Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I was thinking about this today driving my car to Costco and thinking how much better it is in every respect, but that's progress.  As for which 50 year period has been most "shocking", I don't know, of course, I'd probably select 1900 to 1950. 

Getting back to weird history, this is one reason that WWI fascinates me much more than WWII.  

There was, of course, incredible technological innovation during WWII but I think the incredible technological innovation during WWI was more impressive.  

When WWI started aircraft were too few to have any significant impact and the few that did exist were basically bedsheets draped over sticks, they looked a lot like the Wright Flier.  At the end of WWI aircraft were a major part of warfare and the most modern planes looked a lot like modern planes today, 100+ years later.  

At the beginning of WWI tactics and strategies of warfare were not much different from what they had been when Napoleon roamed European battlefields 100 years earlier, at the end tactics and strategies were not much different than they are today, 100 years later.  

A soldier from Napoleon's era would have understood pretty much everything he saw on the battlefield in 1914.  The major exception is aircraft but as I stated they were so few in number as to not be terribly relevant.  Meanwhile, a soldier from 1918 would be familiar with most everything on a modern battlefield.  The tanks, aircraft, and other weapons of today are obviously better but there isn't much that is altogether new.  

The other reasons that WWI fascinates me are the changes relative to what had existed before and the fact that there are easily plausible scenarios in which the other side wins.

Changes:
WWII saw the end of the Nazi's in Germany and the Fascists in Italy but they had only been in power for about 12 and about 20 years respectively.  That is nothing compared to WWI seeing the end of the Hapsburgs in Austria-Hungary, the Romanovs in Russia, and the Hohenzollerns in Germany.  While the Kaisers had only ruled Germany at large four about 50 years at least part of the possessions of those three families had been under their rule for centuries.  

Plausible for the other side to win:
When WWI began there were three factions in America.  There were a significant number of people, mostly first and second generation immigrants from the Central Powers and Irish who wanted the US to join the Central Powers.  There were people who wanted the US to join the Allies, and the majority wanted the US to stay neutral.  If Germany had been better at diplomacy (which is an extremely low bar) it is easy to imagine the US remaining neutral and not impossible to imagine the US joining the Central Powers.  Unlike the WWII, Russia did collapse in WWI and the Germans were supremely close to knocking out the French in 1914 and again in their Spring Offensive in 1918.  There are a multitude of plausible scenarios in which the Central Powers achieve at least a partial victory.  

I've pondered before how history might have been better had the Germans won WW One.  They would have taken another slice of France probably and had dominance over central Europe no doubt.  The Kaiser would have stayed in power.  No Hitler.  The US could have stayed out of both.

On the flip side it is possible that there would have been a Hitler equivalent in France blaming the French Jews (or somesuch) for France's loss in WWI and invading the rest of Europe seeking revenge for all that was lost in WWI and the Franco-Prussian War.  Who knows.  

It would certainly have been a lot different and it was VERY close to happening.  If the Russian invasion of East Prussia hadn't caused the Germans to panic and pull an entire army out of the invasion of France the Germans would most likely have been victorious in France in 1914.  They did that in 1940, of course, but after that happened in 1940 the Soviet Union didn't collapse.  Russia DID collapse after 1914 so that would have been a much different situation for the Kaiser than it was for Hitler.  Would the British have agreed to terms?  

I've pondered before how history might have been better had the Germans won WW One.  They would have taken another slice of France probably and had dominance over central Europe no doubt.  The Kaiser would have stayed in power.  No Hitler.  The US could have stayed out of both.

Then the US would not have ramped up factory production in the 40s, might not have exited the Depression, would not have felt it necessary to develop the A-bomb, therefore would not have become a nuclear superpower and would have lost considerable influence in the world over the ensuing decades.  Would not really have engaged in the Cold War with Russia so likely would not have funneled money into the Space Race and so trillions of dollars worth of innovation would likely never have occurred.

Basically, become a vassal state to China at this point in history.

Far reaching consequences indeed.

I work with a couple of people so backwards that not only had they never heard of Groundhog Day, they weren't even aware that such an animal exists. Then when I tried to explain the whole thing, their only question had the do with whether or not you can eat them.

I once interviewed a PhD chemist for an opening who had never heard of black holes.  While it was not part of the job need, I didn't hire him.

I like the idea of the U.S. being a nondescript country.  Not the world's police, not a threat to anyone, just a country chugging along.  Everything would seem a little less important/stressful.

yep and while we are at it lets stop giving under developed countries billions 

we should keep it for ourselves

There's a degree to which I agree with this...

...but at the same time China is aggressively investing in Africa and a lot of other places in the world, and they're doing so with the clear knowledge that this will allow them to exert influence on those nations. Influence that may end up freezing us out of or giving them preferential access to natural resources that we need.

So let's not act as if there's no benefit to helping underdeveloped nations, nor no cost to not doing so if others choose to...

I'm all for helping underdeveloped nations. I disagree with longhorn there. I'd agree with him if he said we should stop giving billions of dollars in aid to VERY rich countries like for example...Israel! 

And I'd also argue that we should basically disband NATO and let rich European countries pay for their own defense. If they aren't that worried about their defense, why should we?