Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "Whatifalthist"
channel.
-
59
-
25
-
the reason why these nations are now shit is in great part because they were colonies (I am talking about the colonies already inhabited before colonialism). Colonial borders most of the time didn't account for etnicities, local rivalries/tensions/cultures, ... Some colonies were before actually quite good kingdoms/small countries, but just didn't had the military (technological) power the colonial nations had. After they gained their independence they turned to shit, just because they weren't ready, why? because the british (and othe colonial powers) liked that they were dependent on them before for these higher things (organisation/security/...).
It's really funny that now the reverse is being claimed, that these nations where better of than they are now while colonialism is a great factor that tributed to the current situation. Before colonisation they probably might also have been better of then now (if we measure in their location, knowledge, resources, ...) If left alone these colonial regions (or free in this alternate timeline) might actually have become thriving nations.
If you don't know the history of these colonies before their colonisation, don't speak about the topic.
14
-
9
-
If I am right the first amendment talks about freedom of religion, still you speak as though Islam is forbidden bij the constitution.
It's weird that you would label hillary a communist despite the fact that she is labeled by most to be very right wing for a democrat, and a common attack on her is that she's in the pockets of the big companies, which can't be further from communism, seeing in communism there are no companies, everything is controlled by the state.
neo-liberals isn't made up by the left, it just refers to a new form of liberalism (neo = new). Just like neo-colonialism, ... I always found it weird that in the US right wing is labeled liberal, eventhough liberalism if on the right of the political spectrum. (for less goverment interference => more liberty => from the latin libertas)
What happened in so called communist countries is caused by corruption and human greed. The core of communism is that everyone is equal and that the state controls everything inorder to achieve this. It never had the goal to enrich the elites, in fact the capatilistic system is more likely to enrich a certain elite. It's very much like feodalism, only less visible/obvious.
What wars are you refering too? Please name them. For every example I'll name a counter example.
Hitler and Trump have way more in common than hitler and Obama. Hitler was a nationalist for god sake, learn your history. And please name the similarities between Obama and Stalin, because I can't find one.
"who thinks like the Founding Fathers"
So now you know what the founding fathers thought and what trump thinks? Also is it good to have him think like people who lived 250 years ago? If the founding fathers lived in this time it's very likely they would have very different views than Trump, but this is speculation and isn't relevant at all.
You clearly have no idea what communism actually is (supposed) to be. Stalin only wished for power and after taking over changed the USSR to fit that purpose, he had very different idea's than those who started the USSR in the first place.
7
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The thing is, by this time the empire would exist for hundreds of years and just like France could be rather stable internally (even in Italy). Also the French, English, spanish and dutch also often were at war. Only the ottomans would really be a problem, however in our timeline Austria and Poland were able to keep them off, just half of the holy roman empire (southern half: austria, italy, swiss, bavaria, bohemia, ...) would probably be enough to hold off the ottomans (theoretically), while the northern half can focus on the colonies and baltic. Really you don't need too much control over a colony for it to succeed, just enough money and settlers in the early stages to basically give it a jump start.
Also colonial rebellions (by colonists) wouldn't really be a problem if they aren't taxed too much and maintain a lot of self control. As long as they remain like independent regions within the empire with (very) light taxation, there is no real problem. Also you should not see the colonies as all the same. Just like in our timeline, colonies in asia wouldn't be same as colonies in south america, north america or Africa.
5
-
4
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
11:15 this graph shows movement of inventors and only in one recent decade, it is practically irrelevant to what you are saying. But yes, it seems the US has just slightly above half of the inventions of the last century on their conto, though it might be mostly from recent times (for example 1950 onward), in that case a decrease in inventions due to christian/religious socialism could actually have a major impact. Not to mention that improvements on existing systems/inventions might not be counted as inventions, but still plays a majore role.
Also it is a stretch to just assume that christian socialism doesn't spread to the US. It is impossible to know. At this moment the US is probably one of the most religious western nations, it could very well have been introduced by the church somewhere around 1900-1930 if it was strong in Europe.
11:55 I wouldn't put almost any of these regimes under atheist ideologies. Whereas with religious deaths, religion often was a main cause, this isn't the case for the "atheistic" ideologies. Maybe irreligious would be better, ie the deaths weren't caused due to any religious reason be it the adversion of religion or the support of religion. Most of the deaths under communism weren't atheistically inspired, the state just happened to be atheistic. If you classify all communist deaths under atheism, you should classify all deaths caused by a religious nations under religious deaths.
Also facists often were christian, they definitely were not atheists, maybe just irreligious at best as in that they don't practice their religion. Also the japanese empire might not have had an official state religion, it was stil in practice shinto supported by the state. Classifying it under atheism is also just wrong.
I don't see why you used this slide, it doesn't add anything and is full of mistakes.
1
-
@beastmaster1219 I guess the future will tell. But (mass) migrations isn't new. It happens. You can't really stop it shy from putting up a wall and/or killing all those people. So it will come down to just manage it as best as you can: integration and giving another option (improving lives in parts of Africa that are livable for example). At this moment integration is done with a laissez-faire attitude, it can be done more strictly and much more regulated. For example not allowing immigrants to live closely together already might help, since it would prevent small ' immigrant block socities' from forming, where immigrants have no reason to really adapt. Also putting more punishments/rewards regarding integration might help, ... Honestly the laissez-faire attitude was probably the correct way untill this decade, since then most immigration either was due to colonial ties or because these immigrants were specifically brought in (for example to work in the mines). Currently this is a bit different, more to do with jus fleeing really crappy situations, so stronger handling of integration might be really necessary. Will things change? Likely, though that isn't necessarily bad, as long as we can make sure that our core values don't.
There are plenty of immigrants (1st/2n/3d generation) that have properly integrated to the point they are not different from indiginous people (not exactly how I wanted to say it, but can't remember the correct one) except heritage, so it certainly is possible. We just haven't been ready for the large amount of immigrants from the past years and the need for a strong integration policy wasn't apparantly as high as it is now and will be in the future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1