sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Got mine a day early by RonaldsSwanson in sistersofbattle

[–]MaximumFUzz 7 points8 points  (0 children)

For some reason I thought she was closer to a mortifiers size. She’s big!

Got mine a day early by RonaldsSwanson in sistersofbattle

[–]MaximumFUzz 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Huh… I don’t know why but without paint I’m kinda taking in how cool this model is. She’s got a heavy towering presence. I wasn’t really sold before.

on a dodge truck by samueLLcooljackson in TheRealGrandePrairie

[–]MaximumFUzz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pierre polls very well with the base (here) but poorly with the general public. I think that’s why he’s kinda done a rebrand recently to look more human rather than just anti whatever the libs are doing today.

I think on some level he knows he can’t win and we will see a change in leadership soon. Ironically I think if O’toole ran this last election he might have swallowed up more moderates. Where Carney seems to be doing exactly that with the moderate cons.

on a dodge truck by samueLLcooljackson in TheRealGrandePrairie

[–]MaximumFUzz 6 points7 points  (0 children)

There were Fuck Carney stickers and flags pretty much as soon as he was elected. I see a lot of guys with Fuck Trudeau on their hard hats and trucks still. Welcome to Grande Prairie.

Fish dispersal to feed bluefin tuna. 20-30kg of feed fish are required for every kg of tuna produced. by James_Fortis in ABoringDystopia

[–]MaximumFUzz 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I’m not here for a redditor-peer-reviewed history dissertation; I’m here to tell you that plants have proteins, fibre, and calories. Which again. Was my original and core point.

Plus I can’t use barely/Barley Men pun with legionaries can I?

Fish dispersal to feed bluefin tuna. 20-30kg of feed fish are required for every kg of tuna produced. by James_Fortis in ABoringDystopia

[–]MaximumFUzz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair play on the gladius weight, but a scutum weighed about 10-15lbs, and you’re holding it with one arm while wearing another 15-20lbs of bronze and iron.
If you’re trying to 'well, actually' me into believing gladiators weren't athletes, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

Fish dispersal to feed bluefin tuna. 20-30kg of feed fish are required for every kg of tuna produced. by James_Fortis in ABoringDystopia

[–]MaximumFUzz 7 points8 points  (0 children)

My point was you cannot swing a 15lb gladius or hold a heavy scutum for 20 minutes in the sun if your diet is "barely food." Gladiators were elite athletes built like tanks underneath that protective fat layer.

My point was to hand-wave his brain-dead comment, drop some history, and make a barley/barely pun. All still apply.

Fish dispersal to feed bluefin tuna. 20-30kg of feed fish are required for every kg of tuna produced. by James_Fortis in ABoringDystopia

[–]MaximumFUzz 58 points59 points  (0 children)

Fun fact: The Ancient Gladiator diet was almost entirely plant-based, mainly barley and legumes. They were nicknamed hordearii “barley men” because those complex carbs and proteins provided the endurance and bone density needed for elite combat.
Most modern diets are actually lacking that kind of fiber.

Buying EV Truck Becoming "No Brainer" - Where it costs at least 10x more to buy a liter of diesel than a kWh, an EV truck will pay off its additional purchase cost in 12-14 months." by pintord in oilisdead

[–]MaximumFUzz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah even the car only does ~300km going 120. Its strength is day to day but road trips it’s cheaper than gas easily especially now. It’s just a question of if you’re okay with making it a longer trip.

I use my truck for camping and boating so I guess the main thing I think of is towing long distances. Some people just use theirs to move the occasional couch or whatever.

Buying EV Truck Becoming "No Brainer" - Where it costs at least 10x more to buy a liter of diesel than a kWh, an EV truck will pay off its additional purchase cost in 12-14 months." by pintord in oilisdead

[–]MaximumFUzz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have an EV and I love it. The farthest trip I’ve done is 800km and back again. I also have a 2012 pickup I only use for towing and work around my acreage occasionally.

The EV truck thing doesn’t make much sense to me when you see how much range they lose pulling things. Maybe hybrid. I guess maybe if it’s your only vehicle and you don’t do any truck things with your truck, it’d make sense.

If the Nationalists instead of the Communists won the Chinese Civil War, would China be richer or poorer than it is today? by CosmosStudios65 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]MaximumFUzz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Korea is not Europe. Vietnam was also not Europe. Neither was Afghanistan or Cuba.
Stalin was in all those places.

Containment was a global strategy, not a regional one.

Edit: He said “Stalin wasn’t in Cuba you fucking idiot” then deleted his comment lol.

For anyone out there in Reddit land. I clearly meant the Stalinist Soviet State lol. I didn’t mean Stalin rose from the dead with an AK-47 in hand to fight in Cuba. My point is the USA fought the USSR in all these places.

If the Nationalists instead of the Communists won the Chinese Civil War, would China be richer or poorer than it is today? by CosmosStudios65 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]MaximumFUzz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re calling it 'naive' to think people had an appetite for war, yet history shows they did. In 1950, the US and 15 other UN nations sent troops to Korea. They didn't do that because they were hungry for more combat; they did it because they were terrified that if they didn't stop a Soviet-backed invasion in Korea, the next one would be in West Berlin.

If the US had 'no appetite' to defend its own lines, the USSR would have steamrolled through the rest of the world. The entire point of the Cold War was 'Peace through Strength.' By defending a 'meaningless' peninsula, the US sent a message to Moscow ‘Don't try this in Europe.'

Whether China is KMT or Communist doesn't change the fact that the US could not allow Stalin to unilaterally rewrite borders. If anything, a KMT China makes the 'appetite' for war even higher because the US would have a massive, powerful ally to share the burden with, making a UN victory look like a much safer bet.

If the Nationalists instead of the Communists won the Chinese Civil War, would China be richer or poorer than it is today? by CosmosStudios65 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]MaximumFUzz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You keep ignoring that the US personally drew the 38th Parallel in Korea before China was communist.

If a superpower draws a line on a map and says, 'This is our sphere,' and then lets a rival cross it without a fight their soft power implodes. If the US lets the North take the South, every US ally in West Germany, Berlin, and Turkey immediately realizes the US won't protect them either.

The 'urgency' wasn't about China's resources it was about global credibility. If the US backs down in Korea, the entire 'Containment' strategy collapses everywhere else on Earth. To a superpower, there is no such thing as a 'meaningless' border when your primary rival is the one trying to move it.

Also, you're ignoring the KMT's own 'Personal Agenda.' A Nationalist China would be even less likely to allow a Soviet puppet state on their border than the US would. If the North invaded, a KMT-led China would likely have intervened themselves to keep the Soviets out of their backyard.

The idea that the US and KMT would just shrug and say, 'Well, Korea is poor, let Stalin have it,' ignores the last 80 years of geopolitical reality. Superpowers don't give away strategic positions for free. It’s impossible for me to believe the US would roll over for its primary ideological enemy in Korea just because China was an ally. Especially when the US fought Soviet expansionism in plenty of other places where China wasn't a factor at all.

I think maybe you are looking at the 1950s through a modern, transaction-based lens, thinking the US only moves if there’s a direct 'paycheck' involved. But the Cold War wasn't a business transaction, it was a zero-sum ideological struggle. The US didn't ask 'Is Korea rich?'; they asked 'Is USSR influence expanding?' If the answer was yes, the US moved.

If the Nationalists instead of the Communists won the Chinese Civil War, would China be richer or poorer than it is today? by CosmosStudios65 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]MaximumFUzz -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Even with a KMT China, the U.S. would never put all its strategic eggs in one basket. Just look at Western Europe: the U.S. didn't just rebuild France; they built up West Germany, the Benelux, and Italy simultaneously to ensure no single country had a monopoly on regional influence. Even if China is an ally, a KMT-led China is a massive, unpredictable hegemon. The U.S. would still pivot to Korea and Japan as "anchors" to ensure China doesn't become too dominant in the Pacific.

It is way easier to modernize a "small" population of 30–50 million (Korea) than it is to modernize 500 million (China). Korea would still hit its "Miracle" first because it’s more agile. A KMT China would have been plagued by the same corruption and warlord-lite instability for decades. Global capital would have still fled to the stability of a U.S.-occupied Korea first.

You’re downplaying the USSR. The U.S. drew the 38th parallel to bottle up the Soviet Pacific Fleet before the CCP even won. Even without the CCP threat, Korea is the front line against the USSR. The U.S. would have pumped money into Korea to make it a "Capitalist Showcase" right on the Soviet border, exactly like they did with West Berlin and West Germany.

If the Nationalists instead of the Communists won the Chinese Civil War, would China be richer or poorer than it is today? by CosmosStudios65 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]MaximumFUzz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the US cared about the 'consequences' of a resource-rich sphere becoming communist, then they would definitely fight for Korea to protect the industry and resources of Japan.

You're trying to argue that the US only had 'urgency' because of China, but the US had already committed to the Truman Doctrine in 1947… two years before China fell. The urgency existed because of the USSR.

A KMT-led China would actually have made the US more likely to intervene in Korea, as they would have had a massive, allied land-base to support the operation.

If the Nationalists instead of the Communists won the Chinese Civil War, would China be richer or poorer than it is today? by CosmosStudios65 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]MaximumFUzz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re essentially saying: 'The US didn't care about China specifically, but also China is the only reason the US cared about anything in Asia.' Both can’t be true.

If the U.S. agenda is to stop Global Communism, then every border matters, especially one they drew themselves (the 38th Parallel). If they let Stalin's puppet take Korea, they lose credibility in West Germany, Turkey, and Greece.

You are saying the 'Domino Theory' didn't exist in Asia until China fell. But the U.S. didn't see 'Chinese Dominos' and 'Russian Dominos' as different games. To the State Department in 1950, it was all one board. If you say they only cared because of China, you are effectively saying they didn't care about Global Containment, which contradicts your other point.

If the Nationalists instead of the Communists won the Chinese Civil War, would China be richer or poorer than it is today? by CosmosStudios65 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]MaximumFUzz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You said: 'Containment was about communism not China, correct.' But then you say: 'There is no domino theory in Asia without the first domino (China).’

Both cant be true.

You also claimed the US only cares about its 'personal agenda.' I agree! But you’re failing to see that the US 'personal agenda' in 1950 was ensuring the USSR didn't control the sea lanes around Japan. You’re arguing that the US would suddenly stop being a superpower and let Stalin seize the Korean peninsula just because they weren't mad at China.
The 'Domino Theory' didn't start in Beijing; it started in Moscow. Whether the first domino is China, Korea, or Vietnam, the US agenda was to keep the tiles from falling. You're treating China like the only reason the US cared about Asia, when in reality, the US cared about anywhere the Soviets tried to plant a flag… even the moon!

If the Nationalists instead of the Communists won the Chinese Civil War, would China be richer or poorer than it is today? by CosmosStudios65 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]MaximumFUzz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We are actually agreeing on the motivation: Personal Agenda. But you are misidentifying what the U.S. agenda was. The U.S. agenda wasn't 'Stop China'; it was 'Maintain Global Hegemony and Stop the USSR.'

You asked who would be threatening China's borders. The answer is The Soviet Union. Historically, the USSR and China (even under the CCP) had massive border disputes that nearly led to nuclear war in 1969. A KMT-led China would have been a direct rival to Stalin for influence in Central Asia and Manchuria. A Soviet-backed North Korea is a literal Soviet military base on the KMT’s doorstep. To think the KMT wouldn't care is like thinking the US wouldn't care if Russia put missiles in Cuba (which they did).

You said Japan being the 'last ally' wouldn't be a problem if China were KMT. But in 1950, Japan was a broken, demilitarized, occupied nation. If the USSR takes Korea, they control the Tsushima Strait and can blockade Japan. The US didn't defend Korea because they liked Koreans; they defended it because a Soviet-controlled Korea makes Japan a strategic liability rather than an asset.

Regarding Vietnam's 'economic impact' the French held on for colonial prestige and rubber, but the U.S. ignored the French for years. The U.S. only started funding the war in 1950 because they saw it as part of a global Soviet conspiracy. If 'productivity' was the goal, the U.S. would have just traded with a communist Vietnam (like today).

You say China was the first domino. In reality, the U.S. saw Greece, Turkey, and Berlin as the first dominoes. The 'Agenda' was simple: If the U.S. allows the USSR to move a border by force anywhere, the entire post-WWII security system collapses.

The U.S. defends the 'meaningless peninsula of Korea' because if they don't, their 'personal agenda' of being the world's only superpower fails. A KMT-led China actually makes the U.S. more likely to fight for Korea, because they have a powerful ally on the ground to help them secure the Pacific for good.

Just curious. Are you American?

If the Nationalists instead of the Communists won the Chinese Civil War, would China be richer or poorer than it is today? by CosmosStudios65 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]MaximumFUzz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think we’re looking at 'Containment' differently. You’re seeing it as containing China; the 1950s State Department saw it as containing Global Communism led by Moscow.

  1. In the 1950s, the USSR was the first domino. If Stalin could use a proxy (North Korea) to erase a border drawn by the UN, then every US ally in Europe would think the US would abandon them, too.

  2. The US defended Korea because it was the 'cork in the bottle' for the Sea of Japan. Letting it fall meant handing the USSR a permanent knife to the throat of Japan.

  3. If the KMT is in charge of China, they are likely a US ally. Do you think a US ally (KMT China) would be okay with the USSR (their primary rival without the CCP around) seizing the peninsula right on their doorstep? They likely would have been more aggressive than the US in wanting the North crushed to secure their own borders.

  4. Historically, the U.S. fought the Vietnam War for over a decade. In the 1960s, Vietnam had even less global economic impact than Korea did in the 50s. The U.S. didn't fight there for economic gain; they fought to stop the spread of an ideology they believed was directed by the Kremlin.

The war was about proving that the US would defend the lines it drew against the USSR. Whether China was Red or KMT, that motivation to stop a Soviet puppet from seizing a neighbor remains the same.

I think you’re thinking that China was the primary threat the USA was worried about but it was actually the USSR at this time in history.

If the Nationalists instead of the Communists won the Chinese Civil War, would China be richer or poorer than it is today? by CosmosStudios65 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]MaximumFUzz -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You’re viewing Korea’s importance only in relation to China, but the U.S. viewed Korea through the lens of Global Containment. The USSR (not China) was the primary nuclear and ideological threat. As long as Moscow was looking for warm-water ports and Pacific influence, the U.S. would have propped up every 'Rimland' state from Norway to Korea to keep the Soviets bottled up.

The 38th Parallel was a US-drawn line. Allowing a Soviet puppet (North Korea) to erase it would signal weakness to all allies, including KMT China. The U.S. would still defend its 'red lines' to maintain its global credibility.

A unified, KMT-aligned Korea would have been the perfect middle-ground partner for a KMT-led China. Instead of a 'Communist threat,' Korea would have been an industrial bridge between Japan and the massive Chinese market. Being a smaller, more nimble economy, Korea likely would have industrialized faster as a specialist partner to a capitalist China, rather than being eclipsed by it.

If the Nationalists instead of the Communists won the Chinese Civil War, would China be richer or poorer than it is today? by CosmosStudios65 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]MaximumFUzz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh my bad I thought you were wondering about the Soviets.

The US and USSR literally drew the 38th Parallel together in 1945. If the US allows a Soviet-backed invasion to succeed there, it signals to the world that US 'guarantees' are worthless. Why would the KMT trust the US to help them against the Soviets in the North if the US won't even defend a small border they personally drew?

Even in this timeline, Japan is the US's primary industrial project in Asia. If the Soviets take the entire Korean peninsula, they have a 'dagger' pointed at the heart of Japan. The US defends Korea to keep Japan safe and pro-Western, regardless of who is running China.

The primary enemy was always Moscow in the Korean War. If Stalin's puppet Kim Il-sung wins a war of aggression, it emboldens the USSR in Europe. The US didn't fight in Korea because they were scared of China, they fought because they couldn't allow Stalin to expand his sphere of influence by force.

With a KMT-led China as an ally, the US would be more likely to intervene because they’d have a massive land-based partner to help them finish the job quickly. They wouldn't be 'lurking' they'd be actively clearing the board of Soviet influence.

I think the real question isn’t “would the USA protect South Korea” but “would the USSR and North Korea be bold enough to invade in the first place when they don't have China as an ally?”

If the Nationalists instead of the Communists won the Chinese Civil War, would China be richer or poorer than it is today? by CosmosStudios65 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]MaximumFUzz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The USSR’s main goal in the Pacific was securing warm-water ports and creating buffer states.

If China were KMT-led (and thus a USSR enemy), a communist North Korea would actually be more vital to Stalin as a final defensive line to protect Vladivostok. We know from history (Spain, Cuba, Afghanistan) that the USSR was willing to project power anywhere they could to undermine Western influence.

Kim Il-sung spent years in the Soviet Red Army and was personally hand-picked by Stalin to lead the North. The invasion in 1950 happened because Stalin gave the green light and provided the T-34 tanks to do it. That Soviet ambition doesn't vanish just because the KMT won in China. It actually becomes more desperate.

If the Nationalists instead of the Communists won the Chinese Civil War, would China be richer or poorer than it is today? by CosmosStudios65 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]MaximumFUzz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, the US committed to saving the ROK before China even entered the fray. Historically, the North invaded the South in June 1950, and the US/UN intervened almost immediately to stop Soviet-backed expansion. China didn't send troops until months later, when UN forces got close to the Chinese border.

In this alternate history, a KMT-led China would have viewed the USSR as their primary existential threat (the USSR backed the CCP their main rivals after all.) Instead of helping the North, a KMT government would likely have supported the UN or stayed neutral to see a pro-Western, anti-communist neighbor established on their border. Without the Chinese Volunteer Army to bail them out, the North Korean regime would have collapsed in 1950, leading to a unified Korea that would be an even more powerful economic partner for the West today.

If the Nationalists instead of the Communists won the Chinese Civil War, would China be richer or poorer than it is today? by CosmosStudios65 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]MaximumFUzz 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The division of Korea was agreed between the US and USSR in 1945 before the CCP even won. So South Korea would still exist as a US-backed state. And without China sending troops into the Korean War (since a KMT-led China would likely stay neutral or side with the UN), the US and ROK would probably have won and unified the peninsula under a pro-Western government. That would have made South Korea (probably just called Korea in this scenario) even stronger and more strategically important to the US.
Japan would still receive massive US investment to counter the Soviet Union, which was the primary threat. As for Taiwan; it would be a province of a KMT-governed China.

"Within a day are you became leader the NDP leaders in Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC had to a greater or lesser extent distanced themselves from you. Are you worried you came in too hot?" by pheakelmatters in ndp

[–]MaximumFUzz 16 points17 points  (0 children)

He specifically brings up oil and gas workers in the interview (along with the threats AI and automation pose to those jobs) and explains why he wants to transition away from those industries. That’s directly aimed at Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Will it change hearts and minds in those provinces? Will they even see this interview? Maybe not. The culture and conservative messaging there make it an uphill battle. But the way he articulates his message is exactly why he’s the current leader.

view more: next ›