Topic: The white man and his high vibrational contraptions
Anonymous A started this discussion 17 hours ago#132,571
Europe was already at a level of advancement in the 1300s that was far beyond anything that has ever been achieved by another culture! Just look at the level of engineering:
> Remember when the Japanese Imperial Air Force nuked the west?
LOL. The Japanese war machine was Bushido-deluded and was basically out of oil by 1943. They had a weak maintenance and logistics corps. They never figured out how to do blood transfusion bags.
1.8M of 3.1M military casualties were due to starvation and disease. Troops were making their own shoes. Their great successes were against weak constabulary forces of imperial powers or due to MacArthur’s panic attack when Japan seized the Philippines.
The army would have had a chance if it had been listened to and seized Siberia and its resources instead of the navy winning out on a dilutive and unsustainable island campaign.
Some black guy replied with this 15 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,415,109
@previous (D)
So, I know Russia has always had some form of bad governance, but there’s a reason why Russia has the same GDP as Italy even though it’s capitalist. Siberia is Siberia. Are there resources in Siberia? Yes. Are they worth the effort of living in Siberia? No.
Some black guy double-posted this 15 hours ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,415,110
If you really think about Hitler’s plan for the Soviet Union, starving everybody to death, then replacing the native population, it’s a recipe for failure. Because there’s a pretty strong correlation between birth rates and poverty. The poorest countries have the most children. Russia has a lot of farmland, but it’s still Russia. It’s too cold to support a high population. So if Hitler successfully wiped the native Slavs out and then had a bunch of Germans move in to breed like rabbits and the Japanese did the same thing, Russia would probably wind up way worse than Africa. Their entire plan was kind of dumb, even if they won, they would have just created the worst society on Earth.
Some black guy triple-posted this 15 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,111
Can you imagine if the Japanese actually invaded the Soviet Union from the other side and met the Germans in the middle of Siberia? Can you imagine what kind of society that would create with two totalitarian governments trying to breed as much as possible in the middle of a frozen wasteland when they’re two different races and believe in exterminating races that are unlike their own? That would be the absolutely worst place on the planet.
> Can you imagine if the Japanese actually invaded the Soviet Union from the other side and met the Germans in the middle of Siberia? Can you imagine what kind of society that would create with two totalitarian governments trying to breed as much as possible in the middle of a frozen wasteland when they’re two different races and believe in exterminating races that are unlike their own? That would be the absolutely worst place on the planet.
They would have met in India. Eventually there would have been a war between the hegemony. Hitler even said he planned a “reckoning with the yellow man.”
On Siberia, the USSR had closed cities and some like Norilsk persist due to minerals.
As to your post on wiping out the Slavs, Hitler wanted to diminish them by tens of millions then keep the rest and their descendants essentially as serfs to grow food with no education beyond third grade and a subsistence existence. In an evil way this made sense - people stuck in a daily grind rarely rebel, and if they do they end up like all of the medieval and Russian peasant rebellions.
Some black guy replied with this 14 hours ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,116
@previous (D)
There are some examples when enslaved people did rise up. In Haiti for example, the slaves actually successfully revolted. I don’t doubt that something similar could have happened with Slavs if the Nazis won. Germany and Japan just didn’t have enough people that they ever could have taken over the entire world. They would have spread themselves so thin that it would make resistance too easy. The world had more than 2 billion people back then but Germany and Japan were just 70 million each.
Some black guy double-posted this 14 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,117
I guess the dumbest thing the axis powers did in World War Two was try to fight the Soviet Union, America, and China at the same time. Fighting just one of those three countries could have eventually resulted in their defeat, but all three at the same time is just dumb.
> There are some examples when enslaved people did rise up. In Haiti for example, the slaves actually successfully revolted. I don’t doubt that something similar could have happened with Slavs if the Nazis won. Germany and Japan just didn’t have enough people that they ever could have taken over the entire world. They would have spread themselves so thin that it would make resistance too easy. The world had more than 2 billion people back then but Germany and Japan were just 70 million each.
The Nazis were looking into twins research and banned abortion for a reason. They also kidnapped “Aryan looking” kids for their pseudo science.
Very few slave and peasant rebellions worked. Haiti had the brilliant leadership of Toussant L’Ouverture and the benefit of a yellow fever pandemic and French distraction. Geography also was a determinant. Russia would have had a permanent resupplied military presence, some kind of auxiliaries (think: Trawniki Men) and an eight-lane Audobon from Berlin to Moscow. Plus the Germans would have elevated various collaborators like Vlasov, Krasov, and Kaminski.
Thing is it’s all conjecture because Germany lost the war in 1941 at Moscow.
Some black guy replied with this 14 hours ago, 25 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,122
@1,415,118 (B)
They inherited the Soviet Union’s seat because they’re considered the successor of the USSR. They’re a military power because since they’re authoritarian they can devote more of their resources to the military, but it comes at the expensive of the quality of life of ordinary Russians. It’s basically an oligarchy / fake democracy with thousands of nukes lying around. China has a much better economy than Russia and I’d also argue minus nuclear weapons, they’ve become a superior military power when compared with Russia. For example, they have more aircraft carriers than Russia does.
> I guess the dumbest thing the axis powers did in World War Two was try to fight the Soviet Union, America, and China at the same time. Fighting just one of those three countries could have eventually resulted in their defeat, but all three at the same time is just dumb.
The Axis also had a poor coordination mechanism and no meaningful materiel support. No Lend Lease and both were inferior in production output and logistics anyway.
Check out the campaign in Madagascar. The Brits fought French Vichy troops aligned with Japanese subs. Kind of interesting.
But yeah, invading land masses that will swallow your armies doesn’t work in Risk, let alone real life.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 hours ago, 30 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,124
@1,415,122 (Some black guy)
Explaining the history doesn't change the fact that Russia succeeded when they were leading the USSR, and today have a seat at a very exclusive table that gets to make security decisions for the world.
Some black guy replied with this 14 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,126
@previous (B)
I don’t deny at all that the Soviet Union was the second most powerful country after the United States and during the Cold War, they had the second largest economy, and were on a level playing field technologically with the United States. But the Soviet Union collapsed before I was born. Now it’s China and then after that at some point India will surpass China, because Chinese people aren’t having children.
Some black guy replied with this 14 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,131
India is a technologically advanced country. Despite being poor, they have nuclear weapons and a space program. If you walk into an engineering or computer science lecture hall at a major university in the US, you’ll find half the students are Indian and the other half are Chinese. The entire white supremacist idea that Indians are stupid is baseless. The smartest students I’ve met in university are mostly Indians.
> I don’t deny at all that the Soviet Union was the second most powerful country after the United States and during the Cold War, they had the second largest economy, and were on a level playing field technologically with the United States. But the Soviet Union collapsed before I was born. Now it’s China and then after that at some point India will surpass China, because Chinese people aren’t having children.
The USSR began to die after Kruschev and its decline accelerated thereafter. Tech change to computing, poor infrastructure, and reliance on oil exports hurt, along with a society few were truly invested in. Life sucks in Communism. I have a bunch of Soviet kitsch and they were always rewarding themselves for every minor thing. Lots of marching and empty ceremonies, military vehicles driven 3x around the parade to exaggerate mass.
Only the Politburo lived well. Plus, their members were the primary beneficiaries of the black market that could allow the command economy to occasionally pretend it worked.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 hours ago, 27 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,141
@1,415,136 (Some black guy)
China is producing more, and better robots.
I'm sure you can find some midsize company in Mumbai making robots, but this isn't a binary.
There are multiple humanoid robot companies in China, multiple leading companies in drone technology, they are manufacturing a lot of specialty automation bots too.
India doesn't compare. Number of people doesn't matter.
Some black guy replied with this 14 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,142
@previous (B)
And? China doesn’t have any interest in taking over Africa militarily. They have other problems, but they haven’t shown any signs of doing that. I think they’re more interested in Taiwan.
Some black guy replied with this 14 hours ago, 45 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,145
@1,415,143 (B)
And? China isn’t going to invade India, they have nuclear weapons, and why would China invade Africa? They’ve known about the existence of Africa for hundreds of years and they’ve never done it. What’s different now?
Some black guy triple-posted this 14 hours ago, 39 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,147
If anything what’s more likely is China would try to sell the drones to African countries, and whether or not China could disable them remotely, that would be more of the security threat I think.
> The question isn't "can you find one example of technology being made in the 3rd world". > > The question is who can mass produce highly effective bots. China is doing that, India and Africa aren't even close in their production.
This is absolutely true. Ethiopia is at about 300/month. Nobody in the world can top DJI.
India is more of a mess from Nehru’s legacy than China is from Mao’s. How weird is that? Then again, India has never had a prime minister of Deng Xioping quality who completely pivoted the country to fledgling superpower.
India also is stuck in a stupid caste system that automatically disenfranchises hundreds of millions of people from birth.
Some black guy replied with this 14 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,149
I honestly really don’t think that China has the capability to take over Africa even if they wanted to, given where China is located geographically. I think China has military interests in Asia and future economic interests in Africa.
Anonymous C double-posted this 14 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,150
Mainly, China is struggling with low birth rates. If everybody only has one kid, the nation shrinks by half in the next generation. That’s not ideal if you aspire to be a powerful nation. Africa has the highest birth rates and is the most underdeveloped part of the world, so while the west and Asia are declining from aging populations, Africa will still have much more healthy demographics for sustaining a large workforce. So I think the Chinese are planning on gaining influence in Africa now in the 21st century while China is strong so that in the 22nd century when China is weak and Africa is stronger hopefully Africa is somewhat aligned with them.
Anonymous C triple-posted this 14 hours ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,151
I think that’s also why the Chinese have been accepting more African international students than the United States has. They want to gain influence in future generations of African elites.
Anonymous C quadruple-posted this 13 hours ago, 9 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,152
I mean, the US won’t take over Africa, because the US has a large black population so that would cause mass social unrest in the United States. Africa has more people than it did in the past, so you would need mass mobilization of American citizens in order to hold significant territory in any part of Africa that not an underpopulated desert. The Europeans definitely aren’t going to do it. Russia can’t, they don’t have a big enough navy. And then China, I just don’t see it. I don’t think Africa will ever be recolonized. If somebody tried, you’d have countries all over the place starting nuclear weapons programs.
Anonymous C quintuple-posted this 13 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,153
Like the George Floyd thing. That was just one guy. If you told Americans you’re getting drafted to go die in Africa killing black people, the reaction would be way more extreme than that was.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 hours ago, 41 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,155
@1,415,152 (C)
This isn't Risk™, both the US and China have national leaders that are loyal to their bloc, and both have corporations that can operate in the countries without worrying about red tape.
Light black black light double-posted this 12 hours ago, 9 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,161
In actuality what African countries do, is they go to the Chinese and they tell the Chinese that those European and Americans are investing more money than China and the Chinese are losing influence. Then what they do, is they turn around to the Europeans and Americans and they say that the Chinese are investing more in Africa and the Europeans and Americans are losing their influence. Then they rinse and repeat.
Anonymous B replied with this 12 hours ago, 16 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,163
@1,415,160 (Light black black light)
The US has military bass in Egypt, Kenya, Djibouti and more. They could Maduro a foreign leader out if they really needed to, Russia's equipment didn't help Venezuela.
There are American corporations that operate across national lines and can pay off politicians.
Light black black light replied with this 10 hours ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,167
@previous (B)
China also has a military base in Djibouti. There are also pro Russian states in the Sahel region. The United States only has military bases in African countries because those African countries want to have US bases. We don’t control any country in Africa. If we did something like that with an African leader, Russia and China would become much more popular in Africa, so we shouldn’t do that.
Light black black light double-posted this 10 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,168
The fact that South Africa invited Russia, China, and Iran for naval war games near Cape Town after the United States accused South Africa of genocide against white people, and the fact that South Africa has accused a US ally of genocide and yet the United States has done nothing should show you that the United States actually doesn’t have that much influence over what countries in Africa do.
Light black black light triple-posted this 10 hours ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,169
Also I’ll just point out that there is a big difference between a "US base" and a permanent US base. If you actually google what the purpose of those US bases are that you mentioned, and how many troops are actually stationed there, you’ll be surprised. They’re not equivalent to what we have in Germany or Japan. The US doesn’t have a large military presence in Africa. There are more US troops in just the UK than in the entire continent of Africa.
Anonymous B replied with this 10 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,170
@1,415,167 (Light black black light)
I already said China has influence in Africa, and kidnapping Maduro didn't help Russia or China, don't think Africa is any different.
Anonymous B double-posted this 10 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,172
@1,415,169 (Light black black light)
The US isn't going to put a permanent military base in South Africa to protect d*tch afrikaaner farmers. A soundbite for awareness yes, but not real money.
The US has troops in the UK to stop Pakistani organized crime and cuckold dibblebobbies from ravaging the last white women with their virtue.
> I already said China has influence in Africa, and kidnapping Maduro didn't help Russia or China, don't think Africa is any different.
It’s a bit weird when you consider that Nigeria is opposed to the Russian backed Sahel states and has bought weapons from the United States in the past but Trump started complaining about Nigeria instead of the pro Russian Sahel states and bombed Nigeria instead of bombing one of the pro Russian Sahel states.
Light black black light triple-posted this 10 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,177
The problem is if you go into Africa with a white supremacist might makes right mentality and you just see them all as the same, you’re going to make stupid decisions that work against your own interests.
Light black black light quadruple-posted this 10 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,178
And those missile strikes on Nigeria didn’t really achieve anything, Nigeria has 200 million people. It’s all performative bullshit to make Trump look like more of a man than he really is.
Anonymous B replied with this 9 hours ago, 22 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,185
@1,415,176 (Light black black light)
He threatens all the allies to test their loyalty, and if you look at the deals he makes rather than editorialized headlines you'd know that it works.
Light black black light triple-posted this 9 hours ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,189
You see, the problem with this is, if you threaten your allies, then they’re not your allies anymore because now they’re spending more on defense to fight you.
Light black black light replied with this 9 hours ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,192
@previous (B)
Well are you neurodivergent? If you’re not then I’m sorry for putting down neurodivergent people by comparing them to you, because you’re the dumbest fucking person I’ve ever seen.
Light black black light double-posted this 9 hours ago, 17 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,415,195
If anything you should be grateful that I gave you the benefit of the doubt to assume you must be so stupid it’s a mental disability rather than assume the more likely explanation which is you’re just this selfish an narcissistic because you’re pure evil.
> I honestly really don’t think that China has the capability to take over Africa even if they wanted to, given where China is located geographically. I think China has military interests in Asia and future economic interests in Africa.
China is grabbing resources and rare earths. It has no interest in administration, nation building, or other time-wasting, go-nowhere activities.