I've often wondered about this quite a lot. The Hapsburgs were sick and that empire wouldn't have held on much longer anyway but it would have taken quite a lot of intervention from Germany and maybe AH to save the tsar. Nicholas, however well meaning and hardworking, didn't have the judgement and didn't have the people in his government to make Russia work. The sheer level of incompetence in his government outside of maybe Vitte is staggering.

how many times have I posted in the past 2 years that Churchill would be spinning in his grave today

and that it was the most idiotic event of all time for England to have fought in two World Wars if they were only going to surrender 80 years later anyway to a horde of immigrants.

The problem with Hitler (well, besides the obvious) is that he was too obsessed with his racial ideas to focus on the threat of Communism.

If Germany had allied with Poland (with all of its Slavic and Jewish "inferiors"), they could have ousted Stalin and saved half of Europe from 45 years of Soviet enslavement.

aezmvp said:

---

I've often wondered about this quite a lot. The Hapsburgs were sick and that empire wouldn't have held on much longer anyway but it would have taken quite a lot of intervention from Germany and maybe AH to save the tsar. Nicholas, however well meaning and hardworking, didn't have the judgement and didn't have the people in his government to make Russia work. The sheer level of incompetence in his government outside of maybe Vitte is staggering.

---

Its not so much saving the Czar (though that is possible that something like a Bourbon restoration movement might have been considered) because Germany and AustroH were aligned against Russia. Its more between them and the Ottomans, they might effectively assure the White Russians win. Whether they would try to restore Nicholas himself, already proven spectacularly not up to it, is another question.

Failing that, all three powers after a victory probably would have had the blunt style to deal with the ComIntern enough where you don't have the 1920s and rise of Hitler and all that as we know it.

Incidentally, agree that the AustroH almost certainly comes apart anyway. At least along the lines of where the ongoing Italy and clash with Adriatic Sea powers rears up more noticeably. (Italy even sank an Austro Hungarian battleship after it had already been taken over by Croatia and just days before the armistice. That Balkans area and Greece was a `hotter' sector of war then people realize right up to the end)

Hard to watch that elderly veteran know that his country got flushed down the tubes. That is sad

There is a concept of Karma. That you pay your sins and cannot get away.

The Brits subjugated almost the entire world for 200+ years. Among the most brutal empires. This may be how destiny punishes them.

gonemaroon said:

---

Hard to watch that elderly veteran know that his country got flushed down the tubes. That is sad

---

People used to say "Well...good thing we're not speaking German..." but the warning from this Vet is basically telling them they are losing another, more dangerous war.

infinity ag said:

---

There is a concept of Karma. That you pay your sins and cannot get away.

The Brits subjugated almost the entire world for 200+ years. Among the most brutal empires. This may be how destiny punishes them.

---

None of what you said is even close to being true

infinity ag said:

---

There is a concept of Karma. That you pay your sins and cannot get away.

The Brits subjugated almost the entire world for 200+ years. Among the most brutal empires. This may be how destiny punishes them.

---

Yeah because all the "good" countries from the last 3,000 years are still around and prospering thanks to their good karma

TheCougarHunter said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

There is a concept of Karma. That you pay your sins and cannot get away.

The Brits subjugated almost the entire world for 200+ years. Among the most brutal empires. This may be how destiny punishes them.

---

None of what you said is even close to being true

---

Correct. And even if you want go with that, what explains the Democrats betrayal of America similarly going on?

Seems to me getting rid of globalists on both sides of the Atlantic is a more constructive response.

"Among the most brutal empires." [Citation needed]

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

He brings up an interesting question. What would Europe look like if the U.S. did not intervene in WWII? Would it be better?

---

the better question is what would have happened if the US did not intervene in WORLD WAR ONE!

I think that would actually have been better for humanity had the Germans won the First World War.

the Kaiser would have stayed on the throne, and there never would have been a Weimar Republic and Adolf Hitler as Supreme Leader.

I still think it's remarkable that the country that gave us George Orwell is the one most determined to bring his dystopia to life.

96AgGrad said:

---

I still think it's remarkable that the country that gave us George Orwell is the one most determined to bring his dystopia to life.

---

Maybe he knew his government well.

96AgGrad said:

---

I still think it's remarkable that the country that gave us George Orwell is the one most determined to bring his dystopia to life.

---

On the other hand, V for Vendetta doesn't age so well in comparison. The 'good' guys and 'bad' guys are flipped.

AGC said:

---

96AgGrad said:

---

I still think it's remarkable that the country that gave us George Orwell is the one most determined to bring his dystopia to life.

---

On the other hand, V for Vendetta doesn't age so well in comparison. The 'good' guys and 'bad' guys are flipped.

---

It seemed pretty on-point during Covid, with the totalitarian government using the disaster they created as a means to control its own population. As you say, the sides were flipped though.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

He brings up an interesting question. What would Europe look like if the U.S. did not intervene in WWII? Would it be better?

---

This is a legitimate question to ponder. It almost certainly would be less trashy and "third world". Less murders, rapes, etc.

But the huge con is that you wouldn't have nearly as much diversity...and diversity is EVERYTHING.

Being able to read Swedish well, German ok, and a little Russian and going to alternate sources from the older time periods hasn't made me have any huge epiphany. I will say that some of the prevailing narratives we have concerning WWII seem less accurate than at first glance.

For example nobody seems to remember that the Soviets tried to invade Poland pre WWII.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War

The American public was more or less told we can trust the Soviets for example going into WWII. Completely ignoring their actions in Finland and Poland.

There were other actions taken by Poland and Czechoslovakia that also make me wonder why events didn't turn out differently. Both countries did some amount of real abuse against their German minority population.

Nobody seems to be as clean as we would like them to be.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

He brings up an interesting question. What would Europe look like if the U.S. did not intervene in WWII? Would it be better?

---

This is a legitimate question to ponder. It almost certainly would be less trashy and "third world". Less murders, rapes, etc.

But the huge con is that you wouldn't have nearly as much diversity...and diversity is EVERYTHING.

---

Can we even stay out of WW II? Can it work.

NOW, if you mean you somehow avoid the PacificWar (doable if genuinely neutral per the Sec Bryan formula of WW I) --- then maybe.

Since FDR leaned on Japan to get us into the war, (no, he didn't know about Pearl Harbor) I can't see him staying out of it. We were already arming and mobilizing for war in Europe before.

If WW2 goes to the Nazis/Japanese, the world would have had so many more holocausts, it's not even something you or I could imagine. Almost anyone who was a Communist would have been murdered. Anyone who was not able to meet the Nazi definition of acceptable would've been killed. Africans, Middle Easterners, and Indians/Pakistanis are murdered by the Nazis taking over.

The Japs would've slaughtered Chinese even further, same with Koreans, Filipinos, and Australia/New Zealand. But in the end, even if a few decades had to pass, the Nazis would've taken over and beaten the Japanese Empire. I think then and only then would an invasion of North America have taken place.

Logos Stick said:

---

Says the state of Britain today pretty much negates the sacrifice he and his fellow vets made.

'What we fought for was our freedom, even now [the country] is worse than it was when I fought for it,' says 100-year-old World War II Veteran Alec Penstone.

🚨BREAKING: British veteran breaks down live on TV over state of the country:

"Rows and rows of white tombs for what? A country of today? No, I'm sorry. The sacrifice wasn't worth the result.

I fought for freedom, and it's darn-sight worse now than when I fought." pic.twitter.com/4guu3xojFY

— Inevitable West (@Inevitablewest) November 7, 2025

---

I think he is wrong. The sacrifice was worth it. The problem is there doesnt seem to be enough left willing to sacrifice.

In large part because the enemy has taken a page from the AL Qaeda play book. Dont have a head that is easily chopped off. Dont give the opponent a clear opponent to strike. It is much harder to rally against this elusive foe.

Serotonin said:

---

Wow, took a lot of courage to say that given the social pressure to sit there and answer softball questions like a puppet.

Very powerful.

---

I bet if you asked him, he would say that took no bravery whatsoever. This many fought the Nazi's in WWII. Saying what he believes on a news show is nothing compared to the true bravery he has shown in his life.

Lathspell said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

Wow, took a lot of courage to say that given the social pressure to sit there and answer softball questions like a puppet.

Very powerful.

---

I bet if you asked him, he would say that took no bravery whatsoever. This many fought the Nazi's in WWII. Saying what he believes on a news show is nothing compared to the true bravery he has shown in his life.

---

I agree that he would say it's nothing, and it is true that risking your life for others is the greatest courage you can show.

But I think it's still incredibly courageous and most people wouldn't do it.

He isn't risking his life but he is majorly violating the current diversity social dogma and risks isolation, vilification and loss of social standing.

He could simply say "It's a wonderful day of remembrance and I'm so proud of our country" and he would be a national hero for everyone. Now he will be portrayed as a crazy old man or a racist by a huge portion of his country. That has to hurt, but I'm glad he had the courage to speak the truth.

JWinTX said:

---

If WW2 goes to the Nazis/Japanese, the world would have had so many more holocausts, it's not even something you or I could imagine. Almost anyone who was a Communist would have been murdered. Anyone who was not able to meet the Nazi definition of acceptable would've been killed. Africans, Middle Easterners, and Indians/Pakistanis are murdered by the Nazis taking over.

The Japs would've slaughtered Chinese even further, same with Koreans, Filipinos, and Australia/New Zealand. But in the end, even if a few decades had to pass, the Nazis would've taken over and beaten the Japanese Empire. I think then and only then would an invasion of North America have taken place.

---

But WW 2 is United States involvement. It becomes something different, still a world war, but something else, if you don't have the USA as an active military participant. Your first paragraph is probably correct.

But the second, you have to remember, the Tripartite Pact itself is a product of WW II. Many Japanese did not want it (Alliances can be traps for the bad guys just as much as good guys and it was) Some of the things you are describing the Japanese do not do if you don't have Pearl Harbor. It doesn't happen. That came from the oil cut off.

So yes, Chinese, and some others. Probably not Filipinos or Australia/New Zealand because that again is after war with the U.S. and Britain starts. If the Asian War remains China focused, then many things change. You see our oil embargo is what put Japan on a clock, and that itself was a result of Japan's occupation (not so much invasion) of Indo-China because with France having surrendered to Germany, Japan exploited that and the Vichy govt to over-run the French held territory we would come to know as Viet Nam. They wanted to do this to open a second front for the Japanese Army in their war with China (think of Belgium as another way into France for Germany) Since France was on its back and we didn't agree with Vichy, we embargoed Japan and cut off all oil to punish that incursion.

titan said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

He brings up an interesting question. What would Europe look like if the U.S. did not intervene in WWII? Would it be better?

---

This is a legitimate question to ponder. It almost certainly would be less trashy and "third world". Less murders, rapes, etc.

But the huge con is that you wouldn't have nearly as much diversity...and diversity is EVERYTHING.

---

Can we even stay out of WW II? Can it work.

NOW, if you mean you somehow avoid the PacificWar (doable if genuinely neutral per the Sec Bryan formula of WW I) --- then maybe.

Since FDR leaned on Japan to get us into the war, (no, he didn't know about Pearl Harbor) I can't see him staying out of it. We were already arming and mobilizing for war in Europe before.

---

Great points...in my head I wasn't even accounting for Japan...and that kind of needs to be done. But in a hypothetical where they were not at all involved...

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

titan said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

He brings up an interesting question. What would Europe look like if the U.S. did not intervene in WWII? Would it be better?

---

This is a legitimate question to ponder. It almost certainly would be less trashy and "third world". Less murders, rapes, etc.

But the huge con is that you wouldn't have nearly as much diversity...and diversity is EVERYTHING.

---

Can we even stay out of WW II? Can it work.

NOW, if you mean you somehow avoid the PacificWar (doable if genuinely neutral per the Sec Bryan formula of WW I) --- then maybe.

Since FDR leaned on Japan to get us into the war, (no, he didn't know about Pearl Harbor) I can't see him staying out of it. We were already arming and mobilizing for war in Europe before.

---

Great points...in my head I wasn't even accounting for Japan...and that kind of needs to be done. But in a hypothetical where they were not at all involved...

---

Understood. Yet in your model, your real pivot is FDR himself. He didn't want to stay out of the war. Even Japan is secondary for your hypothetical. FDR was going to find a way to get into the war. He put some our ships out there in a way designed to run afoul of the U-boats. But they were very cagey, apart from some notorious mistakes, the German U-boats went out of their way not to hit them. Battleship North Carolina allegedly was on call to confront Bismarck somewhat is the understanding (if it had continued into the summer). It remains murky what was authorized to do if met up and seems dubious but reflects a general attitude. This was more a case of wish to be just helping the Royal Navy dragnet looking for Bismarck repeating a Graf Spee rampage.

gonemaroon said:

---

Hard to watch that elderly veteran know that his country got flushed down the tubes. That is sad

---

Very much so. The horrors this man witnessed and the sacrifices he made. How can your heart not break at the sight of a man in his twilight believe everything was a waste. God bless this hero.

Taking this whole theme a little further… was the fall of Japan, in the long run, a catastrophe for the US?

We didn't get involved in the Chinese Civil War in the aftermath of the fall of Japan and basically stood back and let the communists defeat the Kuomintang and take over China. In hindsight, this was probably even more impactful to us than the fall of the Soviet Union. In the wake of this, we were led into conflicts in Korea and Vietnam and the rise of China as the main economic and geopolitical rival seems to overshadow the Cold War. In China is now what the Soviet Union could never be.

From 1941 to 1945 the US rooted out Japan, island by island, country by country, at the cost of 200,000 American lives, so much of our blood and treasure. Only to see it all fall, within a generation, into the orbit of the Soviet Union, who barely fired a shot in the Pacific Theater outside of the invasion of Manchuria. What a bitter pill to swallow. How much of this played into our decision to go into Vietnam? All three presidents after Eisenhower served in the Pacific Theater. Surely that played a role.

As my old history prof, Dr. Seipp, used to say: If it weren't for Russia, Europe would be speaking German. If it weren't for the US, Europeans would be speaking Russian.

Quote:

---

All three presidents after Eisenhower served in the Pacific Theater. Surely that played a role.

---

LBJ didn't serve at all, I thought?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

All three presidents after Eisenhower served in the Pacific Theater. Surely that played a role.

---

LBJ didn't serve at all, I thought?

---

He did serve in the Naval Reserve.

And being LBJ, he forced his way onto a bomber as an observer during a mission. The plane was hit and he managed to weasel his way into a Silver Star.

His service record might be dubious but nevertheless he did serve.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

All three presidents after Eisenhower served in the Pacific Theater. Surely that played a role.

---

LBJ didn't serve at all, I thought?

---

He did, he was in the navy. He was acting lieutenant commander on some fact finding mission while still in Congress. He was awarded a silver star for combat action, but there is some controversy that it never happened. Theory is MacArthur gave him the award and LBJ would lobby FDR for more resources for Macs troops

Luckily, a very recent change…

Met Police says it will no longer investigate non-crime hate incidents

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyp1gk0n23o

Relevant FreedomToons video:

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

All three presidents after Eisenhower served in the Pacific Theater. Surely that played a role.

---

LBJ didn't serve at all, I thought?

---

He got a Silver Star while being in an airplane that may have come under fire. For being a passenger.

The pilot, co-pilot, others on the plane, no Silver Star.

Robert Caro's three part bio on LBJ says the MccAurther knew LBJ had a direct line to the President and per the book Mac's staff was upset about the whole thing.