OK, so we all know the question "what if the wrong side won World War II?" but I ask you, what if it's really that the wrong side won World War I?
hitler was a nutter no doubt about it
but maybe it was a lesser evil compared to islam. we would be certainly less tolerant of it right now thats for sure
IMO there was no real bad guys of WW1, there was just incompotence.
>>1174029
Hitler was okay with Islam and we would probably be even more tolerant of it then today.
>>1174024
>morality is black and white
>morality is a spook
Nah, Britain, France and the USA weren't perfect, but if you had nirvana fallacy standards then nothing in this imperfect universe could be considered "good".
Britain, France and the USA were a far cry better than the fascists, militarist Japan and the USSR, they were objectively the "good guys". In the 30s these countries had become universal democracies and developed welfare states, whatever your opinions on the politics, this bucked the trend for the history of large civilizations. They struggled with issues like the colonies, but they at least gave a shit unlike the USSR that outright denied its domination over Eastern Europe was imperialism.
The end result was tyranny spreading over Eastern Europe of course, however tyranny ended in Germany, Italy and Japan. Arguably communist ideals are less insane than those of the nazis, though communism was just the propaganda face of an equally brutal totalitarian dictatorship it might have had some effect among the lower stratas of the system, so I think overall ww2 came out on the side of the good guys.
>>1174068
ok but that wasn't the question.
>>1174024
The "right side" won WWII and there's basically no family in my country that doesn't share horrible family stories of murder, rape and robbery on the Soviet part. Same Soviets who started the war as allies of Germany.
Ther was no lesser evil. Maybe on the west but then again they allied themselves with USSR which also makes them guilty.
Offtopic but nevertheless a friendly reminder.
>>1174079
How they started war as allies of Germany but ended as enemies? It isn't how wars work.
>>1174094
There probably wouldn't have been a WW2 if the Schlieffen plan was successfull.
Honestly alot of the root causes of WW2 will result no matter who won.
A rising tide of nationalism will mean countries like Austria Hungary and Turkey will collapse anyways. Russia becomes Red in either scenario (All major nations tried to help the White Russians but it didnt matter in the end).
And the massive loss of life will still produce the societal disenchantment of the 1920s. The Great Depression will also still occur.
The only that might change is that it is a Belgium Colonel who somehow manages to rally the French to authoritarian power... only to get curb stomped by Greater Germany.
>>1174070
>probably be even more tolerant of it then today
>implying he would allow sandniggers be sandniggers in europe
No way. He was okay with it from away.
>>1174130
What if the Battle of the Marne never happened and France was quickly knocked out of the war?
What if Russia quickly capitulated after suffering bad losses against the Germans?
What if Serbia got curb stomped in like a week by the Austrian-Hungarians?
WW1 didn't have to end up as devastating as it did.
>>1174024
There is no right or wrong side that won the war both sides were following there own interests and that is it.
You just countires curbing other countries' power just like any other war.
It certainly would have led to a better 20th century if the central powers had won. The point is that the winning powers in europe were in decline after WW1. Appeasement happened because france didn´t really recover from ww1 and britain reallized that they weren´t able to have a top tier fleet to preserve their colonial empire AND have an army able to challenge germany on the continent.
If Germany had won they probably wouldn´t have suffered from the same military stagnation france did. So they would habe kicked in the soviets teeths at some point in the late 20s or early 30s when the soviets were weak. Or the soviets never would have dared to expand into germans east european sphere of influence thus never gaining the strength they did in OTL.
Very much the same with italian fascism.
On the balkan a more ordered decline of A-H would have occured. Leading to some form of loose union or at least a better distribution of land between the emerging states.
>>1174099
It is if you're the Italians. They switched sides both times.
>>1174070
>then
Yeah, I post on /pol/, too
