Did the good guys loose WW1...

Did the good guys loose WW1? Memes aside if they won (ie America chose them instead of Allies) there wouldn't be worst treaty ever leading to WW2 (Versailles) USSR may have died sooner, and the Muslim Caliphate may have existed still and there might not be the terrorist organizations we have today due to the lack of a Caliphate. Thoughts?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I)
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Thoughts?

You should get a genetic test. Idiocy of your level is probably indicative that you have severe inbreeding issues.

you have to be over 18 to post on this site

You should leave then

did I say something wrong?

>USSR may have died sooner
The Germans supported the Russian revolution.

You said an enormous number of things wrong.

Central Powers winning WW1 is distinct from America choosing them instead of the Entente. Allies vs Axis was WW2. And of course, it would never happen anyway, what with ties of trade, culture, and language overwhelmingly favoring the UK and France over Germany.

Versailles was hardly the "Worst treaty ever", unless you use Germany Dindu nuffin logic, hell, it was far less punitive than Brest-Litovsk in the same fucking war.

Germany sponsored the Bolshevik Revolution and supported the Reds from everything to springing Lenin out of jail and getting him into Russia, to supplying them with funds, to attacking the Whites in the Civil war, and oh yeah, creating the entire background such that a revolution could succeed.

The Ottoman empire was disintegrating (all that balkan shit was because they couldn't hold onto the area anymore), and while WW1 hastened the process, there's no reason to indicate that there wouldn't be trouble in the Middle-East, especially once you have huge oil discoveries and its importance to a modern economy, you'd see the Europeans dogpiling the Ottomans if they're still around.

And, oh yeah, diving history into "good guys" and "bad guys" is completely, buttfuckingly retarded.

So it's not so much that you said something wrong, but rather everything you said was wrong. Please give yourself a shotgun lobotomy.

Yeah I get that this never happened that's the point of alt-history. A treaty that leads to another World war is pretty bad. You misinterpret my logic for USSR dying sooner, it has nothing to do with Whites vs Reds in the Civil War.
Your Ottoman Empire logic sort of makes sense.

Dividing history into good guys and bad guys is a meme bro we're on Veeky Forums, I was just copying the German Dindu phrase, "good guys lost WW2"

>Yeah I get that this never happened that's the point of alt-history


And compounding the retardation! user, your factual premises underlying your assumptions are wrong, and idiotic besides. You even misnamed the two competing alliances. That's the problem, not alt-his in an abstract.

> A treaty that leads to another World war is pretty bad.

The treaty didn't lead to a second world war. The underlying political reality of the next 20 years led to a second world war. You would know this, if you bothered to look.

>You misinterpret my logic for USSR dying sooner, it has nothing to do with Whites vs Reds in the Civil War.

What logic? The Bolsheviks won power in Russia/Soviet Union because the Kaiser's government put them there and beat the shit out of the previous government. Why do you think a German victory in WW1 would lead to an inferior Soviet position?

>Dividing history into good guys and bad guys is a meme bro we're on Veeky Forums, I was just copying the German Dindu phrase, "good guys lost WW2"

Given the rest of the idiocy in your OP post, it's hard to tell that you're only pretending to be stupid here.

Dude all your arguments are just ad hominen attacks, didn't you ever do debates in High School? You need facts an reason. Alternate History fanfic about WW1's been around for ages, no duh its factually incorrect thats what alternate history is.


As it pertains to Versailles and WW2 the great depression and German Woes were blamed on Versailles, and all the strict monetary punishments from Versailles all are faulted with rise of Nationalism from Germany. Doesn't justify it, but this is widely talked about by Historians, idk what sort of Historical literature you read though.

>Dude all your arguments are just ad hominen attacks,

It actually isn't, and you might want to look up what an argument ad hominem is. Calling you stupid because you predicate arguments on factual errors is not an ad hominem.

>You need facts an reason

Yes, you do.

>Alternate History fanfic about WW1's been around for ages, no duh its factually incorrect thats what alternate history is.

user, you're supposed to identify the points of departure from the historical timeline, spell them out clearly, and list what you think the likely changes would be.

You don't, for instance, call the sides by the wrong names and then expect that people won't call you out for having no fucking clue what you're talking about. And when I call you a fucking retard for speculating about WW1 when you don't even know what the combatants called themselves that's not an ad hominem attack. When I point out that you haven't even begun to defend why you think a Central Powers (or at least German) victory would affect the Bolsheviks at all, that's not an ad hominem either. That's busting up your edifice and insulting you while I'm at it.

>As it pertains to Versailles and WW2 the great depression and German Woes were blamed on Versailles

But were they accurately blamed on Versailles? You might want to look up the Dawes plan. Which, by the way, paved the way for future repercussions both in and out of Germany.

>and all the strict monetary punishments from Versailles all are faulted with rise of Nationalism from Germany.

You mean like how the Americans floating the Wiemar government some very generous loan provisions to help them cover it? Are you seriously implying that nationalism wasn't a force in Germany beforehand? Because, you might want to look up a guy named Otto Von Bismarck, he's a bit famous in some circles.

You want to write alt-his, actually write some fucking alt-his. Do your research, identify a specific point of departure, and tie in your speculation as to what you've changed and why. Don't just wave your arms and say "ITZ DIFFURENT!" For fuck's sake, there's a bunch of different permutations you could come up with, and a fucking lot of them far more reasonable than the U.S. randomly deciding to join Germany, that could lead to a different outcome to WW1, such as 3 months of war and then peace like a lot of people were predicting beforehand, to a successful quasi-Schlieffen knocking out France early, to just U.S. apathy and general collapse of combatants because there's no influx of capital and munitions and manpower from the U.S., and those three will have VERY different outcomes to your post-WW1 outcome, even when they're all central powers victories.

As it is, you're not writing alt-his. You're gibbering like a fucking idiot because you clearly have no idea beyond wiki level knowledge (if even that) on the period, and want to have a cool victory on the side you identify with. It's sophmoric. Grow up.

You are using ad hominems weather you think so or not; citing my autism for your reasoning is the definition of ad hominem. Your first response was literally just about my possible inbreeding and idiocy.

I've always heard Allies and Central powers used in textbooks, and that's how its listed on Wiki right now, (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I) even if the use of the word Ally came later. That's why I used the word Allies in the OP

Article 231 put all the blame on Germany, which just increased their nationalism and hate, and the loss of Alsace-Lorraine was crucial, although some may argue fair. Not to mention the Japanese and Italians had their own problems about the treaty.

I mean OP may be retarded but you don't need to write a thesis to start a Veeky Forums thread, plus Central powers winning is an interesting hypothetical to think about.

What would have happened if Britain just stayed out of a conflict it had nothing to do with?
>inb4 muh obligation towards Belgium and Entente: PM Asquith himself declared on August 3rd 1914 there was no obligation. Also there's a ton of evidence Britain just wanted to get rid of a trade rival.
The terrorism you mention is also related to Britain. Their backing of House Saud is the root of radical Islam having a base in that corner of the earth.

>The Bolsheviks won power in Russia/Soviet Union because the Kaiser's government put them there
Literally the only thing the germans did for the bolsheviks was send Lenin over, whose primary value was not in being particularly good militarily or organizationally, but dogmatically keeping to his line (ultimately the correct one) even when the party disagreed with him.

>WW1
>Good guys

lmao

Unironically, this.

Margaret Macmillan argues that, au contraire, the Treaty of Versailles was fine, and the main thing that was wrong with the wrapup of WWI was that Germany was not occupied and made to see that it was defeated and considered the bad guy.
Not saying I support that position 100% but she has some good points.

>Versailles was hardly the "Worst treaty ever", unless you use Germany Dindu nuffin logic, hell, it was far less punitive than Brest-Litovsk in the same fucking war.

Brest-Litovsk should rather be compared to the treaties of Trianon, Saint-Germain and Sèvres: Russia was a multinational empire and mostly non-Russian areas (only those in European Russia though) were made independent states in the same manner as AH and the Ottoman empire were dissolved. That's ignoring the fact that Russia kept non-Russian territory in Asiatic Russia.

The reparations Russia was obliged to pay were negligible compared to the reparations imposed on Germany; Russia wasn't forced to downsize its military the way Germany was in 1919; etc.

>Thoughts?
Get a spell checker.