General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

buddermonger2000
Possible History
comments

Comments by "buddermonger2000" (@buddermonger2000) on "Possible History" channel.

Balkanization of Asia is disastrous
51
Ethiopia is really cool. Currently racked by minor ethnic tensions which are settling with good leadership, went communist during the cold War (becoming the poster child for African famine), but also a unified state for millenia with one of the oldest branches of Christianity and a population of over 100 million I think actually ahead of Egypt, and industrializing rapidly.
28
@matthiuskoenig3378 Well, the death rate for the Crimean War was due to disease, and overall due to poor local conditions and conduct of the war. However, breech loaders are still only marginally in use, and the machine gun roughly 50 years off as only the gatling gun really exists yet. Modern artillery still not really a large factor either. This means that you probably have a less deadly war because what made the war so deadly was industrial technology and scale, which in this timeline, isn't actually yet achievable. Not to mention the industrial population growth hasn't yet occurred meaning there just aren't enough men to create the conditions for The Great War of our timeline.
25
@jasontod5843 Well no it's over 90% Han Chinese with a relatively united language required for the leadership class.
24
I don't think Chinese geography is significantly easier to unite than the Mediterranean given you still have to move around China by foot or horseback except along the coast. While for the Mediterranean, with its expansive coastline and population centers hugging that area, is far easier to manage since you can sail since it in real terms acts as one big lake.
20
@chinchillaruby4170 Water makes invasions harder, but it also connects people. The biggest thing is that they're relatively easy to cross, just not armies, and the Mediterranean is a very calm sea. It's also faster to cross water than land. The Roman empire hugged the Mediterranean. It's how the entire thing stayed together. So you can keep information and culture intact more easily with that. The reason Taiwan is an issue is because it's an island. Islands have moats via the fact they're surrounded by water. So they're hard to invade. But that's really it. Islands tend to be also big trading hubs due to their large amount of coastline.
19
@MichaelScott-my8uh They ended the war and are reintegrating Tigray. I have no other context, but even then that's better than 90% of Africa
15
It's also a scaled up idea of what happened to Canada IIRC as Canada was itself simply a collection of North American colonies not a part of the USA.
15
The real question is why it entered the demographic transition so early. The logical answer is Napoleon, but that shouldn't speed run the demographic transition like that, especially since it did so before industrialization.
15
I think "what if bending was real" was pretty well explored in Avatar as their societies did require it
13
South Africa was always a guaranteed partner until independence as one of the "white" dominions. It was included in the original plans. However, especially after apartheid, it changed too much to even really be considered.
12
Russia's territory almost made it look like it lost the war
12
Well he did lower the power of the army in thus timeline as well. While also giving a more stable line of succession. This overall improves the chances of this working.
10
20:15 Hey hey hey when did i start watching Whatifalthist?
10
As a fan, I believe it's true that the force can be that hereditary, since I don't know of any force users who didn't have force sensitive children. The problem, is that in the star wars galaxy, they were basically monk orders by the time of the movies. Especially the Sith, with the rule of 2, means you essentially can't have kids unless you want to create more Jedi for yourself to fight.
10
Honestly, the reason Japan didn't make tanks was more due to the lack of infrastructure to support it in those areas. China was so poor in infrastructure, it made no sense to bring heavy equipment. It was light stuff or basically none at all. I don't think even the Americans were using too much genuinely heavy equipment there in their island hopping.
8
@goosermr6036 Perhaps segregation by political power, even if not economic power
8
@Essa5225 Bro, butterfly effect means everything can happen, but that doesn't really make sense. It also only affects specific details, not long term trends. Also, Germany and Japan were never able to win WW2. It wasn't actually a possibility. And they knew it. The idea was hoping to keep them off of the continent. This Germany is just as starved, as just weakened, and just as outproduced as nothing majorly changes to any real aspect of the war beside the Soviet front.
7
@Ajolote_comunista I think this is accurate, because I've been taught this as well since the colonial period is an important part of our history. The pyramid clearly points to something being true, especially since one of the broader contexts of that pyramid being that the Spanish born got to rule, but no mention of social mobility or economic outcomes really were discussed.
7
Yeah actually you managed to start another major war 20 years early
6
You say that the Austrians were in decline since its inception and I want to know what you are on in saying this. Austria was such a power player that they survived all of Napoleon while being effectively across the border from France. Even with all of the defeats in that war, even during the 7 years war, they were still completely intact. I don't see a reason why they should fall in the age of nationalism given that the reason for their collapse into the territories we see today is not a true result of internal conflict, but instead inflicted upon them by the peace deal after the end of WW1. The age of nationalism, for all of the damage it may be able to cause for the Austrians, really only made sense in the context of Austrian defeat. However, an Austria who won victory, after victory, really has no reason for the age of nationalism to destroy them. Everyone looks for way out in the bad times, but no-one revolts in the good times. And unlike our WW1, this would be a rather quick war where the 3 great powers dog piled an incredibly exposed Northern Germany, with relatively little losses meaning that the winners didn't simply get an empty victory. Btw, to add on to the Austrian gains issue that you spoke about, those are both river borders on each side of the plain, and a mountain range between Hungary and Russia. That's difficult to cross even if a bit sandwiched. It's no defense in depth, but it's certainly far from indefensible.
6
@okok-tm7xs Uh, no. Not really. He had the Germans still commit the holocaust so no core motivations have changed. In fact, the only difference is that they acted upon one from the side of the British. Separately, people REALLY need to get this idea out of their head that if Stalingrad and Moscow fell that they'd simply capitulate. First off, they're still thinking that they're in a war of annihilation, which is largely correct as a reason. Secondly, no, they do have ways to not only build more rail but also there are other connections. It's not totally reliant on Moscow. It's a setback logistically, but it's not enough to make them capitulate. Finally, they didn't even make it to Moscow in this timeline until the Allies came in to the fight. Seriously, you're saying the Soviet generals would revolt against Stalin in favor of GERMANY, who betrayed them TO START THE WAR, and is actively trying to kill off all of their people and who openly say they should all die. There's a reason everyone, when given a chance, surrendered to the west rather than the communists or fascists. You would have to be stupid, and not only stupid but also suicidal, to even consider the thought from the Soviet perspective. It's not Stalin's war. It's Germany's.
6
@jasontod5843 I mean, the first thing to note is that the Hokkien and Hakka are explicitly not considered to be the Han Chinese. I'm not sure about the Cantonese, so I can't say much about that, but I'm but I think they might be their own ethnic group. Or maybe they're simply a different language group. Fundamentally, however, this group coalesced and was already an existent group by the time of the Qing empire, and experienced treatment on that basis. While the language is very much based on Beijing Madarin, at least for governmental purposes, it always has been as it's been the fundamental language of the bureaucracy. Also, in regards to more blood linkage with the Vietnamese in the south than the northern Chinese, even if true, it doesn't actually do a lot as the Northern and Southern population centers have pretty consistently been unified under the same regime, and even very closely related groups like the Manchus and Koreans have no ethnic affiliation with each other.
5
@Bols847 I suspect that was intended given the limited effects they had here. Honestly, I was able to see them as zeppelins quite easily, just like the loitering munitions. What i couldn't see, was what these million dollar systems that got expended and replaced were. I don't have that analogue in my brain.
5
@okok-tm7xs Okay that makes no sense though. From the Soviet perspective, there's little reason to think they'd properly lose since they still have a VERY large army that they're pushing to the front. And frankly, it's a war of annihilation. Surrender isn't really an option. The entire society coming to the defense of the homeland. And in fact, against even more threats in this timeline. In the face of annihilation, who courts surrender? On top of That, they're going to have 0 reason to work with the nazis, who, btw, ALREADY betrayed them and are only barely fighting the Allies due to geographic limitations. Finally, when creating an alternate history scenario, you can't just wave it away and say "butterfly effect makes these people act out of character and their own motivations" as it's completely unbelievable and makes people act not how they are. In fact, in doing so, you completely change the leadership of the countries involved. I think the channel potential history, when discussing why Germany could never win WW2, put it best in his part two "The long and short of it is that the only way the nazis win WW2 is if they aren't the nazis" and at that point you've created an entirely different war that's really not WW2 as it doesn't actually have the same players.
5
3:57 Is very interesting because you can really see the outline of modern Germany from the independent states there, and i have to wonder, if that by giving almost all of what was previously Prussia to Poland, and leaving Austria out of Germany, that these are the reasons for the current Germany that we see today in our timeline.
5
They already nuked Germany. But at the same time, Germany was also occupied. It's basically a capitalulation, and it's not like the army could come back and actually defend Germany being out in the East Still.
4
@okok-tm7xs No in fact I just went back. He said the Germans did take Stalingrad. And that's about it. They didn't take Moscow, and Leningrad was safe since it was under Soviet control in Finland. Go watch it again. Separately, they actually started to move industry to the Urals before the war started, they did actually make considerable resources such as steel and even agricultural goods in factories in the Urals. The movement of the population may not be sustainable, however, it's still only a few years. It's not a permanent resettlement. If I did say they moved resources, that's simply a mistake in writing it out for purposes of consistency in that sentence, but no they did not move resources. However, they were already in the Urals anyway, and powered by the coal from Kuznetsk. In any case, the situation remains that in this timeline that the USSR has an intact airforce not broken by surprise airstrikes on airfields denying the Germans air Supremacy, a larger army not destroyed by the millions in one summer, and very much the resources still at play since minus Stalingrad and the push towards Kazakhstan, the line actually looks near the same. This is not really a better situation, but it's realistically very similar to what they found themselves in when you factor in no lend-lease. The Germans would've had to destroy the army to get Russia to capitulate
4
@eingrobernerzustand3741 No. As in, the reason they were deported was because of the soviets being fine with deportations. Plus, those were primarily polish lands in Silesia. Even if Germanic, it's fundamentally a territorial change where there are too few ethnic Germans to cause problems. They simply never deported anyone in this one.
4
Here's something to note: with no Russo-Japanese war, there are significantly less tensions for the communists to co-opt and likely no Russian revolution since the idea of Russian power was never shattered.
4
@Zion_z1488 Yakub is in fact a Russian name. But yes.
3
@mastrey Russia yes. I don't think Russia's presence there is a play they'd normally take but this is the incentive structure they're working with. France on the other hand I believe has more potential than Nigeria here. Nigeria is far from united and racked with internal issues while France is a wealthy and developed country that keeps policing its CURRENT colonial states. When possible history said France lost its empire, it didn't. France still controls its former African colonies economically.
3
@graymatterialist7076 Well the resource shortages only really got worse later on in the war. In the beginning they did indeed have enough. Heavy tanks are not that difficult. They may be intensive, but it's not a difficult concept. So long as it's early enough, I think it'd be doable. They could scramble a few. Honestly, more important anyway would be anti-tank equipment than actual heavy tanks given the way the soviets used their tanks early war (poorly), and how the Japanese were largely a short attack force
3
@okok-tm7xs Why would it be that? We didn't see that in our timeline. In fact, Germany was split in twain. I see no reason for them to be able to fight a guerilla war with any significant impact when two, larger armies are there, giving you a better life. The Allied army would have enough men to properly garrison Germany. And they'd probably pull a leader with legitimacy. Iraq was actually relatively light on the guerilla operations. The problem was the Kurds and Syrian civil war. Plus, Iraq already had a ton of separatist movements. The main power bases where people consider themselves iraqi weren't the places with the guerilla movements. Germany, being a more unified and nationalist identity, has no reason to suffer this.
3
@okok-tm7xs Their industry and resources are literally moved. So, they still have the production capabilities. So, that part is simply false. In fact, they'll have lost minimal industry as a result. Resources again are also much more plentiful past the Urals, and this plenty is able to be created. There were huge evacuations of the population as well, thus allowing them to still have a population to form an army. Their army is still intact as they've never been truly broken and never suffered the horrific losses that were 1941 as their army just wasn't at the front to be destroyed, and they had huge ability to reconstitute. The only limiting factor is fuel, which, if you notice, is also a problem on the German side, and it's why they never even got to Moscow. Btw, no, you're wrong. They do still have supply. Moscow is a major logistical hub, but it's not the end all be all. Your arguments don't actually reflect the reality of the situation. You're right. If they really lacked industry, manpower, and resources, the situation would be unrecoverable, but that wasn't the situation the soviets were in. The soviets are in a situation where their enemy is overstretched, exhausted, and fundamentally just out of gas. Their industry is finally coming back online to fully supply everyone, and they've stabilized the Frontline. That is literally the exact worst time to quit, and if the soviets were okay, sacrificing a full 20% of their population to the war effort and multiple armies encircled and destroyed, I see no reason that fewer armies destroyed and a military that has a much better chance to expand since it hasn't been destroyed multiple times over, isn't a chance to fight back and slowly push out of the corner. However, as I said, first off, they didn't actually lose those cities to the Germans in this timeline. They lost them to the Allies using the German army. So you're simply off base on in the first place.
3
Well Hungary's worked. So you got your wish. But yeah no it wasn't going to happen in Germany, especially with Prussia as a beefcake making it even harder.
3
I think the most controversial ideas here were not putting the European union as failing by 2100, and putting Nigeria and the EAF before Turkiye or Ethiopia
2
that sounds right up my alley
2
@chinchillaruby4170 a map of East Asia with pie charts with relevant haplogroups
2
@firelordmarklin6166 No no no I understand that point. My problem is I don't have the reference for the actual WW1 analogues. I don't know what super expensive platforms in the pre-war years were taking place that were bet on and attrited quickly. Or was that simply for a better justification of why the war ended up the way it did? Also, I think the exoskeletons probably do show as ending up as the replacement for the tank, just as the tank replaced cavalry.
2
Probably you'd expand the immigration base even more, and may get less Italians. Probably more Spaniards though
2
 @eingrobernerzustand3741 Well, these changes don't actually require massive deportations. He specifically mentioned that
2
From the fact that Austria had Bavaria, I imagine that the viewers wanted to boost Austria, only to doom them in the long run because Russia was humiliated and on the opposing side.
2
 @gallici-anima-christiana This scenario presumes that the Napoleonic wars happen as is, and that France simply doesn't enter the demographic transition so early.
2
@eongerbeWell being able to use the Danube for communication would also be a helpful boon here that they don't have if they're trying to guard the river
2
@xenotypos What I'll say on this topic is this: wars do tend to depress birth rates more generally. That's a very common phenomenon. People have less kids during wartime. Crops likely didn't, but i do wonder if it was because the state was very stressed before the revolution as bad economic conditions also tend to depress birth rates all else being equal. Welfare also has depressed the birth rate in the industrialized west by roughly half a kid in modern times, so I'm sure the inherence law likely did have a small effect as well. I guess the next question is if France was urbanizing before indistrializing. I'd have to go looking at the urbanization rate of 18th to 19th century France. Also...I can tell you basically every single factor in the fall of the Roman empire. Though I think the best explanation is that it accidentally offed itself. At the very least, it's a good lens to look at it through.
2
No see if that was the case then we could have Congress Poland as existed in our timeline. I imagine this is a "Free and Independent Poland" which means that it can't be under Russia.
2
@MeadowDaw I mean yeah that's clear
2
Going by that graph of population at the 10 minute mark, really concerned by the fact that the low countries have as many people as Poland, but also it's actually a bit curious why Italy, France, and Spain all had populations that fell off a cliff as they're now less than or equal to the population of the UK. Also the really low population of Poland (seriously what are you doing with so much unsettled land?), explains a lot about why the swedes were able to conquer so much.
2
 @genovayork2468 Austrians lost too. The only happy ones are the Dutch who have a poison pill, and don't know how to actually work in the industrial age, and the Prussians.
1
@plumebrise4801 205 million is a very unjustified number. 150 million is still a bit overkill. 120 million seems about justified. 304 million is nowhere near accurate to a similar rate as Britain as there are roughly 150 million people of English ancestry globally. The other increases are in Irish and Scottish diaspora mixed in. The rest are usually made up of German ancestry and more recent immigrants in the Anglosphere.
1
If Lenin is assassinated, he can't organize the party well enough since he was ultimately the most charismatic individual there to rally around. While Stalin was the most politically savvy. You have to justify that Yakub has both the charisma of Lenin and the political tact of Stalin to not get the movement to fall apart while it's still in its infancy here. You can get modern communists to rally around him today, sure, but that's because his reputation is half saved by his death and inability to do much else as well as time's ability to rehabilitate a person's image. Trotsky is already a reasonably popular figure and common alt-history scenario, and he was woefully low in both charisma and political force in his own time.
1
I wonder what the name of this country would be. Would it be still called the United Kingdom (with an extention of what's included in the "United" part) or perhaps something like "The Federal Kingdom"?
1
Why is this from 4 days ago?
1
@mdtrw What was the context of the full quote/conversation? What was said before it to justify that it was against specifically Mao?
1
What's the problem with whatifalthist? In fact, I just re-watched Whatifalthist's video on imperial federation, and in real terms, he has a very similar set of conclusions. But while Possible History here tries to map out the internal politics, whatifalthist goes on an entirely different part of the world and the colonial/post-colonial areas and how they're affected, with the last bit saying "on the whole it's not a huge change" with ultimately being possible to watch these videos complimentarily. I think the biggest difference is that since Possible History makes a specific system to integrate into, while Whatifalthist kind of hand-waves away that it's a parliament, there's a specific interaction with the colonies that's only possible with Possible History's video. However, it ultimately doesn't change very much the broader themes between either. I'm how going to go re-watch Mosieur Z's video on imperial federation, since it's been multiple years and I haven't heard great things about the guy
1
I think the most interesting question to me, is if Islam still comes about without the interference of Christianity
1
i think he made it already
1
@crazedunionboy3383 The problem is that for them it's been just as integral to the world. So, ultimately, not much changes in terms of the broad strokes
1
@bkjeong4302 exactly
1
@pelinalwhitestrake3367 The nations as of Avatar consolidated lol
1
Tbh, I don't think the soviets would actually capitulate by 1944. Mainly because Germany probably still wouldn't have oil due to embargoes
1
Well, barring the final bit in the cold War decolonization, and the world wars, it kind of did.
1
56:23 I don't think the Germans would overrun the French. At least not very quickly. There's something that a lot of timelines kind of forget when it comes to WW2, but the overrun of France wasn't just unexpected, but essentially a fluke given it came from Rommel ignoring orders, and how even the Germans thought that push through the Ardennes was stupid, because it was, and the French high command simply believed it was too preposterous to be real, because it should've been. Although many factors contributed to that, anything that's not our world's Germany should not easily overrun the French in any WW2 timeline. I know you're probably saving time and essentially just putting white Russia into our timeline, but I think it is an important consideration for the future, and i don't remember if you did a video on if Rommel just didn't go through the Ardennes.
1
@chinchillaruby4170 In terms of genetics they are
1
Tbh that spending alone explains why so many were easy to conquer
1
How is this not posted April 1st?
1
Well, to be fair, he didn't say it, but being the third largest, likely not by a wide margin, is indicative of superpower status, even if not the largest.
1
I think there's something worth discussing: Russia probably has a much larger population compared to the Soviet Union given the birth rates that completely crashed due to the Soviet collectivization. Which would probably help the economy grow faster as well
1
So where's central Asia?
1
@joemamma2120 This makes negative sense. Farmers owning their lands would arguably be a factor increasing children as even if a farmer owns his lands, he needs people to tend them, usually children. Thus, all else being equal, you'd see an incentive to more children rather than less. This is where the inheritance law argument starts to make much more sense.
1
i love this too much
1
 @hungvu262 It's there and independent
1
I'm sorry i can't believe this. Why would Gustavus Adlophus surviving lead to the occupation of ALL of western Poland? How could they even kill off 30% of the population? That's just way too high. Even wierder, what reason would France have not just to try to take over Europe, but to try to bring back Poland. A defeated people doesn't seem that useful to bring. Even more important, what is communism? Sounds like some weird religion masquerading as an economic system. I swear this is the most unrealistic scenario I've ever watched. Unsubscribed.
1
@NiktheSl1ck Which is why he went over the history of our real world
1
What if Poland and Romania unified instead? That one sounds more fun, and arguably a more interesting run
1
@pellept0327 Yeah, no, it's actually the same countries which were mentioned to taking the Russians seriously. Source: "Is Europe responding to the Russian challenge?" - Perun
1
@gifs_for_the_peasantry The thing I'd respond to with this is to say these states don't actually spend very much on their militaries. None of the states you mentioned spend very much either. Switzerland has a relatively large army due to universal conscription, but it itself is far below the European norm with regards to defense budgets (0.68% of GDP). France is also under 2% of GDP (1.9%) and it has an expeditionary force meant to perform operations around the world with an emphasis on Africa. Even the Finns for their very large army (relative to their size) don't spend much on their armed forces either having only now pushed just below the 2% mark from a 1.2% low in the last decade. I think it's important to make a distinction between a large army and well funded one with the large part coming exclusively from conscription. Frankly, only Poland, Romania, and the UK have actually kept up in terms of percentage of GDP on military spending for the last 5 years, with Poland hitting an all-time high of 4.2% (larger than the USA). In real terms, most of Europe has been slacking for more than a decade while Poland is picking it all up basically by itself as it is completely transforming its military into the largest tank army in Europe. Edit: as an addendum, besides the armies on the eastern flank of NATO, no-one is increasing their military budgets by significant amounts and a few countries have gone down in spending, including ironically, the US and thus total NATO spending has decreased in the wake of the invasion.
1
@BasicallyBaconSandvichIV Yeah everything you've said at the beginning indicates you don't actually have those things. Part of that freedom means saying things that people don't like and regulation means you don't have that right. Rights can't be regulated. You are free to be racist that's absolutely the case. That's the downside of it. However, it means you are free to do anything besides hurting others. You have freedom of association and assembly. You have freedom to petition the government (and they the freedom to ignore you). And you have freedom of the press. You're not allowed to lie (that's simply a lawsuit though) and you're not allowed to call people to do a crime and thus implicate yourself in that crime. Those are your only limitations. Also, no, the only ones with a right to bear arms are the Czechs with a system much more similar to the US than the rest of Europe while also being very in line with the European average. Most crime in the US is very disorganized and the largest cohort of people in the US dying by firearm are the owners themselves turning it on themselves (2/3 it's a very large problem). The biggest problem is the US murder rate which is depending on the source 2.5x to 5x higher with Iraq having a lower death rate than Chicago. It's also a very interesting point that some of the highest murder areas of the world aren't actually on the very low income bracket as you'd expect and is simply concentrated mostly in the new world. As for "more freedom" to move around, that's also very very silly. It's trying to say people are more free because they can get to places without a car, even though instead they're simply paying for other services to get them to a place. It's not being more free, it's simply a different lifestyle. Finally, a lot of countries used to salute their flags, but because of Germany people got scared of any form of nationalism even though it's what actually binds people together through shared beliefs. For the Americans with largely different blood, it's much more important to have that civic nationalism in order to foster the national project and integrate immigrants. Not to mention, you don't actually have to pledge allegiance to the flag (at least in school) since you really won't be stopped. It's by no means a requirement (unless you're swearing in as a naturalized US citizen), but it's certainly a mark of American culture and pride to do so.
1
@BasicallyBaconSandvichIV Btw, I'd also probably add that "liberal" has a very specific context in the US. The US was built on liberalism. That very idea set is the blood of America. It cannot be divorced from those ideas. Thus, "liberal" is a tribal identifier for left-wingers in the US while "conservative" a tribal identifier for most right-wingers in the US. Yes you're right that every country has different meanings, but given that the US really doesn't have significant ultranationalist movements (despite what the media will tell you) and that the US really hates authoritarianism in any form, that the US is simply very much a liberal country (there's no monarchy to try to conserve).
1
Very rarely does such personal interest matter, and it seems far less likely for Britain to make a pivot to their old enemy (France) when this is an altogether weaker Germany.
1
So Germany keeps trying and thus turns America into Rome conquering Greece
1
I expected North Macedonia
1
I think it would've actually been okay in the industrialization front since it was industrialization rapidly before the war. The Soviet period also had a slower growth rate than the Tzarist one. The GDP per capita growth in Russia was essentially the same before and after the first world War which doesn't indicate that the soviets did it any faster.
1
@fish5671 It didn't have to be. At all. Foreign investment was also relatively high in the Soviet period and the growth rate slowed under the soviets rather than increased. There was just a bigger base to grow from.
1
@mrvk39 Well the biggest thing is that you can convert, which is what most did. That civilian production in all cases was converted in order to produce goods. Light industry is essential in producing guns. While aluminum and steel are essential in aircraft and tanks respectively, aluminum is also necessary for many consumer goods and steel is also necessary for cars. In each case it wasn't the specifics of the economy but the pure size which won the war. Especially since the 20th century industrial economies were all about production. Plus, more food means more people. More men to send to the front. There are also generally more of a surplus to send to the cities. It's slower but with the speed of a proper economy, it could've made up for it while being more robust. Ultimately, Russia's fate I think would come down more to the quality of the leadership and their ability to stay united in the face of an incoming army more than pure productive might which should basically level out.
1
So by the year of roughly 2018 (give 21 years between wars and then make them all about 4 years), The US had finally stamped out all attempts at European independence and had enough establishing operation Byzantium. Imagine a century of one country simply being the biggest sore losers of anyone ever until they're simply conquered outright after bleeding themselves white.
1
The there are a few very funny things i see about this scenario. First off is how India Underperformed in Pakistan (the Pakistanis are notoriously corrupt and have lost literally every war with India taking more casualties than the Indians despite the latter being more populous). The other 3 have to do with geography. First is how the combined "axis" powers took 80% of India's population (but apparently not most of its industry). Second is how the Russian turn actually has most of Russia's population and industry side with the Europeans since past the Urals is almost nothing. Finally, how the "allied" occupation zones have most of China's population. One question though: how does the rest of Europe fit into this? Never seems to be very clear.
1
@hatefulgaming1800 France wouldn't be significantly more powerful at this point, and much of the reason for their loss in the Franco-Prussian war had nothing to do with population and more to do with their entire army being encircled and destroyed.
1
 @ffkkekednddndn2078 Paid back decades later and with significant American investment. No, they were designed to be crippling on purpose. It was not an amount which could be paid back.
1
Yeah this makes no sense. A huge part of the German Lebensraum idealogy (much like another commenter said) was historical German populations in Eastern Europe. There's a heritage there that is being pointed to. Secondly, it's largely a result of German colonial dearth. Germany often envied the colonial states of western Europe and their ability to export population and settle new lands. With western Europe being too heavily defended and an idea of them being too similar to Germany, they needed a different "savage" race to displace. Thus, the eastern push.
1
@boredphysicist South Africa largely had Dutch immigration and was mostly there due to lack of disease. It didn't have large English settlement. Malaria was the largest barrier to African and even new world settlement. In comparison, Algeria has a largely Mediterranean climate. It's a temperate location rather than being desert. It's only as desertified on the coast as say Greece.
1
@xenotypos So, what happens is that wars are a temporary decrease. The birthrates recover after the war almost every time until the sustained decrease of the industrial era declines. Even then it usually gets a bump up depending on how many people they lost (eastern Europe never REALLY recovered that rate after WW2, and Germany only got a small recovery bump, compared to the West's baby boom). So wars are ultimately a temporary decrease, but the time of war would, of course, increase the amount of time of that decrease. Also... while you're right about them being better in 1789 at the time of the revolution, however it's about perceptions in many ways. Even more relevant, the French revolution was an elite led phenomenon just like every revolution. I don't think the enlightenment had as much to do with the revolution so much as France being broke and the nobility having declined in ability in France due to centuries of centralization and neutering. Thus, the most relevant factor was about having a new elite formed outside of the nobility. This phenomenon happened in Britain and the Netherlands, roughly a century beforehand and produced enlightenment thinkers as a result.
1
@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators What does this have to do with ANYTHING at all I've said??
1
@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators I kind of don't care? Even more relevant, what about any of my comments really indicated anything relating at all to what you've discussed here? You still haven't explained that to me.
1
@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators Are you sure you're responding to me??
1
It largely didn't fight with the papacy though it at many times controlled said papacy. Centralized France was still very catholic and thus had little reason to complain.
1
@ThePanEthiopian I don't think the other east Africans have that future anymore. With the accession of South Sudan and the DRC, there looks to be little that truly ties all of these parties. East Africa more generally though, if you did mean that, could be. I'm very unsure on it at the moment.
1
1:41 Yeah try to build an East-West Railway through the Congo
1
Wow 0 seconds in and I'm already offended
1