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

  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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Why is this from 4 days ago?
    1
  5. ​@mdtrw What was the context of the full quote/conversation? What was said before it to justify that it was against specifically Mao?
    1
  6. 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
  7. I think the most interesting question to me, is if Islam still comes about without the interference of Christianity
    1
  8. i think he made it already
    1
  9.  @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
  10.  @bkjeong4302  exactly
    1
  11. @pelinalwhitestrake3367  The nations as of Avatar consolidated lol
    1
  12. 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
  13. Well, barring the final bit in the cold War decolonization, and the world wars, it kind of did.
    1
  14. 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
  15.  @chinchillaruby4170  In terms of genetics they are
    1
  16. Tbh that spending alone explains why so many were easy to conquer
    1
  17. How is this not posted April 1st?
    1
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. So where's central Asia?
    1
  21. ​@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
  22. i love this too much
    1
  23. ​ @hungvu262 It's there and independent
    1
  24. 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
  25.  @NiktheSl1ck  Which is why he went over the history of our real world
    1
  26. What if Poland and Romania unified instead? That one sounds more fun, and arguably a more interesting run
    1
  27. ​@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
  28. ​​ @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
  29. ​ @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
  30. ​​​ @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
  31. 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
  32. So Germany keeps trying and thus turns America into Rome conquering Greece
    1
  33. I expected North Macedonia
    1
  34. 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
  35. ​@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
  36. @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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. ​ @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
  40. ​ @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
  41. 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
  42. ​ @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
  43. @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
  44.  @RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators What does this have to do with ANYTHING at all I've said??
    1
  45. @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
  46.  @RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators  Are you sure you're responding to me??
    1
  47. 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
  48. ​ @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
  49. 1:41 Yeah try to build an East-West Railway through the Congo
    1
  50. Wow 0 seconds in and I'm already offended
    1