Oppenheimer (2023)

Kirun · Aug 2, 2023

Araysar said:
Imagine being so retarded that you think that nuking Chinese troops in some regional skirmish would prevent China from emerging as a superpower half a century later?

Stop them from emerging as a major power? Eh, maybe not. It's too hard to tell without knowing what their reaction would've been. Instantly vaporizing a couple hundred thousand males really does wonders for population growth though, just ask the Soviets. And the Japanese have been eating out of our asses for the past 80 years.

So, it's likely we'd have had a much less "adversarial" relationship with them at the very least and would've delayed/stopped their emergence of power at the best.

Araysar · Aug 2, 2023

Kirun said:
Stop them from emerging as a major power? Eh, maybe not. It's too hard to tell without knowing what their reaction would've been. Instantly vaporizing a couple hundred thousand males really does wonders for population growth though, just ask the Soviets. And the Japanese have been eating out of our asses for the past 80 years.

So, it's likely we'd have had a much less "adversarial" relationship with them at the very least and would've delayed/stopped their emergence of power at the best.

Imagine killing "a couple hundred thousand males" and thinking it does anything for population growth when the Chinese GLF kills up to 50 million a decade later and Chinese still end up the most populous country in the world.

These retarded edgelord "solutions" always have zero thought behind them.

Kirun · Aug 2, 2023

Araysar said:
These retarded edgelord "solutions" always have zero thought behind them.

Interesting coming from a guy who believes Russia are able to defend themselves against US aggression with nukes, if necessary.

The same thing the US should've done against Soviet aggression, but somehow the US has to be "better" - you know..for the "good" of humanity, lest nuclear doctrine "FOREVER BE CHANGED!!!". And any land grabs by Soviets/Russians were/are just to create "buffers" against foreign invasion but if the US does it, we're warmongers, colonizers, and aggressors. Nice double standards you have there.

This is exactly why debating you is retarded and it's more productive to just troll you.

Araysar · Aug 2, 2023

Kirun said:
Interesting coming from a guy who believes Russia are able to defend themselves against US aggression with nukes, if necessary.

The same thing the US should've done against Soviet aggression, but somehow the US has to be "better" - you know..for the "good" of humanity, lest nuclear doctrine "FOREVER BE CHANGED!!!". And any land grabs by Soviets/Russians were/are just to create "buffers" against foreign invasion but if the US does it, we're warmongers, colonizers, and aggressors. Nice double standards you have there.

This is exactly why debating you is retarded and it's more productive to just troll you.

You're not talking about "defending" yourself. You're talking about forcing Chinese into some sort of tributary role in perpetuity just because youre afraid of them. The rest of your "Muh double standards!" post is dumb and disingenuous too.

Like I said, stupid edgelord "solutions". This is type of shit that 16 year old kids came up with in AOL chat rooms.

LMAO, at "trolling me". You'll write essays and I just lob 2 sentence replies back at you

Kirun · Aug 2, 2023

Araysar said:
You're not talking about "defending" yourself. You're talking about forcing Chinese into some sort of tributary role in perpetuity just because youre afraid of them.

Just because you say, "nuh uh!" and got a useless history degree, it doesn't change the facts. All our expansion has been about defense.

Araysar · Aug 2, 2023

Kirun said:
Just because you say, "nuh uh!" and got a useless history degree, it doesn't change the facts. All our expansion has been about defense.

We are not discussing facts, just your dipshit teenage edgelord fantasies.

Cybsled · Aug 2, 2023

Consider what would have happened

1) Korean War is won and communist North is defeated. United Korea.
2) China accelerates its own nuclear program - as victims of first strike, their political views on that are altered to preventing that again, which means they become more aggressive
3) Russia already has nukes at this point, they accelerate their own program
4) Events like the Berlin Crisis or Cuban Crisis have the potential to go hot since usage of nukes, even if just to create a buffer zone, has been normalized
5) Nuclear proliferation is even worse in this timeline, resulting in more actors capable of starting a large nuclear exchange

The 20th and 21st century have mostly been shaped by fear of nuclear exchange. If that fear is removed by virtue of nations having a much lower bar to use them, then geopolitical stability becomes much more tenuous

Kirun · Aug 2, 2023

Cybsled said:
Consider what would have happened

1) Korean War is won and communist North is defeated. United Korea.
2) China accelerates its own nuclear program - as victims of first strike, their political views on that are altered to preventing that again, which means they become more aggressive
3) Russia already has nukes at this point, they accelerate their own program
4) Events like the Berlin Crisis or Cuban Crisis have the potential to go hot since usage of nukes, even if just to create a buffer zone, has been normalized
5) Nuclear proliferation is even worse in this timeline, resulting in more actors capable of starting a large nuclear exchange

The 20th and 21st century have mostly been shaped by fear of nuclear exchange. If that fear is removed by virtue of nations having a much lower bar to use them, then geopolitical stability becomes much more tenuous

6) We bomb China and the Soviets into the stone age/submission because they don't have a bomb, we do, and we make sure they never get one. They eventually capitulate and become our pawns similar to what happened with Japan.

Or we can go with your timeline, where the bombs aren't used for the "good of humanity" and we see how well that has worked out for the US and the world. Things are going great.

Rajaah · Aug 2, 2023

Burns said:
While Stalin was certainly one of the worst people in modern history, I don't think he would have started a war in Europe. He seemed rather focused on internal politics and those would always be tenuous. Plus, the mobilization of the Russian military/economy didn't really start until after Hitler started making major moves toward war. Without trying to find it again, I think it might have been as late as Anschluss (1938), before Stalin got the message.

The USSR military was in terrible shape preceding that and they were scrambling to get ready for the fight they knew was coming. Stalin didn't really have a choice in 1939; the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was made at the point of a gun. While both sides perceived the other as having a stronger military than they had, Germany, in 1938, was far more mobilized and able to make war than the USSR.

Stalin was more opportunistic than anything else, and why I think he tried to take Finland.

I've read that France was, at the very least, forming contingency plans circa 1936 or so for a fight with the USSR. They seemed to be under the impression that eventually they'd have to deal with Stalin if his sphere expanded. That's part of why I think the USSR and Europe would have eventually fought, nobody trusted Stalin.

Araysar said:
Nobody was as aggressive as the Germans at that time, this equivocation is pure hyperbole. USSR was being relentlessly attacked by the West through the first 20 years of its history, why wouldn't it establish buffer zones where it could?

Ever read about the time when UK, US, Canada, Australia, France, Italy, Greece and Japan invaded USSR after WW1 to overthrow the Soviet government? I bet they still leave that one out of the history textbooks.

I meant that the USSR was just as aggressive as Germany early on with Poland specifically, not in general. My bad for not using more words. Germany obviously was much more aggressive before that with annexations and throwing negotiating weight around. Then again there's also Finland.

Nope I've never heard of that launching of a barrage against the Soviet Union, so they probably did leave it out of the textbooks (and pop culture).

USSR was a mess in the 20's with Bolsheviks killing everybody and clamping down on ideology and free speech, like what a lot of modern leftists would probably love to see happen here (long as someone else did it). Maybe they (the allies) were trying to liberate the people from decades of hell.

Kirun said:
Stop them from emerging as a major power? Eh, maybe not. It's too hard to tell without knowing what their reaction would've been. Instantly vaporizing a couple hundred thousand males really does wonders for population growth though, just ask the Soviets. And the Japanese have been eating out of our asses for the past 80 years.

So, it's likely we'd have had a much less "adversarial" relationship with them at the very least and would've delayed/stopped their emergence of power at the best.

Russia's population is weirdly low for their size. Slightly larger than Japan. Always figured it was because Siberia is mostly unlivable area and the population is sparsely distributed. Maybe you're right, and it's actually because they suffered a catastrophic loss of breeding-age men in the 40's?

Having had a few Russian friends who were all solid AF people, and one girlfriend for a few months who was from St Petersburg, I heard plenty about their worldview over the years. Being Russian over the last century was like one apocalypse after another and I don't think Americans by and large have any idea of what that's like.

Rajaah · Aug 2, 2023

Might be an interesting question for the room: Who do people think was the most powerful country in the world circa 1938?

I'm leaning British Empire. Their problem was that their forces were spread out all around the planet, with huge percentages of them parked far away from Europe. Once hostilities started they didn't have time to rein in most of their power to a local area. Then a lot of their mainland troops got cornered. If Dunkirk hadn't gone so well for them they would have been even further crippled.

Despite all of this they very successfully held off Germany throwing an inferno at them. Britain's giant moat is also a big strategic benefit though, and without the moat it's likely Germany would have beaten them. But still, I think this was because the British forces were so dispersed.

Other candidates are USSR and Germany itself. But USSR wasn't exactly prepared. US was probably like #9 on the global firepower scale at the time. Japan was likely top four but I wouldn't put them above the other 3. Britain also did some serious damage in North Africa and pretty handily routed Italy (which to be fair is kind of like handily routing Lichtenstein)

So yeah, 1938, I'd say USSR #3, Japan #4. Germany and Britain in contention for the strongest. Britain's dispersal was a big handicap and Germany having to constantly divert forces to bail out Italy in their fights was a big handicap.

If Britain and Germany had joined forces to take over the world, they would have been unstoppable. Same goes for Germany + USSR which was much more unlikely to happen.

Oh shit, I forgot France. They were said to have Europe's biggest army circa 1938, but it collapsed quickly against Germany. Then Britain annihilated their shipyards even more quickly to prevent Germany from gaining control of the French Navy. So at the time people might have speculated that France was #1 in power level but it would have been a gross misjudgment. On paper they might have been #3 or #4 but their performance was so bad that I'd put them behind Japan. I don't know though.

Araysar · Aug 2, 2023

Rajaah said:
I meant that the USSR was just as aggressive as Germany early on with Poland specifically, not in general. My bad for not using more words. Germany obviously was much more aggressive before that with annexations and throwing negotiating weight around. Then again there's also Finland.

But thats not exactly true either.

Annexation of Poland by USSR was just a byproduct of MR Pact, not the goal. For USSR this wasnt about aggressive expansion, it was about buying time. As you mentioned, Germany annexed Austria in 1938 and then Sudetenland later that year. Poland was no innocent virgin either who was Eiffel Towered by 2 mean dictators as Poland annexed chunks of Sudetenland in 1938 as well.

And if we take the entirety of the world into consideration, well some say that WW2 kicked off not in Poland in 1939 but in China in 1937 when the Japanese invaded.

So how was USSR just as aggressive as Germany? This just isnt true.

Rajaah said:
Nope I've never heard of that launching of a barrage against the Soviet Union, so they probably did leave it out of the textbooks (and pop culture).

USSR was a mess in the 20's with Bolsheviks killing everybody and clamping down on ideology and free speech, like what a lot of modern leftists would probably love to see happen here (long as someone else did it). Maybe they (the allies) were trying to liberate the people from decades of hell.

"Maybe they were trying to liberate them"

LMAO. They were trying to prop up the White forces (old Tsarists, anti-Bolsheviks) in the Russian Civil War and bring Tsarism back because the West was terrified of Bolshevism. You can debate whether Bolshevism or Tsarism was better for the people then, but "liberation" was not what this was about. Just ask the Iraqis about western "liberations". There were no "decades of hell" yet, that would come later.

Rajaah said:
Having had a few Russian friends who were all solid AF people, and one girlfriend for a few months who was from St Petersburg, I heard plenty about their worldview over the years. Being Russian over the last century was like one apocalypse after another and I don't think Americans by and large have any idea of what that's like.

Araysar · Aug 2, 2023

Rajaah said:
Might be an interesting question for the room: Who do people think was the most powerful country in the world circa 1938?

I'm leaning British Empire. Their problem was that their forces were spread out all around the planet, with huge percentages of them parked far away from Europe. Once hostilities started they didn't have time to rein in most of their power to a local area. Then a lot of their mainland troops got cornered. If Dunkirk hadn't gone so well for them they would have been even further crippled.

Despite all of this they very successfully held off Germany throwing an inferno at them. Britain's giant moat is also a big strategic benefit though, and without the moat it's likely Germany would have beaten them. But still, I think this was because the British forces were so dispersed.

Other candidates are USSR and Germany itself. But USSR wasn't exactly prepared. US was probably like #9 on the global firepower scale at the time. Japan was likely top four but I wouldn't put them above the other 3. Britain also did some serious damage in North Africa and pretty handily routed Italy (which to be fair is kind of like handily routing Lichtenstein)

So yeah, 1938, I'd say USSR #3, Japan #4. Germany and Britain in contention for the strongest. Britain's dispersal was a big handicap and Germany having to constantly divert forces to bail out Italy in their fights was a big handicap.

If Britain and Germany had joined forces to take over the world, they would have been unstoppable. Same goes for Germany + USSR which was much more unlikely to happen.

Oh shit, I forgot France. They were said to have Europe's biggest army circa 1938, but it collapsed quickly against Germany. Then Britain annihilated their shipyards even more quickly to prevent Germany from gaining control of the French Navy. So at the time people might have speculated that France was #1 in power level but it would have been a gross misjudgment. On paper they might have been #3 or #4 but their performance was so bad that I'd put them behind Japan. I don't know though.

LOL Britain

That's a good one.

Britain sucked up all of the magical Lendlease and contributed about 0.02% to the war. They got chased off the mainland and never made it back until Germany was broken.

Cybsled · Aug 2, 2023

Kirun said:
6) We bomb China and the Soviets into the stone age/submission because they don't have a bomb, we do, and we make sure they never get one. They eventually capitulate and become our pawns similar to what happened with Japan.

The Soviets had nuclear weapons during the Korean War. Their first nuclear test was in 1949. Korean War was 1950-1953.

Burns · Aug 2, 2023

Rajaah said:
I've read that France was, at the very least, forming contingency plans circa 1936 or so for a fight with the USSR. They seemed to be under the impression that eventually they'd have to deal with Stalin if his sphere expanded. That's part of why I think the USSR and Europe would have eventually fought, nobody trusted Stalin.

The West was in fear of a USSR invasion for the entirety of the USSR's existence. AFAIK, when the USSR fell, they could not find any serious plans on a war of aggression in Europe in the Kremlin archive. Everything was on how they would defend themselves if they were attacked.

They were all in on KGB subterfuge and supporting communist orgs throughout the world, though.

As for what country was the most powerful in 1938, it's probably way too complicated to get an overall "winner." Without spending time checking numbers (outside of carrier counts):

The Brits had the strongest Navy, if you base it on WW1 doctrine, but the US and Japan had new Aircraft carriers, making the British Navy obsolete, virtually overnight (the UK built 1 modern carrier by Dec 1938). The Brits also needed it's colonial troops where they were, in order to keep those colonies subservient.

The French had the largest Army and the fourth best Navy in 1938, but their whole defense doctrine relied on the Dutch, who screwed them over by trying to stay neutral. If the Dutch had actually deployed it's military correctly, the Maginot line would have probably worked, and we would not be sitting here thinking they were worthless and weak.

Almost as soon as Hitler took over, he started building up his military. They were probably number 1 or 2 in terms of Army, some of which had been battle hardened in Spain and the modernity of their armor/gear was a major contributor. They were far behind on the Navy side of things, though.

The Soviet Army looked like it was purposely kept weak, as to not become a threat to the Kremlin (Stalin). It didn't help that Stalin executed various high ranking men in all branches of the Soviet military. I don't know exactly how far along they were in the mobilization process in 1938, but they may have been stronger than at least Italy! The Soviet Navy was not a priority for them and almost a non-factor.

The US had the strongest Navy with 5 modern fleet carriers in 1938, but a very small weak army still using ww1 gear.

Japan would get my vote (guess) for strongest overall in 1938. They had the second best Navy with 3 fleet carriers and a fully battle hardened army that had been fighting in China for years. Their Aircraft was some of the best at the time, with a lot of them in production. They skimped on armor, small arms, and other areas to use those resources on the Navy and Aircraft, though.

Kirun · Aug 2, 2023

Cybsled said:
The Soviets had nuclear weapons during the Korean War. Their first nuclear test was in 1949. Korean War was 1950-1953.

They really didn't. They didn't test a 2nd nuclear device until '51.

And even if they did, what were they going to use to drop it? They only produced 1 4 engine bomber around WW2, they only built 93 of them, stopped production in '44, and they couldn't touch the US outside of maybe Alaska with it, which wasn't even a state at the time anyways - so, what real interest would the US have really had in "protecting" it, outside of the military installations there? You think the Soviets were going to sneak one on-board their non-existent Navy and sail it through the Pacific theatre to Hawaii?

But let's go ahead with this little fairytale of yours and say they drop it in North Korea on US troops. Do you honestly think that 1950 USSR could win a nuclear arms war with 1950 America?

Cybsled · Aug 2, 2023

No, of course not. I never said they had parity, I just said they had nukes

DickTrickle · Aug 2, 2023

All argument aside, I think

Rajaah must have went to the worst high school in the world because he mentions being misled by his textbook/school in basically every single post.

Araysar · Aug 3, 2023

Kirun said:
They really didn't. They didn't test a 2nd nuclear device until '51.

And even if they did, what were they going to use to drop it? They only produced 1 4 engine bomber around WW2, they only built 93 of them, stopped production in '44, and they couldn't touch the US outside of maybe Alaska with it, which wasn't even a state at the time anyways - so, what real interest would the US have really had in "protecting" it, outside of the military installations there? You think the Soviets were going to sneak one on-board their non-existent Navy and sail it through the Pacific theatre to Hawaii?

But let's go ahead with this little fairytale of yours and say they drop it in North Korea on US troops. Do you honestly think that 1950 USSR could win a nuclear arms war with 1950 America?

LOL, all this edgelord theorycrafting about how USSR couldn't deliver a nuke against a US and yet zero theorycrafting about how US was going to prevent USSR from building one.

Kirun · Aug 3, 2023

Araysar said:
LOL, all this edgelord theorycrafting about how USSR couldn't deliver a nuke against a US and yet zero theorycrafting about how US was going to prevent USSR from building one.

Pretty hard to spin up nuclear manufacturing in a theoretical where USSR is at war with the US and they're on their back porch, touching China. With the world's greatest Navy sitting in port. All while just having had your entire homeland decimated by bombing, revolutions, starvation, war, etc. 5 years prior. Sounds EZPZ.

Araysar · Aug 3, 2023

Kirun said:
Pretty hard to spin up nuclear manufacturing in a theoretical where USSR is at war with the US and they're on their back porch, touching China. With the world's greatest Navy sitting in port. All while just having had your entire homeland decimated by bombing, revolutions, starvation, war, etc. 5 years prior. Sounds EZPZ.

Pretty easy actually in a country that's 10 time zones wide, that US can't invade, and satellite surveillance is nonexistent

Oppenheimer (2023)

Buzzfeed Editor

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

Buzzfeed Editor

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

Buzzfeed Editor

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

Buzzfeed Editor

Honorable Member

Honorable Member

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

Avatar of War Slayer

Buzzfeed Editor

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

Buzzfeed Editor

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.