens have come from.

 

The USA would stay out of the affairs of other nations.

 

Why did you mention Israel?

 

More to the point, who are you really? The word Avalon suggests an island near Long Beach where Natalie Wood died - nice play, whomever you are really.

[+ Avalon]

Why did you mention Israel?

 

More to the point, who are you really? The word Avalon suggests an island near Long Beach where Natalie Wood died - nice play, whomever you are really.

 

King Arthur and Avalon. I'm 5th general American but am of English heritage.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalon

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

In my scenario there hopefully would have been no Holocaust and that horrendous event led to the establishment of Israel.

Edited August 2, 2018 by Avalon

[+ WilliamM]

King Arthur and Avalon. I'm 5th general American but am of English heritage.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalon

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

In my scenario there hopefully would have been no Holocaust and that horrendous led to the establishment of Israel.

 

And you only mentioned part of @Charlie's post. The part you liked.

[+ tassojunior]

They'rd be no wall in the Rockies. In my scenario the lands between the five states that border on the west side of the Mississippi River and the Rockies would belong to the Native Americans.

 

Ah ha. So you'd put Native Americans in the buffer zone between Mexico and the US as sacrificial bait for all the Mexican murderers crossing the border. Avalon !

[+ Avalon]

And you only mentioned part of @Charlie's post. The part you liked.

 

But of course!

Edited August 2, 2018 by Avalon

[+ WilliamM]

But of course!

 

Ah, I do not need any more likes.

 

If I was impressed with likes I would be posted somewhere else here.

[+ Charlie]

Thanks! Jefferson was right!

 

I think that most of the European immigrants who came to this country wanted to free from the entanglements and wars in their home countries.

I'm not sure what you saw in my post that convinced you that Jefferson was right. I think it showed that Jefferson was pretty foolish to believe that the rest of the world would respect the American declaration that after we had won our independence, our country just wanted to be left alone to do our own thing, and they would just go and fight among themselves. BTW, it was Jefferson who made the Louisiana Purchase that extended the USA across the plains and over the Rockies.