The French were much larger scale than the British. The British won the seven years war and got Canada out of the deal. We have French colonial hand downs in Colorado to give you an idea of the scale of French involvement in the Americas. The key is that they didn't necessarily have organized colonisation as an impetus, they were fine with trading and not investing. This worked for a very long time across a large portion of the continent.

[removed]

We can look at another Catholic power involved in the Americas for some illumination. Spain didn't see the protestant issue, they saved all their persecution for Jews. What we have found is that many Jews were involved with the Americas (some even think Columbus was Jewish). They still stayed "crypto Jews" but didn't suffer the indignities that they would have in Spain, where you could be pantsed in public if you were suspected of being Jewish to see if you were circumcised. They maintained deep cover in the New world regardless, but they have found Jewish cemeteries in the San Luis Valley and through New Mexico and the southwest, the key point being that it wasn't until the 60s or so that this was discovered. So maybe the Huguenots could emigrate, but the political deal between the monarchy and church would probably keep them oppressed in the Americas, as it did for Jews in Spanish America.

The dissenters that left for America were in trouble for their proximity to people who would have bad outcomes if the dissenters prevailed, so moving to America relieved the political pressure. The dissenters also tended to be fans of living experiments, Quakers and puritans wanted a new society, but believed pretty much the same things as Anglicans, a geographic solution would work in this case.

>eventually the Persians took only taxes to everyone's acclaim

That's interesting, was it seen as like a surprising innovation, or something people often hoped for but rarely saw happen?

[removed]

I mean, knowing that Dawn soap exists, I would think that any product labeled Dawn would be a detergent

Austria-Hungary was a double monarchy and Hungary enjoyed a certain degree of autonomy. I'm thinking of the states that truly gained independence.

>What exactly do you consider the "myth of the War Guilt Clause"?

I consider it to be the myth that the allies solely blamed Germany for the war.

The innovation was that the allies put all the blame on the central powers which said central powers understandably might have issues with. Now, if the argument concerning the War Guilt Clause brought up in this discussion had stuck to the "the central powers were blamed for the war" interpretation all would be fine and I wouldn't complain but instead this was said:

>the “War Guilt Clause” - it’s easier to see how this would’ve enraged Germany when you consider the fact that it wasn’t “just Germany” that caused World War I.

In a nutshell because the french wanted revenge for the franco prussian war

the treaty of versailles was exceppent propaganda to use for right wing extremists but I agree its role beyond that is usually overstated. There were plentx of right wing dictatorships at that time but only germany had this treaty so there are other factors at play

You should probably look at how much of Hungary was carved off.

[removed]

What exactly do you consider the "myth of the War Guilt Clause"?

Are you saying that the War Guilt Clause did not have an effect on German politics? If so, I'd say that is wrong. It led to the resignatiuon of the cabinet, because they were unwilling to sign the treaty with that clause in it - and I think it's important to note, that (regardless of whether Germany was actually solely or mostly responsible for the war or not) the idea of adding such a clause to a peace treaty was an innovation (caused by the immense suffering in World War I compared to prior conflicts), And it most certainly had an effect on German public opinion, especially given Clemenceau's reply to the objections of the German delegation.

The War Guilt Clause certainly isn't the root cause of the rise of nazism. But it's also not really a building block for a future peaceful Europe

[removed]

Imho The French wanted payback for the war and humiliation of 1870/1871 and the Brits wanted to make sure they were not being contested by a country with the potential to become more powerful than they were especially since the empire was crumbling.

The Treaty was always just an excuse, given that Germany started to remilitarize in secret almost immediately. That was expected though, which is why France went through such lengths to surround Germany with, if not hostile powers, then at least non-subservient ones.

What really made it happen was that France, Germany, and the USSR were all run by idiots: France sat around until it was stuck with an unwinnable war, Russia helped Germany get into a position where Russia could very well have been stuck fighting a one-front war against an enemy it had lost to while fighting on two, and Hitler kept lying about his objectives, and was somehow surprised when people assumed he just wanted to conquer the entire world and reacted as such.

Amon Amarth guitar solo starts

Good question. I can't handle YouTube videos, they do tend to be childish and focused more on being witty and graphically interesting than informative (for example, false Smerdis doesn't have enough sources to make a five minute video, and can be covered with "rival power centers propped up options"). I was drawn into history by good authors like Voltaire, Gibbon, and Will Durant who know how to write, text books and academic historians don't seem to have that prejudice. If doing Rome, check out Mary Beard, she gives a vibrant and factual narrative.

Another thing is no one thinks about Versailles logically, nor do the education systems ever encourage this. Compare it to Saint Germain, Trianon, Serves, Brest Litovsk, all of which are never taught in Western history classes but were arguably harsher than Versailles. Your teacher will never reveal to you that Russia LOST World War I. It's all "Germany lost the war, and they got blamed for everything." Versailles was actually quite lenient for its time. What made Versailles so difficult for the Germans to swallow is that it deprived them of their pride.

Thank you this is very awesome

[removed]

First of all, their are many Native Americans living traditional lives, they just use updated equipment. However, research the history of boarding schools for native children, the founder of the system is on record as wanting to "kill the Indian and save the man". The various native cultural expressions, like ceremonial dances and such, were outlawed and being a member of a historical society that helped to keep traditions alive were also outlawed.

[removed]

Asahi just means "morning sun." It's about the same as thinking any product labeled "dawn" is going to be a detergent.

Dawn.com is also a newspaper, incidentally.

Treaty of Versailles certainly contributed to the rise of fascism in Germany, it was not the sole cause. Rather, it was a complex interplay of various factors, including the economic crisis of the Great Depression, the failures of the Weimar Republic, and the appeal of Hitler's nationalist and anti-western message.