This can't be entirely a coincidence...

That place we can't link to but which hosts a yearly convention of moonbats. | 08/06/2007 | Philistone

[Philistone]

This is the third time I've run across this argument on some moonbat chat board in the last few weeks:

The most likely outcome of World War I sans our misguided participation would have been a stalemate with both sides exhausted from 5 years of trench warfare. The rise of Hitler and Mussolini probably would have been precluded. Thus there never would have been a second world war.

Playing with counterfactuals is always pointless as no logical conclusion can ever be drawn from them (since, by definition, one of the premises is false).

Despite the lack of historical or even philisophical rationale, these arguments keep popping up. Is this the way American History is being taught these days?

[Philistone]

I enjoy that sort of thing as fiction, but to hear it expounded as established “fact” is something else altogether.

Didn’t Saturday Night Live used to run skits about that? I think I remember one: “What if Napoleon had had B-52s at the Battle of Moscow?”