Before world war 2 was Japan a rich or poor country compared to Europe and North America?
Japan was relatively wealthy by the time WWII rolled around. They'd spent the better part of forty years fighting wars with Russia and China, and had made some substantial acquisitions. They had taken pretty much anything they wanted in the region, becoming the the most powerful nation in the East. They took huge parts of land from China, giving them massive resources (including oil from the south). The end of WWI gave Japan another boost, as they were able to increase the size of their navy (which itself is very expensive). That should give you an idea of how much money they had to throw around. Now, if you mean per capita wealth, ie were the people of Japan richer or poorer than say Americans or Europeans, the answer is pretty different. As a whole, the Japanese people were not, on average, as wealthy as Americans, but probably more wealthy than many Europeans.
Civil war between rich and poor...what side would you take?
careful... you might get blacklisted for this question...lol but seriously, the rich need the poor people to do all the work (can you imagine a rich guy in his boat shoes and sweater vest in the middle of a battle) and the poor need the rich people to tell them what to do. both sides are intertwined and need each other. i would start my own faction of rouge people who don't like either side and we would use swords instead of pussy *** guns and we would take over the world and run a modified capitalist society and would warship alan greenspan.
What would the world look like if the Soviet Union had won the Cold War?
I love engaging in alternative history, but I honestly can’t see any outcome where the Soviets could have won the Cold War.At its heart, the Cold War was a war of ideas, cultures, and economies. Economic history has demonstrated with 100 percent accuracy that purely socialist economies do not work. And don’t point to China, their economic system is a hybrid of state controlled capitalism, and the verdict is still out on whether it will work in the long run.Culture in the Soviet Union was directed, monitored, and pushed by the state. People in the Soviet Union rejected it and made fun of it at every turn, all the while smuggling in Levi’s, Pepsi, rock and roll records, and so forth.In the early years of the Cold War, the Soviets did appear to be winning the war of ideas, as their early wins in the Space Race demonstrated. But as time went by, and the strain of a state-mandated economy further damaged the country, the Soviet Union no longer came up with new and innovative technologies. There was no effort to develop an Internet, there were no efforts to develop fuel efficient consumer vehicles, nor was there any effort to develop a consumer electronics market.The only way the Soviets could have won the Cold War was if the United States gave up the fight, which it almost did before Ronald Reagan became president in 1981. As for a hot war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, I don’t the Soviets could have won that way, either. I maintain that the Soviets’ military strength was overrated. Declassified documents from both East and West during that period repeatedly show that missile and troop strength reports often habitually overestimated the power and effectiveness of the Soviet military. Perhaps this was an excuse to build up America’s own war machine.However, if you do want to speculate about an alternative history in which the U.S.S.R. triumphed over the U.S., there was this ABC miniseries in 1987 called “America,” in which America is under Soviet occupation. Good luck finding it, though. Sorry to be a tease, but I’m not even sure if it ever made it to DVD.
Why do rich people seem to be the only ones truly benefiting, no matter who is in office?
Granted we have a lot to thank Trump for, but it seems like the rich get rich, poor get poor, no matter who is POTUS. We have less crime and threats from terrorism now at least, and less illegals, more jobs etc, but I am saying that the rich are untouchable. Life isn't fair for blue colar, poor and middle class, which today it seems,like what was rich 20 years ago, is today's middle. 35 k used to be the average middle class salary. Now that is considered poor, and anything less despite demographics. The cost of living keeps going up, but way less with Trump now. Agree?
Who would win in a war: the U.S. vs Russia and China?
Germany and India would win.In a scenario where those countries fought and there were no nukes, the United States and its allies would have a qualitative advantage in armaments and a huge advantage on the seas, but the vastness of the territory and enormous populations of Russia and China would mean they could never possibly conquer those countries. The war would turn into a bloody and costly stalemate in which the people of the United States would probably eventually get tired of fighting and make peace, especially since their Japanese allies would be in the line of fire and pressuring them to do so.However, by the time everyone reached that point and made peace, all of the countries in question would have sustained serious material and economic damage and would be seriously weakened. As a result, there would be a power vacuum in which another power or powers in the world could advance their own status. The two countries most likely to benefit are Germany and India; the former because it is one of the world’s foremost industrial and economic powers, and the leading nation of the EU, and India because it is already an emerging world power with more than a billion people.A good historical parallel is the final war between the Roman Empire and the Sassanid Persian Empire, which took place between 602 and 628, and climaxed about 400 years of conflict between those two world powers. In the last war, the Persians nearly won and briefly controlled most of the territories of the Eastern Roman Empire, but the Emperor Heraclius was able to re-organize and rebuild his armies, and in a daring campaign, he defeated the Persians at Nineveh in 627 (just a year after the Persians had besieged Constantinople) and marched to the gates of Ctesiphon, where the Persians surrendered. They returned everything they had conquered since 602, and their new Emperor became a vassal.Unfortunately, the real winner of the war was the Rashidun Caliphate, which formed and started pursuing an expansionist policy of its own within a few years of the end of that war. Both the Romans and the Persians were too weak to resist them, after a quarter-century of fighting each other. Within fifteen years, Persia was wiped off the map, and the Romans had once again lost everything they had regained from the Persians.A full-scale war between the USA and a Chinese-Russian alliance with no use of nuclear weapons would play out the same way. No one would win but third parties.
Which country would win in a war if no nuclear weapons were used: China or Russia?
TL;DR: neither.China has ten times more people, a large army with decent equipment, and a much more powerful economy. As of 2015, Russia's ground forces (the Army component of the military) have 230K soldiers, including conscripts. China's ground forces have over a million soldiers. Half of Russia's military (which has about 770K personnel) is tied in locations very far from China, such as the Northern, Baltic and Black Sea fleets, various radar, air-defense and nuclear sites. The numbers advantage on the Chinese side is staggering. While Russia has the ability to make good weapon systems in small quantities, mass-production is harder, making the systems reliable is even harder, maintaining those systems in good condition and training enough personnel in using those systems is harder yet (given that a large part of Russia's military is conscripts). China, on the other hand, mastered mass-production at very low cost. Most of the consumer electronics sold in the US, including iPhones, have been made in China. So, quality is not a show-stopper - it's all about price-point.In other words, Russia does not have a good chance for a victory through invasion, and has not threatened such an invasion for the last 40 years. Moreover, China is one of Russia's top trading partners, but not vice versa. If Russia invades, it will be ostracized by most countries (except for India), and its economy will collapse. For Russia to invade China would only be second (by stupidity) to invading the US. This will lead to a massive counter-attack and a loss of territory.China could have some successes in Siberia and the Far East (in territories that belonged to China in the past), but cannot project power far from its borders and will be unable to venture into the European part of Russia. The transportation infrastructure in Siberia is shaky and can be easily destroyed. The weather and the landscape are inhospitable in many places.In summary, neither side is capable of a decisive win, but if you redefine "win" to mean something else (as some people in comments have done :), that opens up new possibilities.P.S. Many of the comments disagree with the conclusion, but tend to split between "China wins" and "Russia wins", usually based on not-so-subtle reasoning. Such statistics only seem to confirm what I wrote :)