Would a world without the USA a worse world?

Would a world without the USA a worse world?

  • Yes

    Votes: 126 53.6%
  • No

    Votes: 109 46.4%

  • Total voters
    235
I've never said it was the sole cause. If you're not going to read my posts, why should I bother engaging further on the subject?
And yet you took issue when I said it wasn't an exceptional event. I don't deny it was unimportant in later attempts at liberalism but if it did not exist similar events are not rendered impossible. Thus not exceptional.
I say you're either not reading my posts or using a different definition of exceptional.
 

True.

[quote]Depends on timeframe and scale and so on, I'm probably not going to avoid a great war between European powers by thwarting Franz Ferdinand's assassination given the geopolitical tensions in the background, but that version of WW1 would probably be unrecognizable to OTL. Likewise, it's not very likely that averting the US revolution in the way presented in the OP (he mentions "Britain [holding] on to the Thirteen Colonies", so we'd assume there is still a similar revolutionary war happening) would still lead to French bankruptcy and socioeconomical strife leading to some form of revolution. A scenario like "The UK peacefully reaches an agreement with their colonies, defusing the situation before revolution" might avert the French Revolution by leaving France's finances in better shape.[/quote]
Precisely.

[quote]Because the socioeconomical conditions in France and Europe at the time of the French Revolution make it likely to have an uprising against the French monarchy.[/quote]
Conditions which no one can seem to name. Curious. Also, countless revolutions and uprisings have been attempted all throughout history. Why does the failure of a revolution within the last ten to fifteen years result in this one being successful? You've telling refused to answer that question. Repeatedly.
[quote]You're moving the goalposts now.[/QUOTE]
You've been doing that this entire thread.
 
And yet you took issue when I said it wasn't an exceptional event. I don't deny it was unimportant in later attempts at liberalism but if it did not exist similar events are not rendered impossible. Thus not exceptional.
I say you're either not reading my posts or using a different definition of exceptional.
So because liberal strides might have come 150 years after they did historically, the world would be a better place?
 
Conditions which no one can seem to name. Curious.

Then just find the right places. If the mountain doesn't come to you...

It could have. Your post allows that possibility. There is a long history of attempted revolutions before 1776 that failed, and no evidence has been offered as to why subsequent revolutions would suddenly start succeeding.

The same could be said of the American Revolution. If countless failed before, why 1776 succeded? Ergo, why can't it become one more of the crowd, and have someone else be the one to succeed. So long the probability isn't 0, it can happen. Much other things in history happened despite the odds.
 
It could have. Your post allows that possibility. There is a long history of attempted revolutions before 1776 that failed, and no evidence has been offered as to why subsequent revolutions would suddenly start succeeding.
Please explain how Liberalism is solely dependent on revolution to increase.
A even failed ones have impact as rulers try to address their sources or prevent them . Name a successful English revolution since 1777 and yet England isn't illiberal.
 
Last edited:

IFwanderer

Banned
You've been doing that this entire thread.
Not really. I've been arguing in many different small conversations with different users about different points, you've been arguing with @The Professor about whether the US revolution happening or not would lead to the French revolution not happening, with some other people, like myself, jumping in later.
Conditions which no one can seem to name. Curious.
You can... Google them? I mean, just of the top of my head and without getting into detail, there's conflicts between the king and the provincial nobility, the rise of the middle classes and their attempt to reach political power corresponding to their new economic status, a financial crisis, taxation disputes, the king's unpopularity, and so on.
Also, countless revolutions and uprisings have been attempted all throughout history. Why does the failure of a revolution within the last ten to fifteen years result in this one being successful?
You're confusing the argument here. We're not saying "if USA fails to achieve independence, the French Revolution will be successful", we're saying "the success or failure of the US war of independence does not determine the success of the French Revolution".
 
We're not saying "if USA fails to achieve independence, the French Revolution will be successful", we're saying "the success or failure of the US war of independence does not determine the success of the French Revolution".
Nor that any liberal values said revolution had was dependent on those in the ARW.
 
Then just find the right places. If the mountain doesn't come to you...
Still not seeing the evidence there that suggests the revolution would have succeeded or even happened despite the problems in France without the bankrolling of the American Revolution.


The same could be said of the American Revolution. If countless failed before, why 1776 succeded? Ergo, why can't it become one more of the crowd, and have someone else be the one to succeed. So long the probability isn't 0, it can happen. Much other things in history happened despite the odds.

Except that, it's your contention that the world could be better without the revolution in 1776 succeeding, not whether or not said evolution was inevitable. Stop moving the goalposts.
 
Not really. I've been arguing in many different small conversations with different users about different points, you've been arguing with @The Professor about whether the US revolution happening or not would lead to the French revolution not happening, with some other people, like myself, jumping in later.
If that helps you sleep at night.
You can... Google them? I mean, just of the top of my head and without getting into detail, there's conflicts between the king and the provincial nobility, the rise of the middle classes and their attempt to reach political power corresponding to their new economic status, a financial crisis, taxation disputes, the king's unpopularity, and so on.
Because the history of any monarchy aren't filled with such examples when revolutions don't happen or are quickly crushed.
You're confusing the argument here. We're not saying "if USA fails to achieve independence, the French Revolution will be successful", we're saying "the success or failure of the US war of independence does not determine the success of the French Revolution".
Something for which zero evidence has been offered.
 
Please explain how Liberalism is solely dependent on revolution to increase.
A even failed ones have impact as rulers try to address their sources or prevent them . Name a successful English revolution since 1777 and yet England isn't illiberal.
England is a special case, and you have the chartist revolt, Catholic emancipation, women's suffrage, need I really continue?

The point isn't that England never reformed before 1776, but that the reforms England achieved only mattered thereafter, and not really before.

As for impacts of failed revolutions, yes, they can leave very limited marks, as the assorted revolutions in British/English/Scottish history in fact did, and as various revolutions in France did to that point. It could well be 150 years or more before even basic notions of democracy become anything close to the norm outside of Britain without the nudge of the American revolution.
 

IFwanderer

Banned
:idontcare:

At this point I don't see reason to try to argue with you. You just come in to resurrect a 9 days old thread and pretend everyone who disagrees with you has no arguments, dismissing anything that goes against your point of view.
 
:idontcare:

At this point I don't see reason to try to argue with you. You just come in to resurrect a 9 days old thread and pretend everyone who disagrees with you has no arguments, dismissing anything that goes against your point of view.
I'm wondering one thing which has yet to be answered, actually two:

  • What's the spark, if the effort to get the crown's finances in order aren't hindered by the American Revolution?
  • Why will the revolution in France succeed if there is no recent example of a revolution succeeding, given the first point and the change in circumstances?
Zero effort ha been offered to actually address either point, and listing contributing factors is meaningless without the extra steps.
 
Still not seeing the evidence there that suggests the revolution would have succeeded or even happened despite the problems in France without the bankrolling of the American Revolution.

Except that, it's your contention that the world could be better without the revolution in 1776 succeeding, not whether or not said evolution was inevitable. Stop moving the goalposts.

If you can't see it, well, that's more on you. I mean, I can link lots of sources, but I can't force your eyes to open if you refuse to open them.

No, it's not. I've never said that it would better or worse. All my point was that the ARW is not a forced step to lead into the FR, or that the succes of the former leads to the succes of the latter. After all, unless the ARW also revolutionized warfare or technology, or the US had an active helping hand to the revolutionaries, then the succes or failure of the French revolution is not tied to the outcome of the American one.
 
England is a special case, and you have the chartist revolt, Catholic emancipation, women's suffrage, need I really continue?

The point isn't that England never reformed before 1776, but that the reforms England achieved only mattered thereafter, and not really before.

As for impacts of failed revolutions, yes, they can leave very limited marks, as the assorted revolutions in British/English/Scottish history in fact did, and as various revolutions in France did to that point. It could well be 150 years or more before even basic notions of democracy become anything close to the norm outside of Britain without the nudge of the American revolution.

You've still not convinced me of your main point that liberalism is directly dependent on the ARW in order to better the world.

I'm wondering one thing which has yet to be answered, actually two:

  • What's the spark, if the effort to get the crown's finances in order aren't hindered by the American Revolution?
  • Why will the revolution in France succeed if there is no recent example of a revolution succeeding, given the first point and the change in circumstances?
Zero effort ha been offered to actually address either point, and listing contributing factors is meaningless without the extra steps.
I disagree and suggest if you want to discuss those points then perhaps discussing them in one od the previously linked French Revolution threads will be best.

Your point as far as I understand it is that only the ARW will result in a better world and/or the lack of which will worsen the world.
You've not really backed any of that up causally. All you've really said is that the French Revolution is wholly dependent on the ARW without saying why and asking us to prove you wrong.
If you're not going to do that this this discussion is not worth my participation.
 
Mexico might be a power due to no manifest destiny and if they exploit no Monroe doctrine and the California gold rushing by the 1860s, Mexico might be in the top 5-3 most powerful countries in the americas. The Native American population would be higher. French population might be higher. Also Napoleonic Wars and French Revolution depend on French intervention in the war
 
If you can't see it, well, that's more on you. I mean, I can link lots of sources, but I can't force your eyes to open if you refuse to open them.

No, it's not. I've never said that it would better or worse. All my point was that the ARW is not a forced step to lead into the FR, or that the succes of the former leads to the succes of the latter. After all, unless the ARW also revolutionized warfare or technology, or the US had an active helping hand to the revolutionaries, then the succes or failure of the French revolution is not tied to the outcome of the American one.
I don't think those sources say what you think they do. If they say what they appear to, then they all at least hint at the American Revolution as a contributing factor.
 
Top