|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 12:25 pm
Since Rommy has okayed this sort of thing, I'd like to post a History Discussion thread.
Hell, I'll even start us off with a topic.
Was the Russian Revolution unavoidable?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 12:35 pm
Are you talking when it was the USSR and they then spit up or something else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 12:37 pm
Charity.l.bedell Are you talking when it was the USSR and they then spit up or something else? No, when Imperial russia under Nicolas the second was deposed and the communist regime under lenin was established.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 12:41 pm
William Black Charity.l.bedell Are you talking when it was the USSR and they then spit up or something else? No, when Imperial russia under Nicolas the second was deposed and the communist regime under lenin was established. Oh. Ok.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 12:50 pm
Hmm... well, from the little I know about it, I'd say it wasn't. Nicki was just following the example given to him, and from what I understand didn't have enough mental prowess to rule 13 timezones worth of land, nor the money or resources.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:29 pm
That, and Nicki would rather go hunting. He didn't WANT to be ruler.
The simple matter is, regardless of what kind of revolution they used, the Russians couldn't survive as they were. With world war one and all their men dying and their children starving from no food, from the overworking of the nobles, from the Bloody Sunday incident where a few soldiers got scared and fired into the crowd ("He was going to give us bread! We love Nicki!"), they had two options. Overthrow, or die. And since most people don't want to die...
I'd say it was coming. Maybe not at the exact time, and maybe not with lenin, or even if marx hadn't existed, but it would've happened. People eventually get to the point where they keel over and die, or have nothing to lose and fight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:31 pm
Permission to hijack thread unto a new topic that I've wondered so many times myself, and wonder if my opinion was obvious to others...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:28 pm
Kia127 That, and Nicki would rather go hunting. He didn't WANT to be ruler. The simple matter is, regardless of what kind of revolution they used, the Russians couldn't survive as they were. With world war one and all their men dying and their children starving from no food, from the overworking of the nobles, from the Bloody Sunday incident where a few soldiers got scared and fired into the crowd ("He was going to give us bread! We love Nicki!"), they had two options. Overthrow, or die. And since most people don't want to die... I'd say it was coming. Maybe not at the exact time, and maybe not with lenin, or even if marx hadn't existed, but it would've happened. People eventually get to the point where they keel over and die, or have nothing to lose and fight. Sounds exactly like the french revolution, really. sweatdrop Sam: Sure. Why not. Ring it by us :3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 9:08 pm
Would it have been better if WW1 had no US involvement and the allies lost? (realize that I probably slaughtered that and only know about a fourth of WW1 as I do of WW2).
Or even if the US did have involvement, and we still lost. Would that still trigger the many events that came after?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:39 am
Well we certainly wouldn't've have France, and Blue might be a lil upset about that.
WW1, started when the heir to the Austrian-Hungary throne was assasinated in Sarajevo by a member of the Black Hand, A-H freaks out and blames all of Serbia, Russia comes in to show their support as protector of the Serbs, Germany hands a blank check to A-H. Germany freaks out because Russia has militants on it's border. German invades Belgium to get to France, France surrenders so Paris's art isn't destroyed. Britain freaks out, "Germany, wtf?! You ain't 'pposed to invade Belgium!"
League of Nations goes "We condemn you. ...Yeah. That's about it."
And we have WWI. I think all that's right.
So if the allies lost? Germany probaly would've expanded the 2nd Reich, no need for a third.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:44 am
Kia127 Well we certainly wouldn't've have France, and Blue might be a lil upset about that. WW1, started when the heir to the Austrian-Hungary throne was assasinated in Sarajevo by a member of the Black Hand, A-H freaks out and blames all of Serbia, Russia comes in to show their support as protector of the Serbs, Germany hands a blank check to A-H. Germany freaks out because Russia has militants on it's border. German invades Belgium to get to France, France surrenders so Paris's art isn't destroyed. Britain freaks out, "Germany, wtf?! You ain't 'pposed to invade Belgium!" League of Nations goes "We condemn you. ...Yeah. That's about it." And we have WWI. I think all that's right. So if the allies lost? Germany probaly would've expanded the 2nd Reich, no need for a third. It would have brought about a united europe, albeit under the german flag. In hindsight, I would have been better if they had lost, as Hitler wouldn't have come to power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:12 am
Are you refering to the revolution on the 8th of March or the one on 7th of November?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:20 am
Solens Are you refering to the revolution on the 8th of March or the one on 7th of November? the 7th was more final, but I guess either. Will- Hmm..true. He wouldn't have had the "oh noez they kicked our a** and it r teh jews fault" to help him, and there would've been no communists to blame for the Reichstag fire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:49 am
sweatdrop Glad I wasn't the only one who saw it that way.
(Not to mention the future's Cold War might have been stopped, as well as the problems in the Middle East)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:23 am
Oh, hmm, I dunno about the middle east.
Sure, Britain wouldn't have passed it's lil act thingie making Israel a nation state and screwing over the Palestinians living there, but the Turks just had to go. Someone had to get rid of 'em, and eventually they would've too, world war or not.
Ottoman Empire was bound to fall, it was so weak. And the middle east...it's known for conflict. Thousands of years, before America existed. I doubt that not having World war 1, and thus 2, and without 2 Britain giving Israel to the Jews, would avoid conflict in the middle east.
Sure, we might not have the same conflict now, and might actually be trying to help the Palestinians from Radical Zionist suicide bombers, but that's still a conflict.
...I'ma go live with some penguins now. Penguins only have personal drama. When'd you hear of a penguin war? Eh? Never? Yeah. Thought so.
Com'ere penguins...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
