Why did the Ohio Valley become the arena of conflict for the French and British in America?
I definitely agree with you on the first part of your answer. Naturally, the French would indeed have liked to have that water link to their Louisiana colony. As to the second part, I'm sure that that was a consideration, but the British colonists wanted to move beyond the Appalachian Mountains--remember, that chain extends from Georgia to Maine--to open up new farmland. Some of the soil on the eastern seaboard had already become exhausted because of crops such as tobacco and poor farming methods. In New England, much of the soil was poor to begin with, and rocky as well. So, the competition led to what has been called "the original world war." It began in North America, and spread to Europe.
In the U.S. Civil War, if the South had never seceded or the conflict became militarized, how long would slavery have lasted in the country?
Here's another perspective. Let's assume that the Missouri Compromise was not overturned by the Compromise of 1850, that deleterious railroad bill that became much more. Perhaps the Free Soil Party or Liberty Party is found out to be involved with a slave uprising in the South and the proto-Republicans meet the fate of the Federalist Party following the Hartford Convention. Whatever the cause, we have to assume a non-radicalized North to prevent the slavery issue to be militarized.Slavery continues expanding west, but slower and slower. However, by about the Hill Country of LBJ in mid-east Texas, the geography no longer supports huge farms like the wet South, due to rainfall patterns. Plantation-based slavery makes less and less economic sense the farther west one travels.However, there is another answer: South. Political gridlock prevented the US from acquiring Cuba in the 1830s-'50s, despite some presidential moves in that direction. Likewise, William Walker's attempts to conquer Central America through the use of filibusters in the 1850s. A more harmonious political situation in the US, especially upon the death of Henry Clay in 1852, who looked upon the Republics of Central and South America with brotherly protection, would allow an assertive, expansionist America to chew up Mexico and push South, where agricultural land remained open for slavery.An America of this nature would become an international pariah, on par with the 20th century's Rhodesia and South Africa. Wilberfore would denounce American expansion from the House floor in London. A Southern-looking US would never have signed trade liberalization agreements with Canada, pushing the increasingly industrialized American North further south for markets for finished products.Monika is right on about the impact agricultural mechanization will have on such an America. It's hard to see even an isolationist, expansionist America holding on to slavery much into the 20th century. Even political capture by slave-interests wouldn't be able to overcome the horrendously uncompetitive slave-based system from an economic perspective.
The US has military bases in 63 countries. why is it that no other country has a military base on US soil?
Thats not necessarily true. Norad is a joint american/canadian base. The command of NORAD rotates between American and Canadian Generals. The Germans have thier Air Defense School in El Paso Texas located on Fort Bliss.
What was the longest period without war in recorded European history?
The answer depends on how one defines both “Europe” and “Peace”.I believe the answer is < 53 years, as the calculated period of peace: freedom of war between countries. I think this would be the consensus of historians.And, for geopolitical reasons, I would predict that in future, that no similar so-long period of general peace can ever again be experienced for this geographic region as a whole. Why? Because I cannot conceive of a scenario where equivalent geopolitical conditions would arise.Never again.There has been warfare here, somewhere, since before recorded history, frequently every year (somewhere). Europe (Japan is the second contender) is the most war prone region on the surface of the earth. Gold medal for violence.But, what is your definition of “Europe”?West of the Urals - everything? (the usual definition)Just the old non-Soviet mass, west of the Urals - i.e., “Western Europe” ?Something else?The answer probably will be within one of 2 periods:For #1: Post WWII until the warfare in former Yugoslavia: about 53 years. (These 53 years were the initial years of the Bretton Woods (Cold War) Defense system, which was responsible for this uniquely extended absence of war in Europe).#2: For Post Napoleonic Wars’ Europe (which means only those allied states involved fighting that war) until WWI: about 99 years.But #2 is a bit artificial, because the region involved was not all of “Europe”, since during these 99 years, Wars of Independence occurred in southern Europe: Italy, Greece, the other Balkan countries, etc., and also Russia was conquering the states in southern Russia, lying north of the Caucasus Mountains (Circassia, etc.).NB: Others answers / commentators suggest (please see) that a much shorter period is appropriate - perhaps not exceeding 5 years. This reckoning argues that peace should be defined not only as war between states, but rather as the absence of conflict, more or less, as Mr. Roberts notes in his attached comment. While I question inclusion of revolutions within a state, failed or otherwise, I am not so certain how best to place the affairs in Cyprus: revolt or invasion - and is Cyprus in Europe or in Asia?
Israeli and arab conflict over palestine..?
i need to know.. the historical backround of the region. what steempts at peace and compromise have been tried. what groups are invloved and their leaders. THANK YOU!
What country did not fight on its own soil in WWII ?
Those that suggest Canada did not fight on it's own soil are inaccurate. One Japanese submarine fired rounds at a Vancouver Island lighthouse; the Canadians and Americans fought from Canadian and American soil against the Japanese invasion and capture of two Allutien Islands [little known fact is the offensive and recapture was a joint US-Canada operation] and the RCN battled UBoats that made it up the St Lawrence River to attack inland Canadian ports. Of all 140 countries involved in WW2 the following to my knowledge had no conflict within their borders: Aden Protectorate (former South Yemen) Argentina Bahrain Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Cyprus Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Fiji Guatemala Haiti Honduras Iran Iraq Ireland Lebanon Macau Mexico Nepal Nicaragua Northern Ireland Oman Palestine Panama Peru Saudi Arabia Syria Uruguay Venezuela If the enemy shoots at your homeland and causes damage, and you return fire at the enemy, all within your country's borders - that meets the criteria of 'fight on it's own soil' in my humble opinion :)
What was the most peaceful time in human history?
Totally updated answer: Steven Pinker makes a good argument in the WSJ that the most peaceful time is now, saying: "Violence has been in decline for thousands of years, and today we may be living in the most peaceable era in the existence of our species."http://online.wsj.com/article/SB...(In my original answer I had suggested the 19th century after Napoleon.)
Is there a country that has never been in a war?
It might stretch the definition a tiny tad but I’d go for Iceland.Iceland was established as an independent Nation in 930 and lost its sovereignty three centuries later, becoming a dependency of Norway and later, of Denmark, only becoming independent again during WWII.In the three first centuries of its history, Iceland was routinely plagued by violence but for the most part it was just a farmer killing his neighbor over some bad looks or rumors that he might have insulted his per donkey, once. There was a Civil War though, from the late 12th century to the mid 13th, just before Iceland was swallowed by Norway.During the times when Iceland had lost its independence, there were some limited conflicts such as Germans and Brits murdering each other over who’d get to bring all the Icelandic dry fish home (true story), pirates, most of whom were from North-Africa, coming all the way to Iceland to do some old-school pillaging and slaving and of course that thing called WWII when Brits and Americans essentially treated Iceland as a giant parking-lot for destroyers and other warships. It is important to note though, that during this period, there was no such thing as an Icelandic army.After WWII, Iceland clubbed some Brits over who would take smelly fish home in their nets but the conflict wan’t military per se, even though it has since then been called “the Cod Wars.“Since then, Iceland has deployed its special-unit forces, the rad-named Víkingasveitin (Lit. Viking Squad) in a military context in Kosovo/ Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq. However, it would be ridiculous to understand these example of microscopic peace-keeping operation (the squad has less than 50 men) as “War.” It’d be better seen as an example of expensive practical training for these special forces rather than an actual military conflict.So yes, excluding these examples and the Medieval civil war, Iceland pretty much has never been directly involved in any war, ever, in 1100 years. How cool is that?