If you wind history back to 1921 and run it again in every way that it could play out, in what percentage of the resulting timelines would the USSR collapse in the late 80's / early 90's as it did in ours? What percentage has it collapse earlier?
What fraction of timelines have it survive to the present day?
And in what fraction does it survive and have a successful economy in the present day? Reminder that posting zero for any of the answers is mathematically ridiculous, given that there would be practically infinite timelines.
>>656568 I just can pull the numbers out of my ass so see them more as tendencies. It is important to evaluate the factors that lead to decline and or success:
1) Collapse as in OTL: I dunno, maybe 35%. In my oppinion the soviets were pretty stable and avoided beeing captured by the nazis or nuclear war. So i guess early 90s/ late 80s are already pretty successfull outcomings for the soviets.
Earlier collapse: 45% Collapse before ww2 due to internal power struggle after lenins death or western intervention or whatnot. No help, wrong strategical decisions etc. leading to defeat by the nazis. Thermonuclear/conventional war leading to collapse of the udssr. The arms race is more extrem then OTL so slightly earlier collapse due to economic situation, same goes for another war before/parallel to afghanistan.
Dragging on till today without satellite states 10%: Hardliner remove Gorbatshev or prevent his rise to power. The economy is still fucked up but due to oppression the soviets hold on to the core terriotry of the udssr. Backwater nation not a superpower but a great power due to huge but outdated military and nuclear weapons.
Surviving till today with satellites 5%: Same as above but with massive opression in some or all satellites. Low chance due to the sorry state the soviets were in in 89.
Economically successfull and surviving till today maybe 5%. Low chance due to nature of the soviet system and the cold war that will happen in most timelines if the soviets win ww2 and are able to secure a sphere of influence. To enable a economically successfull there ae 2-3 things that could happen in some timelines: 1. A not so convinving victory in ww2. The soviets are only able to regain their own territory in ww2 evtl. without the baltic states and east poland. Without its own bloc the soviets don´t start the cold war and slowly transition to a more capitalist society after stalins death. 2. The NEP pulls through, the soviets become more and more capitalist 1/2
> for vast vast majority of evolutionary history sapians are in small bands with strict egalitarian resources distribution and communal raising of children > monogamous partnerships a result of agriculture and for most of recorded history purely contractual and primarily about property/ trade agreements. > agriculture has only existed for 12,000 years a fucking blip of a nothing on an evolutionary scale > memers on the interwebs using cuck as their most... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>655601 Most if not all immediate return foragers that have been studied fall into this category. Also bonobos and general stuff extrapolated from our penis and testy size as well as facts about female sexuality relative to other primates.
Please help me to find a flaw in my derivation for a proof of atheism: Intelligence is the ability to make decisions. To make a decision you need to conceptualise the present environment and simulate the outcomes from future actions, hence a chronological order in which you exist. That means every intelligent subject needs to be a subject of time. Since God exists outside of time and even created it, he can’t be intelligent. That leaves only room for a pantheistic God that can’t be distinguished from any other natural force, so why even care for that one.
Only attempts to deny intelligence in an anthropomorphic sense when there are other conceptions out there both within Christianity and outside Christianity. Further, denying an anthropomorphic God doesn't only enable a pantheistic god suddenly. You've done no work to assert such a thing.
Can /his/ explain to me why the Finno-Korean hyper war ended the way it did? From what I can tell the Ancient Finnish Empire was at the height of its power, and the Hwan Empire seemed to be nothing more than a small but growing eastern power.
What led to the defeat of the Finns, and their eventual retreat from Southern Europe, paving the way for the golden age of the Hwan Empire, any recommended books on the subject?
>>654751 >What led to the defeat of the Finns, and their eventual retreat from Southern Europe Wtf is this Hwan propaganda? The Finns WON the great war. All evidence about the existence of the Hwan Empire got erased whereas the Finnish Empire got it's economy totally messed up and destroyed itself after some years
>>654768 >The Finns WON the great war Read a book sometime. The Finns were obliterated by the biological warfare of the Hwans. The reverberations of weaponized autism are still felt today in Northern Europe.
Is there a historical explanation as to why Britain has almost no decent cuisine? At some some or another in history Britain have been world leaders in nearly every major category of human activity except culinary art.
>>653628 Is there any other culture that had cities comparable to tenochtitlan while also only having a similar level of technology?
Pretty sure population with tenochititlan was in the top 5 largest cities on the world when the Spanish came, around the size of Constantinople, and even aside from the population the city itself being made of stone, built on a lake, and the amount of infrastructure and agricultural stuff going on as you said at least off the top of my head is unparalleled considering stone age level cultures.
maybe this is an outright dumb question, and if it is, ill move on with my previously ignorant self, but what makes the Scottish people not more Anglo than Celt? they: >speak not only English mostly, but even have their own Anglic language, Scots, that is spoken more than Scottish Gaelic >have historical ties to Anglo-Saxon kingdoms like Northumbria >are Protestant and overall have been buddies with the English through most of their recent history
what am i missing... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Norse-Gaelic settlement that outbred/genocided the Picts (also considered Celtic), and were only slightly colonized by Anglos. By slightly, I mean enough that they made an impact but not enough to overtake them. Also, you seem to have a less than elementary understanding and could have found this info easily. People are already being spoiled by /his/.
How come the greeks have withstood all these centuries? They were there before Rome, they were after (and were Rome for centuries after the western half collapsed).
How come the romans didnt survive as an ethnic group after their empire ended? The greeks lost their lands in asia minor and other parts, yet they are still there, in their homeland. How come Rome didnt evolve like that?
It wasn't just the loss of life, but the loss of learning and culture and civilization. Probably the worst such event until the Mongols destroyed Baghdad, or maybe the Qin empire's cultural destruction of its rivals.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.