Comments by "buddermonger2000" (@buddermonger2000) on "Whatifalthist" channel.

  1. It's worth noting that much of the reason for the current situation in Ukraine is that this is actually two armies who inherited a defensive doctrine from the previous state. The Soviet military knew that NATO would own the skies from day one. So they built masses of air defense and designed their planes in order to contest the skies. Built masses of tanks in order to conduct armored offensives in order to break through the lines under contested air, and made 3 line deep defenses as a way to defeat NATO forces. As well as loads of artillery in order to boost those defenses present. Now, Ukraine used that very doctrine to contest the skies, break offensives using 3 deep line defenses and massive artillery, against an army who did not invest in SEAD or DEAD capabilities for their air force, and also had tons of armor. So, they use their massive artillery to push using infantry assaults. This is because ATGMs are very effective, and ISR is also about even due to intense drone penetration. This invasion was conducted in mud season, using light forces, among strong choke points, with massive equipment losses due to logistical failures by the Russians. In short, since Ukraine did everything right, and Russia everything wrong, there has become relative parity, and the spear blunted, allowing everyone to dig in. That is not anywhere near all wars. First off, air supremacy changes this calculus greatly. Drone penetration only works when under contested air, and the opportunity exists. Secondly, armored offensives fail under enemy air superiority. In fact, it's why Ukraine's counter-offensives failed, as they advanced without their AA, and so they were destroyed by Russian helicopters. In such a way as how Russia was destroyed when it lacked its air defense network in that first few weeks of the invasion. Thirdly, America has insane levels of precision munitions in stockpile, with better precision, allowing them to target important locations like logistical hubs and command and control to make any army Iran fields completely disorganized and near inoperable. While also having a massive logistics focus. In short, any war would be different. Not because of drones not being a revolutionary technology in warfare that wouldn't matter "in a real war," but instead because about half of the fighting is basically missing from the equation. It's back to WW1 because it's mostly recreated WW1 conditions. No planes, elaborate trench networks (which have always been difficult to break), nullified tanks, and massive amounts of artillery. US-Iran is, many planes, no trench network focus, no artillery focus, mostly nullified armor.
    1
  2. Yeah one faction much too much honestly
    1
  3.  @forickgrimaldus8301  That's part of an ethnic group. And with the genetics being different enough to expect a mountain or desert between... eh...
    1
  4. ​ @mushyroom9569  Submission to the state in a godless failed 20th century ideology and trying to revive that for a world that no longer exists.
    1
  5. man posts this but not the communism
    1
  6. I want the timeline where the British settle south Africa. Seems like an interesting timeline where one more piece added to the pie of imperial federation and thus having the Brits as a co-equal world power to the US today.
    1
  7.  Graf von Losinj  ping me when it comes in please
    1
  8.  Graf von Losinj  Explain further? I'm confused.
    1
  9. I'm going to push back on the US being weaker here for one reason: the US still has its heartland and everything it inherited. And with competition with other American powers it seems like it'd be arguably stronger unless the Spanish states are getting lots of foreign immigration as well. The US with still controlling much of the Great Plains (the breadbasket of the world), still having the industry of the northeast, martial tradition of the southeast, and then actual naval access Sonora would mostly lack, I don't see Sonora competing as well and feel like it'd be eaten in a Great Power war on the north American continent. Since most of the population of Sonora would be on the west coast and on the edges of the Great Plains with lightly populated desert in-between, it's pre-disposed toward division and until rail and air conditioning it would mostly be not great. We can also likely assume a gold rush with Americans flooding the region basically colonizing it before it even starts a great power war. At which point it would integrate the population effectively after its annexation. Thus putting the US in a position as basically the Hegemon of North America and allowing it to build up mostly unmolested after since likely not even the Spanish states would be able to project power there. A continental hegemon is a pretty good starting place and basically gives the US its current status as just a mega Britain even if can't control South America.
    1
  10. @kirilll7806  Yeah no way to expand north when you're already desert and hard to control. Even with extra wealth there was just no expansion against the very hostile natives and even more hostile desert.
    1
  11. @kirilll7806  For me it's been over a year. However, while Sonora may not be completely uninhabitable, it's really only inhabitable in the modern day with extra technology and much better irrigation. So much so we can grow cotton there. Outside of that, it was basically unsettled with incredibly isolated pockets crowded around small water sources. Most of Texas's population is in the green East, and most of Mexico's population is in Central Mexico around Mexico city. There's almost no reason to settle in Sonora and the borders are still pretty natural as it's a big fuck off desert which is hard to live in.
    1
  12. @kirilll7806  The problem here is that even the Europeans probably wouldn't have figured it out. Comparatively wealthy nations aren't necessarily as inventive and it's simply the Americans who were able to pull that off. Wealth doesn't mean they know how. Nor have the desire for expansion.
    1
  13.  @urphakeandgey6308  I've actually happened to read an article on that. Your results would probably put you as a fair bit of Polynesian, slight Ainu, and slight Korean or possibly just a variant of Japanese. I Happen to have clicked on an article about the origins of the Japanese people and in there are the other local groups of the Manchus, Ainu, Koreans, Mongols, Taiwan aborigines, Han Chinese, and Ryukyuans. Japanese is split into 3 groups and the thing that largely differentiates the Japanese from the surrounding ethnicities is a gene pulled from the Ainu (called haplogroup D1b) adding into the Manchu gene pool in a fair amount (Koreans seem to created from the slight Japanese reintroduction of the gene). The primary differences between the Japanese from North to South seems to be the amount of this gene which is possessed and thus the amount of the other genes which are present by comparison from the original (or at least from what I can get from the pie graphs original) Manchu gene pool. The Ryukuans also have a less than 1% of some other haplogroups which aren't represented on this graph and aren't present in the rest of the Japanese (or at least in enough to be relevant) likely having a higher ratio of Manchu to Ainu DNA. The only thing which could potentially throw a wrench into how I'm understanding this is that the gene the Ainu share with the rest of the East Asians (one called hablopgroup C2a) is LESS present in the Japanese even though it's present in the rest of the East Asians and Ainu more with the exception of the Taiwan Aborigines in which have none (Mongols are dominated by this gene much like the Japanese are dominated by the D1b). The article says this gene likely came from Siberia and so the people who had it maybe simply stopped going farther south. The whole article is fairly interesting and I'll drop the link to the site. https://wa-pedia.com/history/origins_japanese_people.shtml
    1
  14.  @georgefloydsfake20dollarbi28  Funny enough Siberians aren't actually very related to the Native Americans and I believe said relation only really extendeds to a select few north American artic peoples and even then the Siberians which are related are actually a minory in Siberia (I'm using the term "Siberian" a bit loosely here because while they're from the same place they have their own name but I can't actively remember it right now).
    1
  15. I'd like to add that Isreal only started out with about 500k people and it's up to 7 million today. If you multiply that out by 6 times over by importing 6 times that, you get a very large nation that's still not minority Jewish. Or more accurately, tiny minority Jewish. Probably the 55-45 split of 4 million to 3 million which started it.
    1
  16. The Chads of today were often themselves once incels and tend to try to teach others how to be like them. Perfect counter-elite
    1
  17. @joedatius  Bro incel is a portmanteau for "Involunary Celibate," which is what it says on the tin. Not to mention, "Chad" is simply a term for those popular with the ladies, and realistically, now, those who are talented and skilled people. People of virtue. Say whatever you want, the internet is here, it exists, it influences our lives, and it's important to analyze these phenomena.
    1
  18.  @alexanderdesturion4346  Hmmm... for that kind of thing he definitely seems like the leader Russia needs right now to pull itself from its shit. If he lives long enough to see a US-China war he could easily make a deal with the Americans to pull out of Eastern Europe and help crush China. To which the strategic goal of minimizing risk of invasion from the west would be much more realized and then kick out China from Central Europe putting Russia back in a spot where it has defensible borders from its neighbors.
    1
  19.  @alexanderdesturion4346  I think it's going to be interesting to see what happens if it can hold together long enough to see Putin out of power
    1
  20. It's funny how I've had the opposite growing up because my home state has a society that's simply too recent to have gone through any of these cycles yet and is arguably only now feeling the downturn.
    1
  21. history is filled with shit like this and then the godless communists say wars are fought for economic reasons
    1
  22. You know those stories in games of a highly advanced people which all technology generated from as they conquered the galaxy or ruled the world then collapsed after a great internal conflict? That's literally the west if you take it as one civilization since it just completely self-immolated taking 100 million of their own population with them in the great catastrophe.
    1
  23.  @inovakovsky  No they don't. Only example is Bengal with India but beyond that it's entirely political and from governments.
    1
  24. I just saw a pamphlet for sale on how the art of war applies to business lol
    1
  25. ​ @mirceazaharia2094 If you're sane in a madhouse, you're the insane one. But I am too
    1
  26. 37:07 Yeah that's wrong. Why it's wrong is that you have to remember that almost half of the population of the confederacy was enslaved and their TOTAL population was half that of the north population. So in real terms they were fighting with about a quarter or less.
    1
  27.  @TheMagicJIZZ  Okay and we see almost 0 Hellenic branches of Europe. Why I say the pan-Nordic, pan-Latin, and Pan-Germanic is that it lines up with the languages of Europe. If you want me to get technical I mean Pan-Romance when I say Pan-Latin but almost no-one will think that when I say that. And in fact Pan-Germanism is how we have modern Germany. But it's exactly the fact that the languages are similar enough to thus possibly unite is basically why I brought it up and in fact that's what I meant by including them in my previous reply. Empires are vastly easier to control when you have a shared language.
    1
  28.  @TheMagicJIZZ  Okay no they're in no way Greek and I've got no idea how you even have that as an idea. They've no shared cultural roots nor are they similar enough. And frankly modern Greece basically has nothing connecting it to even the Eastern Roman empire besides language. Even the philosophy has taken a different route with the enlightenment as a good place for that comparison where Greek philosophy said logic was more important actual testing. No what you see in Europe is basically LARPing that they're saying they're the children of Greece and Rome and while they kind of are in some ways, children are almost never their parents and that applies here too. Hell part of the reason Charlemagne's empire was rejected in Constantinople was because they basically called themselves the new Roman empire while the Roman empire was literally there in Anatolia and felt that the European kingdoms were too far beneath them to even attempt at the title.
    1
  29. 8:54 This too is a pretty easy read. It's biggest weakness is not having a couple of maps for reference as without that the issue of how much land is demanded is a pretty pointless piece of info. Each group had demanded 2/3 of a province. However, "How big is the province?" is a question so poinient it basically decides what is or isn't reasonable. Unless you're discussing it from the point of view of the provincial governor themselves (which it seems to hint at as the relationship was seemingly between that governor and the German), in which you're losing most of your land and so it is simply unreasonable anyway. Also funny that they're saying that Clovis was such a good controller that he stopped the barbarians from doing barbarian things.
    1
  30. I think you got your wish
    1
  31. I think I can't over learn the lessons of the war. But one of the issues with Ukraine is that the Russians messed up massively with their initial ambitions, and daddy America gave the Ukraine the info to avoid the worst outcome that Russia was trying to inflict on them. After a significant loss of equipment and personnel, they then sent their leftovers into areas that had 8 years behind them to get built up in fortifications during the previous war, and then grinded away during mud season while they were stuck on the roads and couldn't avoid anything. Due to those failures and massive equipment and personnel losses, the Russian Army we see today is a shell of its former self having not been built for the war it intended to fight, and then never adapting it before the invasion thinking it would be quick. And had they invaded during the permafrost, and without daddy America's involvement, they may have actually won too. And in fact this is something that applies to WW2 as well. The defense is actually quite strong and always has been. The issue with WW2 is that the defenses were always bypassed, which meant that they often didn't matter. However, the urban fighting which characterized cities like Stalingrad showed that the defense really was quite strong. Also, come on, you know better than to say that no military technology improved during the 1600s and Napoleonic wars. Pike and shot gave way to riflemen and lines of bayonets with muskets, which meant much more firepower could be massed while also killing off cavalry better.
    1
  32. 12:57 The Muslims also took Bangladesh and were spread around India a lot more until the population exchanges after the separation of Pakistan and India
    1
  33. To be fair, that's a bit more realistic to think of weeks when things change so quickly
    1
  34.  @dontcallthemliberals3316  Honestly no. Maybe if gen Z in Europe was a bit more like the Americans or if they're adaptable enough to just say enough then yes, but if they get indoctrinated Enough into the "Welfarism" then they're basically going to just be conquered or a tributary state. I've got some hope for France and CANZUK (as the former still colonial and the latter is honestly getting pulled by the Americans) but that's about it. I think Poland is going to be stuck with Russia and eastern Europe and even kind of the Balkans are just Russian clay
    1
  35. I feel like it's mostly shoehorned. The devil is in the details, and those details basically completely recontextualize the stories that are laid out here. For one: the leveraging of the Americans massive population to overpower their enemy. It simply didn't happen. The Anglo-American alliance put a maximum of 4.6 million men in Europe at war's end to a maximum loss of the coalition at roughly 1 million spread across the entirety of the British commonwealth, Isles, and USA. USA and Britain both only lost 400k men, and that 4 million figure is basically only once they break into Germany proper as beforehand they were at about 2 million together in France until the border. (this is in comparison to the Germans who had roughly 3 million men in the field at any one time and took almost 6 million dead in losses) And that's one example out of basically all of them.
    1
  36. Yeah I still don't buy the Europeans becoming Americans because what's absolutely insane is that the dominance has spread into basically all parts of Asia as well but you don't see that as a basis for them becoming American satellite states. The reality is that the Anglo-American coalition has dominated the world for about 300 years and has caused tremendous effects on literally every single country on earth. Africa still speaks majority English because of this domination. And of course just because hard power declines doesn't mean soft power does. The Anglosphere dominates most of the world in a cultural sense still and is carried by the fact that they spread their language via commerce and conquest for the entirety of what created the base of the current era. I think you're reading a bit too much into the American cultural domination without realizing it. And on top of that the Americans pulling out of Europe also comes with the historical idea of basically telling Europe to fuck off and the Americans focusing on its own neighborhood. Leaving Europe to just go die seems honestly more likely than the Americans genuinely caring about Europe returning to the history it had before 1945. Especially with France and Poland in effect having their own empires. And without a lot of the actual conflict which characterized the Greek City states it just doesn't really work. Finally the biggest thing is that Europe is a collection of very strong identities and multiple people groups in a way that Greece never really was. It just doesn't seem right. You can still learn Greek and understand the thoughts of the ancient Greeks. You have to Learn variants of German, old French, and Latin to learn anything about Western Europe and still won't learn anything about eastern or northern Europe. It just is missing too many pieces in my opinion.
    1
  37. ​ @Letsplay222 What world are you living in that they always lose to HAMAS? Conscripts can be high discipline forces, and there's a mountain of evidence that Israeli forces are relatively disciplined units. So I don't know what you're on
    1
  38.  @ozymandiasnullifidian5590  Please explain why it's unrealistic
    1
  39. that was my thought too
    1
  40. It's honestly likely the same the issue is that you know... when you leave and then become completely replaced there for generations and the original pop was small to begin with it's mostly not much influence.
    1
  41. It also did historically
    1
  42. welcome back fellow retard
    1
  43.  @w8stral  The HRE came out of Germania and Charlemagne's empire of the Franks who then proclaimed they were the successors to that empire.
    1
  44. ​​ @АлександрДаминин Yeah I believe the "boggy" he means is the infamous "Rasputitsa" mud that comes in Russian spring and autumn. Very VERY difficult to pass through. Native to Ukraine and western Russia but I can see that easily extending east
    1
  45. Lol imagine British soldier in the 18th century seeing a Terran soldier and wondering "What the fuck happened?" just to be told he's from a colony of a former British colony and then wondering even harder how they got from where he is to where the Terrans are
    1
  46. He was referring to demographics lmao.
    1
  47. ​@whitemakesright2177 Well to be fair, I know the same feeling like when he did the "What would happen if America invaded Iran?" video, and I know a lot about the technology and tactics he talks about, and he got completely roasted in the comments of that video since he really doesn't know what he's talking about, so i understand the feeling. Though personally, I do actually know a bit about this topic, and I feel it's generally correct as a rule from what I know.
    1
  48. @Erowens98  I don't know if he outright denies relativity, but he also has no idea what the fuck he's talking about in that field. Arguably should probably try to, if not pick a lane to stick to then pick some to outright ignore. I remember him saying he doesn't know much about science, which is obvious, but my favorite stupid thing he says is "Science has confirmed that existence is tied to observability" which is probably derived from particle study where we can know where an electron might be and where it's going, but not where it is unless we change where it's going. The reason for this of course is that we can only observe these particles by hitting them with other particles. It's a limit of technology and our perception. Basic object permanence says it's still there. I'm going to guess he got that from the book "The Eye of Shiva" which he has taken a bit too much as gospel.
    1
  49. let's see how long it lasts before people refuse to come lol
    1
  50. Well no even the millennials didn't deal with this. On top of that the boomers are the ones who built it and Gen X grew up with it. If they were a significant contributing factor, it would show up in those generations. Not Gen Z.
    1