The British kill Jefferson
- Thread starter Faeelin
- Start date
Hamilton becomes the biggest figure in American politics during the early 19th Century. As Jefferson was one of the main reasons why Hamilton was not VP under Washington, we may see Hamilton in 1796 instead of Adams. Thus, war with France...
Michael E Johnson
Banned
Go British ! 
Seriously- I think in broader sense, in many ways (as exhibited by HT and Richard Dreyfus in the Two Georges) North America and the world as a whole would be a better place if the British had won the Revolution.Especially for blacks and Native Americans and most likely (200 years later) for European Jews and Gypsies.
Seriously- I think in broader sense, in many ways (as exhibited by HT and Richard Dreyfus in the Two Georges) North America and the world as a whole would be a better place if the British had won the Revolution.Especially for blacks and Native Americans and most likely (200 years later) for European Jews and Gypsies.
Michael E Johnson said:
Blacks would have been treated better. Indians, maybe, maybe not, some sort of forced movement/genocide was almost inevitable. We were going to move across the continent, whether carrying the stars and stripes of the union jack. Maybe those Indians who tried to assimilate (such as the Cherokee in Georgia) would have been better off.
I don't see what European Jews and Gypsies have to do with American freedom. Gypsies were and always have been looked down upon as "scum" in Europe while Jews have always been envied for their (perceived) wealth. No matter what happens in America, that's not going to change...
Good God. How on earth can you blame the US for the Holocaust?Michael E Johnson said:Go British !
Seriously- I think in broader sense, in many ways (as exhibited by HT and Richard Dreyfus in the Two Georges) North America and the world as a whole would be a better place if the British had won the Revolution.Especially for blacks and Native Americans and most likely (200 years later) for European Jews and Gypsies.
Michael E Johnson
Banned
--Good God. How on earth can you blame the US for the Holocaust?----
I wasnt.I said that things would have been better for the US and the world as a whole.So a British victory probably means different European politics.Possibly no Germany and probably no Holocaust.
ps Although it should be noted that OTL the US could have done alot more than it did in regard to the Holocaust-ie the appaling example of turning away the St Louis.
I wasnt.I said that things would have been better for the US and the world as a whole.So a British victory probably means different European politics.Possibly no Germany and probably no Holocaust.
ps Although it should be noted that OTL the US could have done alot more than it did in regard to the Holocaust-ie the appaling example of turning away the St Louis.
Last edited:
Whoa,
There is absolutely no reason to imagine that things would have been better (or worse) for European Jews with no USA. There is no causal relationship.
However, I would argue that the existence of the USA has been very beneficial for the Jewish people in general. The USA was much more open to European Jewish settlement throughout the 19th and early 20th century than any European empire, including even the British. Also, while there was prejudice, the USA displayed more tolerance for expressions of Jewish faith and the presence of Jews in the universities and professions than any european nation. It is no accident that the Jewish population in the United States is larger than any other place on earth - including Israel. Unlike continental Europeans, Americans never developed the habit of killing or disenfranchizing them every 20 years. It is also no accident that Americans, who had less to do with the holocaust than ANY continental European nation, assume more responsibility than any other nation to ensure that the Jewish people have a secure homeland now.
There is absolutely no reason to imagine that things would have been better (or worse) for European Jews with no USA. There is no causal relationship.
However, I would argue that the existence of the USA has been very beneficial for the Jewish people in general. The USA was much more open to European Jewish settlement throughout the 19th and early 20th century than any European empire, including even the British. Also, while there was prejudice, the USA displayed more tolerance for expressions of Jewish faith and the presence of Jews in the universities and professions than any european nation. It is no accident that the Jewish population in the United States is larger than any other place on earth - including Israel. Unlike continental Europeans, Americans never developed the habit of killing or disenfranchizing them every 20 years. It is also no accident that Americans, who had less to do with the holocaust than ANY continental European nation, assume more responsibility than any other nation to ensure that the Jewish people have a secure homeland now.
Michael E Johnson
Banned
---There is absolutely no reason to imagine that things would have been better (or worse) for European Jews with no USA. There is no causal relationship.----
except that in OTL the free USA lead to the French Revolution which lead to Napoleon which lead to a unified Germany which lead to Hitler and the Holocaust.A world with European politics like that of the Two Georges ( France/Spain dominating the continent with England as a strong counterforce and no strong Germany or Russia )probably means no Holocaust or serious pogroms against Jews in the 19th and 20th centuries.
---assume more responsibility than any other nation to ensure that the Jewish people have a secure homeland now.----
Which includes allowing the Israeli Government to continue its current counter-productive policies by shielding it from UN resoultions and sanctions- which has made Israel the bastion of "security" it is today.Of course we could go alot father back to ensure Jewish prosperity and security-No Chrisitanity or Islam would probably help somewhat. Being a Roman province wasnt that bad compared to all thats happened to them since I think.
except that in OTL the free USA lead to the French Revolution which lead to Napoleon which lead to a unified Germany which lead to Hitler and the Holocaust.A world with European politics like that of the Two Georges ( France/Spain dominating the continent with England as a strong counterforce and no strong Germany or Russia )probably means no Holocaust or serious pogroms against Jews in the 19th and 20th centuries.
---assume more responsibility than any other nation to ensure that the Jewish people have a secure homeland now.----
Which includes allowing the Israeli Government to continue its current counter-productive policies by shielding it from UN resoultions and sanctions- which has made Israel the bastion of "security" it is today.Of course we could go alot father back to ensure Jewish prosperity and security-No Chrisitanity or Islam would probably help somewhat. Being a Roman province wasnt that bad compared to all thats happened to them since I think.
Last edited:
Michael E Johnson said:
Of course we side with the Israelis. Somebody has to. It would be buried under the weight of the Muslins and Continental Europeans without our help.
As for their security measures - what would you do if you couldn't let your children go to the mall without fear of being blown up AND you were outnumbered and isolated by your enemy? Of course they are going to go to great lengths to ensure their own security when they are CONSTANTLY under attack.
Other than acts of terrorism, how many times has the Muslin world banded together to attempt to crush the Israelis in the last 60 years? Its at least four times, and probably a half dozen more. If you want to secure Israeli security without eliminating a religion or two, have the Muslims stop attacking them. They, in kind, will stop attacking the Muslims in self defense.
Michael E Johnson
Banned
--They, in kind, will stop attacking the Muslims in self defense.---
Except for the radical Israelis who want to expel Israeli Arabs,No Palestinean state and a greater Israel that would have even more territory.
Except for the radical Israelis who want to expel Israeli Arabs,No Palestinean state and a greater Israel that would have even more territory.
Michael E Johnson said:
The French Revolution would have happened with or without the American Revolution. It may have been delayed a half dozen years or a decade but the French were already mighty tired of their government before the American Revolution. Also, unless the American Revolution is avoided all together, the loss of the war will cripple France even more. The French Revolution was just a few stops down the road and the creation of Germany, and eventual power of Germany, were extremely likely. Germany simply had the resources (natural and population) and the ambition to become a great power. GB wouldn't have stayed one forever.
Michael E Johnson said:
The Two Georges isn't a really plausible, anyhow.
Michael E Johnson said:
But that's only natural. There are radicals and imperialists in every nation, whether it be the United States, the Russian Republic, or Namibia. There will always be a select group pushing for things like that.
Israel isn't that insecure, more Israelis die in car accidents than in acts of terrorism.Michael E Johnson said:
Also, the Romans (as much as I love the romans) tended to crush the entire region under their heel whenever some independence movements got started (like burning down the Temple). Jews had official religious tolerance, I will grant you.
As for saying that a more powerful UK would have been better for the Jews, by preventing Germany from forming, you're assuming an awful lot. Like that the Germans were the only ones capable of the Holocaust, or that your super UK wouldn't commit such an atrocity themselves.
A marked improvement.
Without that nitwit America would have been much better off. The only thing he did right was the Louisiana purchase and the only reason he did that was to prevent the formation of a French sanctuary for slaves. Without Jefferson we would have had a decent navy and the British wouldn't have kept enslaving Yankee sailors. Even then the southerners hated the northerners for getting rich without slaves.
What a stupid idea to base your agricultural economy on. The best thing you can put on land is the footprint of the owner. It's a cliche for a reason. You want someone with a stake to be watching every acre every day. Unfortunately we are getting back to the sharecropper model because government support for crop prices is making land too expensive for farmers to buy, so they have to rent, and then hedge the crop with futures. I think the farmers ought to own the farms.
Faeelin said:
Without that nitwit America would have been much better off. The only thing he did right was the Louisiana purchase and the only reason he did that was to prevent the formation of a French sanctuary for slaves. Without Jefferson we would have had a decent navy and the British wouldn't have kept enslaving Yankee sailors. Even then the southerners hated the northerners for getting rich without slaves.
What a stupid idea to base your agricultural economy on. The best thing you can put on land is the footprint of the owner. It's a cliche for a reason. You want someone with a stake to be watching every acre every day. Unfortunately we are getting back to the sharecropper model because government support for crop prices is making land too expensive for farmers to buy, so they have to rent, and then hedge the crop with futures. I think the farmers ought to own the farms.
wkwillis said:
Bad President, yes. Nitwit, no.
By 1781, Jefferson's career had peaked. It peaked with the writing of the Declaration of Independence. But, nitwit, he was not. He was a genius, whether he was a bad President or not. Just look at his writings and the construction projects (namely, Monticello) that he personally designed with NO actual training in it. Yes he was a bad President, but he was not stupid.
Different kinds of stupidity.
My dad is not stupid. He got into Harvard on full scholarship at 16 and out with a degree at 19. Then he went and married mom and they had ten kids. There are lots of different kinds of stupidity.
Look at me. I'm an inventor who works as a security guard to give me time to invent. Is that the lifestyle of someone with an ounce of brains? And my god, I post on this site!
I'm signing off and going to bed.
My dad is not stupid. He got into Harvard on full scholarship at 16 and out with a degree at 19. Then he went and married mom and they had ten kids. There are lots of different kinds of stupidity.
Look at me. I'm an inventor who works as a security guard to give me time to invent. Is that the lifestyle of someone with an ounce of brains? And my god, I post on this site!
I'm signing off and going to bed.
Michael E Johnson
Banned
--WTF? The only people to be blamed for the holocaust are the germans and their leaders.---
What about the Poles,Ukranians,Estonians,Latians,Lithuanians,Austrians,Italians,French,Croats,Hungarians and others who helped them carry it out? Not to mention the anti-Semitism in the UK and the US that contributed to those nations not doing more to help with refugees before the war? Better not mention Pius XII and othe Protestant leaders in Germany and Europe too I guess.
What about the Poles,Ukranians,Estonians,Latians,Lithuanians,Austrians,Italians,French,Croats,Hungarians and others who helped them carry it out? Not to mention the anti-Semitism in the UK and the US that contributed to those nations not doing more to help with refugees before the war? Better not mention Pius XII and othe Protestant leaders in Germany and Europe too I guess.
Faeelin
Banned
Michael E Johnson said:
I consider the Austrians Germans, actually. Being that they were part of the reich and benefitted from the plunder of Europe.
The others were all colllaborators, but the camps were run by the German SS and organized by the Nazi party. The Germans chose a leader who did it, knowing full well what he thought should be done, if not the extent.
Blaming the US and UK is weak. They didn't stop it by going to war to prevent it (although they were at war by the time it got in high gear) but the fact remains that there were no Americans guarding the camps.
Now can we get back Jefferson?
Churchill wanted to bomb the rail lines leading to the camps, but FDR wouldn't let him. That late into the war, Britain couldn't act as independently as before.
Hmmm....FDR doesn't seem to be the near-deity the Left seems to think he is, now is he?
Micheal,
If the US/UK had a moral obligation to stop the Holocaust, did they have a moral obligation to stop Stalin? Pre-1941, Hitler's genocide/war machine had only killed a few score thousand, but Stalin's had killed tens of millions.
Hmmm....FDR doesn't seem to be the near-deity the Left seems to think he is, now is he?
Micheal,
If the US/UK had a moral obligation to stop the Holocaust, did they have a moral obligation to stop Stalin? Pre-1941, Hitler's genocide/war machine had only killed a few score thousand, but Stalin's had killed tens of millions.