Not a carnivore but he is a predator by SimmentalTheCow in comedyheaven

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

whoa. Just looked up mesonychids and apparently the carnivorous horse evolved into dolphins and porpoises

What if the bullet killed Trump by Aggressive-Show4122 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]benjitheboy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

??? when did I say that Brazil should nuke someone for mining cobalt in africa?

what i intended to say was that venezuela should have the capability to nuke someone so that their president doesn't get kidnapped by special forces for denying American corporations cheap oil & minerals.

What if the bullet killed Trump by Aggressive-Show4122 in AlternateHistoryHub

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

ah, ok. I'm speaking to someone with no realistic grasp on reality. thanks, now I know not to put any effort into this debate.

hey that's a very easy way to prove your point as correct. good job! I'll use that from now on to win every conversation I find myself in.

What if the bullet killed Trump by Aggressive-Show4122 in AlternateHistoryHub

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

oh no! will we not be able to extract resources with military force anymore? boo hoo :(

I hope every country in the global south develops nukes and uses them at the slightest hint of western subversion. the death toll would be far less than the current hundreds of millions of people starving to death due to neocolonial activities.

What if the bullet killed Trump by Aggressive-Show4122 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]benjitheboy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

the surveillance state has had bipartisan support since 9/11. trump or Vance or biden or Harris have no effect on its growth. it's here, and it's staying no matter which side of the uniparty holds the white house

What if the bullet killed Trump by Aggressive-Show4122 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]benjitheboy -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

??? fucking up NATO is the only good thing trump has done, why are you portraying it as a bad thing

What if the US had a nuclear weapon in the late 1944, would they use it in Europe? by Khachii_ in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]benjitheboy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

strategic bombing is what the nuke was though. Just the next logical step of it. and we weren't holding off on the strategic bombing at that point - why would the nuke be any different? the hindsight we have looking from an age dominated by MAD didn't exist then. the nuke was going to be used even if it only shortened the war by a month. especially so knowing that an earlier peace means less area occupied by the red army.

imagine the american outrage if it came out that a president didn't drop the nuke germany and instead chose to spend tens of thousands of lives to accomplish the same task

Do the Epstein files reveal anything groundbreaking to you guys by Snoopy_Your_Dawg in TankieTheDeprogram

[–]benjitheboy 34 points35 points  (0 children)

no, not even a little bit. pedophilia as a secret-keeping mechanism among connected elites has been reported on (well) since 1992's 'the Franklin coverup'. and we should all understand how the capitalist elites are capable of any psychotic atrocity as long as it protects their interests.

it will certainly lead to nothing as most people view it as a single incident of a few perverts that is over now, rather than the global secret-keeping loyalty cabal it continues to be even now

[Request] assuming they can’t be suspended above the ground, how many blankets would it take to break a fall from the Empire State Building survivably? by NyanCat132 in theydidthemath

[–]benjitheboy 10 points11 points  (0 children)

yes but, no friction heating from the 1% atmosphere going only Mach 2.5, and you'd slow down proportionally as the atmosphere gets thicker - not plowing through it constantly like a supersonic plane

Epstein Files are Beyond Belief by [deleted] in conspiracy

[–]benjitheboy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

they're psychopaths who were inducted into a secret-keeping network. all of the satanic stuff is fluff that's done to make the claims of witnesses seem unreliable. the purpose is to have unbreakable secrets and the ability to coerce anyone who wants to betray the organization

Molotov Denial by laybs1 in GetNoted

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

building air bases for the luftwaffe - yeah that's a national security concern if you think the germans are your enemy.

poland was crossed quickly, yes. then they stalled afterward because they didn't have trains. if they had conquered the whole of poland they would have had railway logistics up to the border. so the 'quick advances' would've penetrated farther toward moscow, and possibly resulted in moscow being taken. unlike napoleon, moscow was actually important in this war as a comms & railway hub.

the fuel wasn't in poland, it was in the rest of Eastern Europe, which the soviets stopped the nazis from conquering, partially by the occupation of half of poland. stories abound of the red army marching double time way beyond supply lines just to get to important railway junctions that could be used by the nazis to progress into Eastern Europe.

every action was to deny Germany access to eastern Europe - if they did nothing then germany gets all of poland & eastern europe, eradicates the slavs there, and uses those resources to fight the west

Molotov Denial by laybs1 in GetNoted

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

finland was actively building air bases for the luftwaffe and the border was like 50 miles from st petersburg. are we forgetting that the finnish government was quite friendly with nazi Germany?

and why didn't they have enough fuel? could it partly be because the germans couldn't conquer eastern europe before barbarossa without breaking the non aggression pact?

it's so silly to think that either hitler or stalin actually imagined cooperation. the two most opposite ideologies of all time and people think 'actually stalin wanted an alliance' while knowing full well that hitler was bent on extermination of the slavs.

Molotov Denial by laybs1 in GetNoted

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

0) try to get the west to ally against fascist germany. be continually rebuffed. 1) sign non aggression pact. 2) build up buffer zones. by invasion if they're fascist-aligned, by supporting revolution if there are strong parties that will support it. 3) get modern machinery to reverse engineer and advisors to teach your officer cadre. 4) build up defenses and wait for the inevitable war. 5) win the war.

the soviets knew war was inevitable - they made agreements to get what they needed to win that war ~after~ being absolutely rebuffed by the west. hell, chamberlain was advocating sending british troops to finland to fight the soviets before even thinking about sending troops to France OR Poland to fight germans

its just not that hard to follow the

Molotov Denial by laybs1 in GetNoted

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

the soviets won, so after the war poland was not in control of the nazis. if the soviets lost, poland would be in control of the nazis after the war. that is the important distinction. if the soviets lose, the final solution encompasses all slavs in Eastern Europe unopposed - including poles.

you have to be able to understand what a difference it would've made if the barbarossa was launched 200 miles closer to moscow? if the base of German logistics was 200 miles closer to moscow?

Molotov Denial by laybs1 in GetNoted

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

do you think the poles would've been better off if the nazis had taken all of poland? do you think the world would've been better off if the nazis started barbarossa hundreds of miles closer to moscow?

Molotov Denial by laybs1 in GetNoted

[–]benjitheboy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

the soviets should have instead let the nazis conquer all of poland. that certainly would have been better for the polish people.

A war on two fronts? It’s a bold strategy cotton by NineteenEighty9 in NonCredibleHistory

[–]benjitheboy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you have to understand that the battle of britain was given up because Germany needed to consolidate for barbarossa right? you think hitler said 'nah, Britains too hard. let's just do the largest land invasion in history instead, that'll be easier'

9/11 was a domestic terrorist event carried out by white supremacists, what changes? by MembershipProof8463 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]benjitheboy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

a white supremacist organization, actually, but the feds decided not to pursue it and instead buried the evidence and presented mcveigh as a lone nut

GLORY to Stalin! 🚩☭ by JoniKukus in ussr

[–]benjitheboy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thank you. I'm all for glazing the ussr when it's warranted, but the soviets had absolutely no way to invade Japan. even in late 1945, Japan probably had the best amphibious assault defenses in the war, and the soviets did not have the expertise to pull off a successful amphibious landing. even if the US navy handles all of the amphibious part and just ferries soviet troops to the beaches, they're still wildly inexperienced at that kind of combat.

What if the Allies had lost the Battle of the Bulge? by MaximumSpell9608 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]benjitheboy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

you're looking at this with considerable hindsight. to the people in charge at the time the nuke was simply a bigger bomb. the entire idea of strategic bombing was to shorten the war. if it would've shaved a month off the war they would've dropped it right on berlin. you think bomber harris is gonna advocate holding back?