The craziest part about the US breakup prediction was the lumping of completely dissimilar states. You can pick ANY time in US history and find that the people of Massachusetts and South Carolina fundamentally disagree with each other, so why would they join together? And Georgia joining Mexico? Idaho joining California, and both joining China? It's like the professor just drew lines without ever considering any information from the US.
Seriously, a US collapse is never an entirely stupid prediction as any and all large enough states are a bit collapse prone but the reasons and geography of a US collapse that he gave are absolutely laughable. Anytime someone cites "moral degradation" as a reason for a collapse you know they don't have a clue what they are talking about.
Igor Panarin's prediction for America feels like the British during the Victorian era, drawing arbitrary lines through massive areas without understanding the politics involved one bit.
What's even funnier is that plenty of kids hearing about the Wright Brothers' flying machine taking to the skies would, in their old age, see Neil Armstrong walk on the moon.
Yeah, and the NYT took Robert Goddard to task for his ideas on rocketry, stating that even a high school chemistry student would know it wouldn't work. Tho in their defense they finally published a retraction in 1969--about 40 years after they mocked his ideas. Quite the prognosticators there at the _Times._
Yes the film production in the studio was pretty inspiring. Joking aside both China and the Soviet Union detected radio signals from the moon's surface and acknowledged that the US had astronauts on the moon.
The most funny thing about US break-up prediction is Central North American Republic is under Canada control despite have more population than entire Canada and more economic and military power---
i dont know why you people bring that argument, you the same people that got your ass handed to you twice by poorer countries with less population and using ak 47s, both times ended up having your soldiers scrambling to get up into a helicopter. not to mention cuba kicking you out of their bay.
I don’t know what’s weirder to me, the idea that my state of Tennessee would join the EU or the idea that it would align politically with New York and Massachusetts.
Because it tends to be a fantasy by people that support those colonizing countries, generally. In this case, its a Russian that wants the US to suffer what the USSR suffer x100. A US breaking apart into separate but independent countries can reunite one day.
The absolute closest thing to being colonized that would happen to the US is perhaps, though kinda unlikely, some states would voluntarily join Canada. But, other than that, there's no fucking way any states join Mexico, or that the EU or China actually take any control.
There were some ancient republics, some like San Marino lasted into the modern era. The US however started a trend away from monarchy and toward modern [not noble or commercial] republican nation states. Prince Metternich thought this extremely dangerous [at the Congress of Vienna] and tried to get the European monarchies to launch an attack and reconquest of the US. This was blocked by the British, backed by their control of the ocean. They didn't like the US but were still exploiting trade with the US and didn't want another European country to increase its power in the area. The Monroe Doctrine, in fact, was suggested to the US as a joint British US endeavor. The US went it alone, but Britain benefited anyway [until the US got too big and powerful for Britain to control].
@@JMM33RanMA That they are Republics is not the problem it is that they all named themselves "something" Republic that is weird. What would actually happen if the USA broke up is that every single one of the successor states would try to name itself the United States of America.
@@FakeSchrodingersCat Or a breakup could result in the Confederate States of America, or the White Christian States of America, etc. The old* Massachusetts official seal reads, "Sigillum Republicae Massachusettensis" and the Commonwealth is a democratic republic. *The flag and seal are under consideration for review or replacement due to controversy about potential racist connotations surrounding the elements.
@@JMM33RanMA The American naming convention is something of America, you might get California republic and the Republic of Texas out west they have those traditional names predating joining. Though you would just as likely see the United States of Texas, and outside of California the preferred name used by separatists for that region seems to be United States of Cascadia. New England would almost certainly go either for the Commonwealth of America or some variation. I doubt the south would choose Confederate States of America again, but you can almost be guaranteed it would follow that rhythm, the same for the Midwest.
Yeah. I think that The Great 2010 Split was the Tower of Babylon-esque effect, that we could only speak the language of our new country. I went to sleep speaking English, and woke up speaking Canadian.
@@frankthetank2550 I cant believe we got everything from Montana to Missouri we really werent expecting the other countries to let us have more than Minnesota.
To be fair. Columbus was right. Spain can't just change the rules whenever they want. That is not how contracts work. And it would be funny if some random guy received hundreds of billions of wealth just before he died.
@@haroeneissa790 Columbus wasn't right, he lost his rights because he was a convicted criminal for all the "mischieving" he did in America against the orders of the Queen.
As a French myself, I can add a few funny details: - WW1 was called "la Der des Der" in France, meaning "the last of the last". There was also a lot of hope that it would be the last one. - Upon seeing the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 (that he judged was not heavy enough on Germany), the French Marshall Foch said "This is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years". He wasn't bad at predictions. - At the Munich conference, there was also Daladier, the French PM. He was forced to sign the treaty by the Parliament, but he was not blind. He said that Hitler's real aim was to eventually secure "a domination of the Continent in comparison with which the ambitions of Napoleon were feeble". When his plane got near the airport, back from Munich, he saw a crowd. Fearing for his life, he asked the pilot to land somewhere else. The pilot told him that the people were cheering, to which he reacted by "Ah the fools" (Ah les cons) - The first flying machine was invented in 1783, the hot air balloon, by the Montgolfiers brothers, and Jean-François Pilâtre de Rozier being the first human ever to fly. An article saying that mankind won't fly in 1903 is not only a terrible prediction when we know of the Wrights brothers, but also an ignorant statement!
@@roidrannoc1691 Ader made a powered leap though. The first flight was probably made by Otto Lilienthal in the early 1890s, but it was unpowered, which limited its use. The Wrights certainly were the first to make a powered airplane that flew more than just powered leaps. In 1905 they made multiple flights between 11-24 miles long. In 1908 Wilbur Wright demonstrated the Wright Flyer at Le Mans and even the very sceptic French aeronautical community had never seen something like the flight Wilbur demonstrated. Just for reference the most often cited contender for the first powered airplane, the 14bis, flew 200 meters (0.12 Miles) in 1906.
He had the excuse that drivable roads didn't exist outside of major cities, anywhere, until after World War I, and since all railroads were private businesses, it was unthinkable at the time that governments would establish free highway systems.
...or that Mexico would want texas back! I had some Mexican college students, to whom I offered to return Texas. They looked interested until I told them they would have to take back all the gun nuts, Confederate holdouts, Evangelical bigots and the Bush family. They refused, very firmly, saying, "Our poor Mejico has enough problems without taking on your too. No deal!"
@@SupaKoopaTroopa64 It would be like Fallout New Vegas in the south west who ever controls the Hoover dam controls the area. looking at the rest of the states also shows how dumb this idea is; the mississippi river basin being split 3 ways is INSANE Cities like New Orleans, Memphis, St Louis, Chicago, and Minneapolis are where they are for a REASON and that reason is the GIANT NAVIGATABLE RIVER SYSTEM that dominates the center of the continent
It wouldn't be too hard. Just tell them the EU flag is an old Confederate battle standard and they'll put it right up. (As a West Virginian I'm allowed to make these sort of jokes)
Considering Romania and Bulgaria are already EU member states, I could see West Virginia and South Carolina lumped together with Romania and Bulgaria as essentially 'second-grade' member states (denied into Schengen Zone, denied being able to use the Euro etc)
Technically Columbus didn't underestimate the size of the earth, he overestimated the size of Asia, as at the time the best maps in Europe were essentially based on the distances from Marco Polo's journey, where he described the distance between places as the time it took to travel between them.
@@Josep_Hernandez_Lujan I know. I never said they didn't. Whose measurements do you think the cartographers were using when they made the maps Columbus had? The problem was that the ancient Greeks *didn't* know how large Asia was, and so for thousands of years European maps greatly distorted landmasses that far from themselves to the point that they were putting Japan where the US's east coast would be.
@@aidenlosh9518 it doesnt matter how big Asia is, erastosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth with shadows. So if Columbus had known the right number, then if you assume he underestimated how big Asia is, then it would be even further away from Spain
@@anatol0077 Yes it does matter how big people thought Asia was, because he was trying to get to east Asia. Columbus did know the circumference of the Earth, but he thought that Asia went twice as far east around that circumference as it actually did, meaning he thought Japan would be near America's east coast. Look at the maps of Henrich Martellus from the 1400s. As a mapmaker he was well aware of the circumference of the earth, but because no one had an accurate scale of the breadth of landmasses, he vastly overestimated the size of Eurasia to the point that it would have spanned 220° of the circumference instead of the 130° it actually does.
The part about Mexico having influence over Texas and other states in the "broken up united states" Is that the thought of Mexico having influence over another country is insane. Mexico barely has influence over Mexico, with all those cartels and the fact that the country is very unstable
@need-money-for-porsche if you can’t hold parts of your country despite a military advantage due to resistance from cartels, how are you going to hold Texas and surrounding states who’s citizens are just as armed and have the backing of US national guardsman and their equipment xD
@need-money-for-porsche You are peddling falsehoods xD. You literally have had an incident recently where Mexico arrested a cartel leader and the country fell into total anarchy as the cartels began sowing chaos xD, clearly Mexico does not have the cartel problem under control. Also in this scenario Texas is not alone it is grouped in with a bunch of other states. So no, Mexico could not annex Texas, nevermind manage to even HOLD TEXAS. As if you think the cartels are hard to fight, imagine fighting the national guards of all those states, equipped with US weapons, AND fighting all the militias of the states who would be just as vicious to foreigners as the cartels xD
I recall an editorial article circa 1999 in which it was stated that, despite the hype, running a profitable internet business is impossible. It was predicted that Amazon, ebay, and a few others would all be bankrupt within a year.
Sounds like another prediction that said that computers wouldn't be very useful in the future and that there would only be a handful of them in the world.
To be fair, the vast majority of internet startups at the time would fail, and those that eventually succeeded would take a long time before becoming profitable.
Except there really was a dotcom bubble that was about to burst, and the business model of Amazon in 1999 would not have inspired confidence in me if I were considering investing in them
Didn't Amazon only recently become profitable? I believe they operated many many years at a loss. But investors knew they had a good idea and backed them. Of course Amazon may soon start losing money with some of their dumb decisions on their streaming service, but that's a subject for another time.
As a long time reader of the WSJ, the publication of the first story isn't as strange as you might think. Every day in the same place (on the bottom fold of the front page), there is a small section reserved for something fun and a little off the wall. While not silly, the contents of this block usually aren't as serious as the rest of the topics reported on, and this article isn't at all out of place.
The first "prediction" is just a Russian guy's fantasy after being bitter because of the collapse of the Soviet Union. He wanted so badly for the same to happen to the US .
Some Russians still badly want that to happen. That's what interfering in our elections and elsewhere in the West is about. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of useful idiots who think breaking up the West sounds dandy.
The Canada one is especially absurd when you consider Chicago alone would increase Canada's population by 10%. That's not a takeover, that's a merger. Mexico has a bigger population but it'd be a similar situation as well. It's like he just naively assumed that 1 country is automatically stronger than 1/4 of another country, because 1 > 1/4.
That Russian predictor underestimate how Southern pride would pretty much prevent any Mexican influence. Also, if the South was to break away, it would probably follow the Mason-Dixon line.
I could definitely see Virginia getting split in two again, the more conservative south going to the new Confederacy, and the more liberal north going to whatever happens in the north
It is weird since neither Mexico nor Canada have the power to consolidate influence in those regions. As much as I can see Texas and Mexico making a trade alliance. The internal states would have to play nice with Canada to secure access to the Great Lakes (or form a Navy capable to control them) so maybe another trade union.
@@umu-san4414 Texas: Ah, yes, I know we violently broke away from your country nearly 200 years ago and later joined the U.S., but do you think we can join back up now that the U.S. is kaput? By the way, sorry about capturing your general, and you'll never hear another word about the Alamo.
The fact Igor Panarin had such a low estimate of American states that he would think they would all just be ruled by a secondary party, rather than succeeding from the US and becoming their own independent country. I feel like the latter would be far more likely to happen, given they already have a vast history of civil wars and state infighting.
Th most likely would be even messier, if it happened anytime close to the modern day it would fracture along party lines on the scale of individual communities, with only a few states really supporting one side or the other.
I mean, if the US fell apart, Alaska trying to join Canada wouldn't surprise me... but Canada kinda already has enough cold ultra low population density territory.
you know what the funniest thing about the american collapse projection is? the “central north american union” has more than double the population of canada. and this guy predicted canada to have influence over it. hilarious.
You see that with everything. Texas alone has more population than Australia and a 1.5 trillion dollar economy. It’d easily be a world power if it were independent. You can make the claim that America will split up, given the state this country is in that is becoming more and more likely. But it being under these ridiculous spheres of influence like it’s some 19th century African country is just outlandish. If anything the country would be independent and divided entirely by ideology
@@therealspeedwagon1451 rural New Yorkers are more ideologically similar to rural Texans than urban Texans. The divide is largely urban vs rural, which is a problem around the world. Both areas need each other so there is no way to split along that line. Besides maybe coastal cities becoming city states.
@@willjapheth23789 Exactly. Almost everywhere across not just the US but all of the Western world, politics follow a pretty rigid rule: rural = conservative and right-wing, urban = progressive and left-wing. Sure, southern states are on average more conservative than progressive states like California, but the differences are still smaller than between rural and urban areas in each of these states.
@@therealspeedwagon1451 Texas would weaken immensely without the open borders and trade with the other States; the US is far stronger together than separate. This is pure copium on your part, and almost all Texans know it.
The way I see it, the phrase "The War to End All Wars" was not taken literally, at least not by some. The way I see it, the phrase was taken by some to mean that this would be the biggest war fought yet. As in, wars may still be fought after this, but they could never rival the scale of the Great War.
to be fair, he did say france, uk, spain, portugal, asia, etc are tired of war and they DID stop after WW2, which was really a continuation of WW1. so he was right in that. Since WW2, there have been no wars in Europe (except ukraine but does that really count)
I’m sure Alabama Louisiana and Mississippi would be totally chill being ruled by Mexico 🇲🇽 😂 That makes me laugh the most about the map. The Deep South being ruled my Mexico is peak clownery 🤡
Also a warning about telling empty red lines and doing nothing over a looming threat (because """" peace """" and """ dimplomacy """ and " negotiation "). War shall become an option again to settle big, irreconcilable problems. Way better than terror exchange with nukes threats.
But we should also learn the lesson of numerous western interventions. There is a limit to how long Western nations will support a losing effort. All the Russians have to do is wait this out. Of course even if they win, they lose. They are wasting an entire generation of men, in a nation that is already losing population quite rapidly.
So the first prediction being in the WSJ makes sense in my personal timeline because my US History teacher in 8th grade (2009-10 was the year I was in 8th grade) was convinced Mexico was going to take over Texas (where I lived though it wasn’t racist as he was Mexican) and that the US was going to collapse into civil war. So much so that he had rations of food, a bomb shelter ready and gave us info on how to stockpile goods.
LOL even my Mexican buddy I worked with said if Mexico ever took over their former territories he would just move up North. No one wants Mexican government to take over.
I love that Panarin's rubric from determining which foreign power would hold sway over which part of the former US is just "what major power is physically closest in that cardinal direction?"
Krugman was coreect in one regards: Even today most have nothing to say to each other, it doesn't mean they would be quiet about it at Tik Tok as shown us.
When I was a kid, I knew this one guy, a friend of the family who was like Jeff Bridges meets Alex Jones, who believed in the first prediction (breakup of the US into client states) and got me to believe it, to such an extent that when I noticed that a singer on the radio had a slight accent, I actually thought that the US had already collapsed and so now all American songs had to be covered by foreign artists because the country that produced them no longer existed.
@@Plumjet09 Yes, somehow I thought that the most powerful country of all time would calmly accept its own demise to such an extent that they wouldn't even bother announcing it
@@z3iro383 Not the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. I knew a kid in 8th grade who used now instead of know because “it is shorter” even after I explained that they had different definitions.
5:44 Another classic case of bad history. No, the Ottomans didn't ban Europe from the spice trade kickstarting the age of exploration by the Iberians. Summarizing a much bigger (and much more in-depth) post from r/badhistory: 1. The Portuguese started their voyages of exploration decades before the city fell. By 1453 they had already reached the area around modern day Guinea/Sierra Leone. 2. The Portuguese sources from the time mention no "lack" of spices. 3. Constantinople wasn't important for the Asian/European routes. The majority of that trade was done via Beirut in Syria and Alexandria in Egypt (both controlled by the Mamluk Sultanate), mostly by Venetian and Genoese traders (due to the Crusades) but also by Catalan and French merchants. Those 2 cities only fell to the Ottomans in 1517, and by then the Portuguese already had estabilished outposts or taken cities all the way to Indonesia and even defeated the Mamluks in India. 4. There is no evidence of spice prices rising after 1453 as one would expect if the Ottomans suddenly cut off the supply. 5. Lastly, and probably most importantly, banning an entire continent (by 1450 Europe had an estimated population of 83 million) from trading with you simply makes no sense. The Ottomans were very capable rulers (at least during this period, one could argue about the later empire but that's a whole 'nother can of bad history worms), why would they simply block off Europe? Because they were of a different religion? Until the second half of the 15th century, most of their population was christian and the empire was (when compared to Europe) very tolerant of other religions. Not to mention the Franco-Ottoman alliance of 1536 and other treaties with European "nations", including a request by the Pope for help against the French king in the late 15th century. Mehmed II also was a romanophile and thought of his empire, post conquest, as the rightful successors of the Roman Empire by right of conquest and styled himself as Qayser-i Rûm, Caesar of Rome, showing they didn't hate Europe. This comment turned out longer than I intended but this is the historical myth I hate the most.
"Why would they simply block of Europe?" They wouldn't have to, they just jack up the prices now that the competition is supposedly gone. To monopolize it.
There was a video game called Shattered Union. It was both similar and wildly different to how the US broke up. The two major similarities is that Alaska went back to Russia and the EU secured Washington and surrounding areas to evacuate civilians and protect international interests.
@@elyenidacevedo1995 Only reason it would happen is Russia would try to invade and get military victory somewhere. Then they would probably fail because Russia.
@@stephenjenkins7971 Russia would have a fun time trying to find all the people and then they would have to deal with the ones they did not find shooting at them. It is Siberia but the people really really don't like the Russians in control. I don't know how much the Siberians like Russia anyway.
The invading Russians would have a helluva time dealing with the full-on guerrilla war in Alaska… so many moose rifles around, a hostile populace, and so many miles to cover.
"Economist" Paul Krugman has a history of getting it wrong. The best advice when reading anything he writes, besides not reading it in the first place, is to go in the opposite direction of whatever he says and you'll in all likelihood be a lot better off. One other bit of information about Professor Krugman is that he was an advisor to Enron. And we all know how well that went.
I've read quite a few NY Times op-eds by Krugman and I think his 1998 prediction on the internet as completely consistent with most of his opinions about the economy: It's based on another reality from ours.
"The other states would just be ok with joining for some reason." I don't know why, but how you said that made me laugh hysterically, almost as funny as the idea of Kentucky in the EU. 😂
To understand why Spain sent Columbus to the new world you have to understand hispanic culture. I can imagine queen Isabella was annoyed by this guy and said " let him set sail and get lost, and he can take some criminals with him". She was probably cracking up after she let him do that. Probably in the tune of " vete pal carajo".
The criticism towards Paul Krugman is a bit unfair. With the tech bubble bursting during this period it is easy to see how he made such a bad prediction. He even admitted his mistake. But you are correct that economists tend to get a lot of predictions wrong. It's kinda in the nature of economics/finance.
"It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future" - Yogi Berra (attributed). Then again, he also said, "I never said half the things I said."
It's still inexcusable, even if hyperbole. Even in 1998 I was using the internet for a lot. Email alone was revolutionary. And you can't get very good pron over the fax machine. Yeah it was worth waiting a minute for a picture to download. 🙂🙂
An economist has one of the few jobs I know of where its members can be wrong about everything throughout their entire careers and still keep their positions.
There is of course Lord Kelvin's famous prediction from the end of the 19th centure, when he claimed that physics is pretty much done and there is nothing left to discover.
I think one of the more absurd bits of the "America Splits Up" prediction, is the notion that just because some entity next door failed, that it's neighbour would rush in to "pick up the pieces". This assumes for example that Canada has any kind of territorial ambitions. It doesn't. It never has. Unlike a lot of countries, it has quietly minded its own business and stayed at home. We have many offers by either small states to become a part of Canada and the answer has always been "What??? No!!! Not interested." We have never had colonies, or protectorates, and never will. We don't want you.
Canada doesn't have territorial ambitions because it is too weak to have them, was controlled by the British for too long to have an independent foreign policy to take them, and expanded where it could already. That's not some moral high ground; that's just common sense.
@@stephenjenkins7971 Patent nonsense. Canada is huge. Doesn’t need extra territory. Hasn’t been “controlled by the British” for over a century. Your argument is complete rubbish.
@@vivocanada Canada won actual autonomy after WW1, I believe. By then there was nowhere to colonize, unlike the US which had the Carribean and Pacific.
The "war to end all wars" thing is understandable.. Many people said something similar after WW2, acknowledging that nuclear Armageddon was a possibility, but sure that we were done with war short of that. And today people talk about a not to distant future in which humanity will have outgrown war. It's not going to happen, but it's wonderful to believe.
The idea that TEXAS would become a part of mexico is hilarious. The Texan economy would be the 10th largest in the world if it was its own nation. Mexico is 15th. California's the 5th largest on its own. Why the heck would the 5th largest economy join another nation? Laughable. Literally, most US states would be better off as individual nations than joining other countries. More than likely if the US collapsed, it would form some sort of confederacy for self interests and eventually reform into a new US over time. Likely weaker than it once was but still stronger than most other nations could ever hope to match in terms of resources, scale, or military.
Yeah I agree, realistically they would be independent countries with an EU style of confederacy. Maybe some of the smaller states would merge but certainly California would remain independent.
@@cn1878 Yeah, definitely. Plus, could you imagine another nation trying to manage a US state? Just one phrase for that _good luck_ lol Americans are nuts. (I say this as an American)
@@dominicguye8058Russia was going through an economic meltdown, had survived a coup 5 years before and lost a war to keep Chechnya in the country. The future was extremely uncertain for Russia back then
Texas going back to Mexico is the craziest thing I’ve heard of. And if anything, Alaska and most of the other northern states, would go to Canada, but most definitely not all of them. And assuming that all of the states would just keep their borders is also absurd.
Not at all. The more likely out come would be a USA 2.0 A divide between Red and Blue. The Red States would form a newer USA🇺🇸 None of those States would ever join with another country. This prediction here is more of a dream of the Globalists. To defuse the USA’s power.
It's especially funny when you consider that each of these hypothetical breakaway countries has enough power and influence to be a world power in their own right, greater than any of the countries they would hypothetically become a client of.
I'm reminded of Kurt Vonnagut's (possibly satirical) prediction in Slaughterhouse Five (written in 1969) that America would be "balkanized" and broken up into smaller states by the rest of the world in the 1970's for its mis-handling of foreign wars.
A hilarious idea considering that European colonization was ongoing and Soviet foreign intervention was also ongoing. And how many wars were being waged beyond them too.
Haha, "possibly" satirical? Slaughterhouse-five is maybe the best satire ever written! Vonnegut was like the 20th century Mark Twain. This is a book where the protagonist gets kidnapped by aliens and forced to live in a human zoo with an adult actress.
The Columbus fact you say is also wrong Columbus didn't underestimate the size of the planet he overestimated the size of Asia and thought it was way bigger than it actually is and that he could sail to Japan from spain
I thought a fair bit of both was involved; he cited low estimates for the size of the world and high estimates for the length of Eurasia to convince people (possibly including himself) that it was achievable.
Irony... It was believed that after WW1 there'd be no more wars and it was wrong. After WW2, several wars were predicted that luckily didn't occur. Many people were skeptic about man flying. After the airplane became true, many people believed that by now there'd be flying cars and that's nowhere near. Paul Krugman said that internet would be long gone by now, because he was trying to be provocative, to get a reaction out of people, predicting how a lot of people are using internet now.
There was quite a lot of wars between ww1 and ww2,just none of them the scale of ww1 or ww2 It was more of a "hopefully this is the last big war in europe" than "this is the last war" I mean there was quite a bit of wars RIGHT AFTER ww1 ended,one of the larger ones was the polish soviet war (1919-1921).
Most experts agree that flying cars aren't feasible beyond a curiosity for one simple reason: What happens when your car breaks down mid-flight? Even Zemekis were aware of this when making "Back to the Future, Part 2," but he thought that flying cars were too cool not to include.
As a Canadian, I laughed when I saw that the "Central North American Republic" would be "under Canadian influence". The role of Canada is a small open economy tied to the US. We can't project power or influence without the large economy we are tied to.
The central North American republic actually does make sense. Its just the Midwest. But it would have a larger economy and population than Canada so its highly unlikely Canada could influence it.
That first prediction is basically just wish fulfillment for terminally online Europeans. It always floors me too, that there are non-Americans who think immigration will kill the US. Are these people really so wrapped up by their assimilationist ethnostates where, even if you're born in the country, have citizenship, and have lived there your entire life, you're not a "true [insert nationality]" because of your ancestry, that they see anything different as a systemic flaw?
Frankly, the prediction from Columbus that he would reach East Asia should have been included in the least of worst predictions. The fact is that the Portuguese crown rejected him, not because they were content with going the other way around, but because the court mathematicians concluded that Columbus was severely underestimating the circumference of the Earth and there was no way he would be able to reach East Asia with the sailing technology of the time. And they were absolutely right, as if America didn't actually exist, his expedition would have perished in the middle of the ocean. Also, describing Columbus trips as the beginning of the age of discovery is very American-centric and frankly wrong. The Portuguese were already setting discovering new lands in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans for decades and it was only a matter of time for America to be discovered (Brazil was discovered not even a decade after Columbus reached the Caribbean). Thus, it pretty reasonable to say that the (European) Age of Discovery had already started in 1434 when Cape Bojador was passed, 17 years before Columbus was even born.
Something that does not get mentioned enough for poor Chamberlain is that the window for stopping Hitler militarily without great cost was already closed in late 1938. Had France and the UK tried to stop him, they would have fared even more poorly than they did when they finally did say "no" at Poland. The time purchased at Munich may have made the war shorter by allowing Britain more time to get ready and the Anglo-American technology gap advantage to grow a bit more, especially in the areas of radar and cryptography.
You couldn’t be more wrong about Wells. First of all, WW1 is the greatest of all wars… It was named “The Great War”. So he was technically correct. Second of all, The Great War was the end of war… At least as we knew it. That war ended thousands of years of “codes” or “chivalry”. It was the first war (on a big scale) that used modern tactics. Tactics that involved killing your enemy without seeing them. Every war before hand u virtually had to see your enemy in order to kill them. This is the first war where that wasn’t true. Fast forward 100+ years and most wars are not fought with armies anymore, and in the rare times they are it’s almost always a larger power fighting against guerrilas. Countries don’t even legal declare war anymore. His words are much wiser than the superficial analyzation you’re giving them.
The craziest part about the US breakup prediction was the lumping of completely dissimilar states. You can pick ANY time in US history and find that the people of Massachusetts and South Carolina fundamentally disagree with each other, so why would they join together? And Georgia joining Mexico? Idaho joining California, and both joining China? It's like the professor just drew lines without ever considering any information from the US.
The irony that the prediction was made just a few years before the professors country would collapse
Seriously, a US collapse is never an entirely stupid prediction as any and all large enough states are a bit collapse prone but the reasons and geography of a US collapse that he gave are absolutely laughable. Anytime someone cites "moral degradation" as a reason for a collapse you know they don't have a clue what they are talking about.
Very European of him lol
Ye, it's just propaganda in my opinion. Probably just a response to the west predicting the collapse of Russia.
@@santiagogarza8121 Russia is not European, it's a law unto itself.
Igor Panarin's prediction for America feels like the British during the Victorian era, drawing arbitrary lines through massive areas without understanding the politics involved one bit.
You can tell he didn't understand the cultural demographics of the US beyond broad geographic details.
@@merrittanimation7721 Indeed
That's like the US 1900-present. Drawing lines and dictating international events without understanding the politics involved one bit
@@Peizxcv Once the British stopped drawing lines we Americans decided to pick up the slack. Seems that cartographers will always have steady business
@@zephurwallace9560 ✌️😂🤣
What's even funnier is that plenty of kids hearing about the Wright Brothers' flying machine taking to the skies would, in their old age, see Neil Armstrong walk on the moon.
From invention of flying machines to destroying cities by splitting the atom
Yeah, and the NYT took Robert Goddard to task for his ideas on rocketry, stating that even a high school chemistry student would know it wouldn't work. Tho in their defense they finally published a retraction in 1969--about 40 years after they mocked his ideas. Quite the prognosticators there at the _Times._
Yes the film production in the studio was pretty inspiring. Joking aside both China and the Soviet Union detected radio signals from the moon's surface and acknowledged that the US had astronauts on the moon.
Yep a 10 year old in 1903 would be 76 years old in 1969. What a lifetime of change!
@@gravityissues5210
It would be more fun if the reporter who wrote the original article was still alive in 1969!
The most funny thing about US break-up prediction is Central North American Republic is under Canada control despite have more population than entire Canada and more economic and military power---
Texas alone has a bigger economy than Mexico.
You can say the same about the Texas Republic
Canada will break up before the United States does.
i dont know why you people bring that argument, you the same people that got your ass handed to you twice by poorer countries with less population and using ak 47s, both times ended up having your soldiers scrambling to get up into a helicopter. not to mention cuba kicking you out of their bay.
Maybe Central Republic would be poor after war, or not agree with each other
I don’t know what’s weirder to me, the idea that my state of Tennessee would join the EU or the idea that it would align politically with New York and Massachusetts.
Probably would have been just captured by NY no?
I love that the map put Kentucky and Tennessee with the East coast instead of lumping them into Texas
Yoooo another Tennessean. That guy was a bit off his rocker though. He definitely should’ve done some research on the U.S. before his prediction.
@@godlovesyou1995 Well, other entities exists and can help them if need be so individual state decisions do matter
@@godlovesyou1995New York is rich, but they aren’t omnipotent. Besides, why invade Tennessee when you can make for the Great Lakes instead?
How come every time the US is displayed as “collapsed” they get recolonized rather than what would actually happen: the states form new countries.
Because it tends to be a fantasy by people that support those colonizing countries, generally. In this case, its a Russian that wants the US to suffer what the USSR suffer x100. A US breaking apart into separate but independent countries can reunite one day.
I’d say a lot of states would want to band together in smaller republics but theirs no way any American would tolerate being colonized
Attempting to colonize would probably actually put it back together, or at least large chunks of it.
@@dolphingoreeaccount7395 “the Brit’s landed in Washington D.C. to recolonize Maryland!” *assemble the union*
The absolute closest thing to being colonized that would happen to the US is perhaps, though kinda unlikely, some states would voluntarily join Canada. But, other than that, there's no fucking way any states join Mexico, or that the EU or China actually take any control.
you know its a completely arbitrary country prediction when every new state's name ends in republic
You're saying you *don't* like "Central North American Republic"?
There were some ancient republics, some like San Marino lasted into the modern era. The US however started a trend away from monarchy and toward modern [not noble or commercial] republican nation states. Prince Metternich thought this extremely dangerous [at the Congress of Vienna] and tried to get the European monarchies to launch an attack and reconquest of the US. This was blocked by the British, backed by their control of the ocean. They didn't like the US but were still exploiting trade with the US and didn't want another European country to increase its power in the area. The Monroe Doctrine, in fact, was suggested to the US as a joint British US endeavor. The US went it alone, but Britain benefited anyway [until the US got too big and powerful for Britain to control].
@@JMM33RanMA That they are Republics is not the problem it is that they all named themselves "something" Republic that is weird. What would actually happen if the USA broke up is that every single one of the successor states would try to name itself the United States of America.
@@FakeSchrodingersCat Or a breakup could result in the Confederate States of America, or the White Christian States of America, etc. The old* Massachusetts official seal reads, "Sigillum Republicae Massachusettensis" and the Commonwealth is a democratic republic.
*The flag and seal are under consideration for review or replacement due to controversy about potential racist connotations surrounding the elements.
@@JMM33RanMA The American naming convention is something of America, you might get California republic and the Republic of Texas out west they have those traditional names predating joining. Though you would just as likely see the United States of Texas, and outside of California the preferred name used by separatists for that region seems to be United States of Cascadia. New England would almost certainly go either for the Commonwealth of America or some variation. I doubt the south would choose Confederate States of America again, but you can almost be guaranteed it would follow that rhythm, the same for the Midwest.
Man, 2010 was crazy right? I remember the US splitting up like it was yesterday.
I must have missed it while watching History Channel telling me the world was going to end in 2012.
I will say, as a proud member of Atlantic America, I will vote yes on EU membership!
Yeah. I think that The Great 2010 Split was the Tower of Babylon-esque effect, that we could only speak the language of our new country. I went to sleep speaking English, and woke up speaking Canadian.
@@frankthetank2550 I cant believe we got everything from Montana to Missouri we really werent expecting the other countries to let us have more than Minnesota.
@@frankthetank2550 I remember flying into California and seeing all the signs in Chinese that was a weird time
Columbus: give me my money
Spain: wtf no lmao
Columbus: dies from cringe
To be fair. Columbus was right. Spain can't just change the rules whenever they want. That is not how contracts work. And it would be funny if some random guy received hundreds of billions of wealth just before he died.
The king and queen of spain were absolute monarchs. According to them, they could do whatever they wanted, as it was their divine right
King Ferdinand II: "I am altering the deal. Pray that I do not alter it further"
@@haroeneissa790 Columbus wasn't right, he lost his rights because he was a convicted criminal for all the "mischieving" he did in America against the orders of the Queen.
@@haroeneissa790 Columbus was not right. In fact, the discovery of America proved him wrong.
As a French myself, I can add a few funny details:
- WW1 was called "la Der des Der" in France, meaning "the last of the last". There was also a lot of hope that it would be the last one.
- Upon seeing the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 (that he judged was not heavy enough on Germany), the French Marshall Foch said "This is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years". He wasn't bad at predictions.
- At the Munich conference, there was also Daladier, the French PM. He was forced to sign the treaty by the Parliament, but he was not blind. He said that Hitler's real aim was to eventually secure "a domination of the Continent in comparison with which the ambitions of Napoleon were feeble". When his plane got near the airport, back from Munich, he saw a crowd. Fearing for his life, he asked the pilot to land somewhere else. The pilot told him that the people were cheering, to which he reacted by "Ah the fools" (Ah les cons)
- The first flying machine was invented in 1783, the hot air balloon, by the Montgolfiers brothers, and Jean-François Pilâtre de Rozier being the first human ever to fly. An article saying that mankind won't fly in 1903 is not only a terrible prediction when we know of the Wrights brothers, but also an ignorant statement!
Best part is he said that like 6 days before.
Der is a shortened for dernière (last)
To be fair, he may have seen a difference between flying in a heavier-than-air craft and merely floating due to buoyancy.
@@foxymetroid That's still flying nonetheless. The difference is irrelevant. Also the Ader Avion III predates the article too.
@@roidrannoc1691 Ader made a powered leap though. The first flight was probably made by Otto Lilienthal in the early 1890s, but it was unpowered, which limited its use.
The Wrights certainly were the first to make a powered airplane that flew more than just powered leaps. In 1905 they made multiple flights between 11-24 miles long.
In 1908 Wilbur Wright demonstrated the Wright Flyer at Le Mans and even the very sceptic French aeronautical community had never seen something like the flight Wilbur demonstrated.
Just for reference the most often cited contender for the first powered airplane, the 14bis, flew 200 meters (0.12 Miles) in 1906.
"I believe in the horse. The Automobile is only a temporary phenomenon" -Wilhelm II.
I sure hope he was right in the long run. I hate cars and I don’t even have a license or permit
@@therealspeedwagon1451 but they are definitely not worse than horses
He had the excuse that drivable roads didn't exist outside of major cities, anywhere, until after World War I, and since all railroads were private businesses, it was unthinkable at the time that governments would establish free highway systems.
Fuck cars, public transport supremacy
@@andrewlynch4126at least horses don’t kill over 1.2 million people a year
The most ridiculous part of this prediction is that Arizona would want to join California over Texas
No one wants to be anywhere near California 😂🤣😆
...or that Mexico would want texas back! I had some Mexican college students, to whom I offered to return Texas. They looked interested until I told them they would have to take back all the gun nuts, Confederate holdouts, Evangelical bigots and the Bush family. They refused, very firmly, saying, "Our poor Mejico has enough problems without taking on your too. No deal!"
In reality, I think we'd just be forced to join whatever nation controls the Colorado river.
@@SupaKoopaTroopa64
It's looking that way, I live in the southwest and I know about the water wars.
@@SupaKoopaTroopa64 It would be like Fallout New Vegas in the south west who ever controls the Hoover dam controls the area. looking at the rest of the states also shows how dumb this idea is; the mississippi river basin being split 3 ways is INSANE Cities like New Orleans, Memphis, St Louis, Chicago, and Minneapolis are where they are for a REASON and that reason is the GIANT NAVIGATABLE RIVER SYSTEM that dominates the center of the continent
I am glad that the first prediction never happened. Having both West Virginia and South Carolina in the EU would be shocking.
It wouldn't be too hard. Just tell them the EU flag is an old Confederate battle standard and they'll put it right up. (As a West Virginian I'm allowed to make these sort of jokes)
Considering Romania and Bulgaria are already EU member states, I could see West Virginia and South Carolina lumped together with Romania and Bulgaria as essentially 'second-grade' member states (denied into Schengen Zone, denied being able to use the Euro etc)
@@JustAlice_Mai another problem would also be that it’s still far away from mainland europe
It is a very ridiculous map too since it doesn't make sense.
@@zephurwallace9560 as a south carolinan, no
Technically Columbus didn't underestimate the size of the earth, he overestimated the size of Asia, as at the time the best maps in Europe were essentially based on the distances from Marco Polo's journey, where he described the distance between places as the time it took to travel between them.
Some Ancient Greek had already figured it out 2000 years before Columbus
@@Josep_Hernandez_Lujan I know. I never said they didn't. Whose measurements do you think the cartographers were using when they made the maps Columbus had? The problem was that the ancient Greeks *didn't* know how large Asia was, and so for thousands of years European maps greatly distorted landmasses that far from themselves to the point that they were putting Japan where the US's east coast would be.
@@aidenlosh9518 it doesnt matter how big Asia is, erastosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth with shadows. So if Columbus had known the right number, then if you assume he underestimated how big Asia is, then it would be even further away from Spain
@@anatol0077 Yes it does matter how big people thought Asia was, because he was trying to get to east Asia. Columbus did know the circumference of the Earth, but he thought that Asia went twice as far east around that circumference as it actually did, meaning he thought Japan would be near America's east coast. Look at the maps of Henrich Martellus from the 1400s. As a mapmaker he was well aware of the circumference of the earth, but because no one had an accurate scale of the breadth of landmasses, he vastly overestimated the size of Eurasia to the point that it would have spanned 220° of the circumference instead of the 130° it actually does.
@@aidenlosh9518 you are right
The part about Mexico having influence over Texas and other states in the "broken up united states" Is that the thought of Mexico having influence over another country is insane.
Mexico barely has influence over Mexico, with all those cartels and the fact that the country is very unstable
More likely taxes would invade Mexico or economically dominate it xD
Plus, we Texans have alot of state pride. "Remember the Alamo!" Is still a huge part of our culture.
I mean it's more likely Texas conquers Mexico then Mexico takes Texas.
@need-money-for-porsche if you can’t hold parts of your country despite a military advantage due to resistance from cartels, how are you going to hold Texas and surrounding states who’s citizens are just as armed and have the backing of US national guardsman and their equipment xD
@need-money-for-porsche You are peddling falsehoods xD. You literally have had an incident recently where Mexico arrested a cartel leader and the country fell into total anarchy as the cartels began sowing chaos xD, clearly Mexico does not have the cartel problem under control. Also in this scenario Texas is not alone it is grouped in with a bunch of other states. So no, Mexico could not annex Texas, nevermind manage to even HOLD TEXAS. As if you think the cartels are hard to fight, imagine fighting the national guards of all those states, equipped with US weapons, AND fighting all the militias of the states who would be just as vicious to foreigners as the cartels xD
I recall an editorial article circa 1999 in which it was stated that, despite the hype, running a profitable internet business is impossible. It was predicted that Amazon, ebay, and a few others would all be bankrupt within a year.
Sounds like another prediction that said that computers wouldn't be very useful in the future and that there would only be a handful of them in the world.
To be fair, the vast majority of internet startups at the time would fail, and those that eventually succeeded would take a long time before becoming profitable.
Except there really was a dotcom bubble that was about to burst, and the business model of Amazon in 1999 would not have inspired confidence in me if I were considering investing in them
Didn't Amazon only recently become profitable? I believe they operated many many years at a loss. But investors knew they had a good idea and backed them. Of course Amazon may soon start losing money with some of their dumb decisions on their streaming service, but that's a subject for another time.
As a long time reader of the WSJ, the publication of the first story isn't as strange as you might think. Every day in the same place (on the bottom fold of the front page), there is a small section reserved for something fun and a little off the wall. While not silly, the contents of this block usually aren't as serious as the rest of the topics reported on, and this article isn't at all out of place.
The first "prediction" is just a Russian guy's fantasy after being bitter because of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
He wanted so badly for the same to happen to the US .
Completely disregarding that the USSR member states had had separate identities for centuries, unlike the US states.
Some Russians still badly want that to happen. That's what interfering in our elections and elsewhere in the West is about. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of useful idiots who think breaking up the West sounds dandy.
@@webcelt cough cough *brexit * cough
@@HeortirtheWoodwarden The US states also have separate identities.
@@2hotflavored666 No shit, Sherlock, it's like that for every country, but it's nothing like the USSR, that was made up of separate civilizations.
The Canada one is especially absurd when you consider Chicago alone would increase Canada's population by 10%. That's not a takeover, that's a merger. Mexico has a bigger population but it'd be a similar situation as well. It's like he just naively assumed that 1 country is automatically stronger than 1/4 of another country, because 1 > 1/4.
Canada owning that area doesn't make any sense neither, Canada is more culturally similar to New England
@@e-1074The most closely related to Canada would probably be Michigan and maybe Wisconsin, but after that New England would probably be the closest.
That Russian predictor underestimate how Southern pride would pretty much prevent any Mexican influence. Also, if the South was to break away, it would probably follow the Mason-Dixon line.
I could definitely see Virginia getting split in two again, the more conservative south going to the new Confederacy, and the more liberal north going to whatever happens in the north
It is weird since neither Mexico nor Canada have the power to consolidate influence in those regions. As much as I can see Texas and Mexico making a trade alliance. The internal states would have to play nice with Canada to secure access to the Great Lakes (or form a Navy capable to control them) so maybe another trade union.
@@pocketmarcy69903 virginias is too cursed
@@realllllllycool how about four
@@umu-san4414 Texas: Ah, yes, I know we violently broke away from your country nearly 200 years ago and later joined the U.S., but do you think we can join back up now that the U.S. is kaput? By the way, sorry about capturing your general, and you'll never hear another word about the Alamo.
The fact Igor Panarin had such a low estimate of American states that he would think they would all just be ruled by a secondary party, rather than succeeding from the US and becoming their own independent country. I feel like the latter would be far more likely to happen, given they already have a vast history of civil wars and state infighting.
Th most likely would be even messier, if it happened anytime close to the modern day it would fracture along party lines on the scale of individual communities, with only a few states really supporting one side or the other.
The funniest part is Canada actually gaining any territory
That’s the weirdest part they have like zero political control over the us their political presence is too weak to actually govern that many people
I mean, if the US fell apart, Alaska trying to join Canada wouldn't surprise me... but Canada kinda already has enough cold ultra low population density territory.
@@keiyakinsmore realistically Canada would be annexed by rogue states
>> ya! as if we need to be bigger!
Canada getting USA's bread basket states 👍
Well I certainly hadn't *predicted* WonderWhy to upload again!
Yeah, halloween treat
You sir, are a comedic genius
He will upload next sometime in Quarter 2 of 2023.
you know what the funniest thing about the american collapse projection is? the “central north american union” has more than double the population of canada. and this guy predicted canada to have influence over it. hilarious.
You see that with everything. Texas alone has more population than Australia and a 1.5 trillion dollar economy. It’d easily be a world power if it were independent. You can make the claim that America will split up, given the state this country is in that is becoming more and more likely. But it being under these ridiculous spheres of influence like it’s some 19th century African country is just outlandish. If anything the country would be independent and divided entirely by ideology
@@therealspeedwagon1451 rural New Yorkers are more ideologically similar to rural Texans than urban Texans. The divide is largely urban vs rural, which is a problem around the world. Both areas need each other so there is no way to split along that line. Besides maybe coastal cities becoming city states.
@@willjapheth23789 Exactly. Almost everywhere across not just the US but all of the Western world, politics follow a pretty rigid rule: rural = conservative and right-wing, urban = progressive and left-wing. Sure, southern states are on average more conservative than progressive states like California, but the differences are still smaller than between rural and urban areas in each of these states.
If the EU would split up thr german parts would definitely end up under Liechteinsteins hegemony
@@therealspeedwagon1451 Texas would weaken immensely without the open borders and trade with the other States; the US is far stronger together than separate. This is pure copium on your part, and almost all Texans know it.
It’s nice to watch a WonderWhy video.
The long times between uploads are worth it.
The way I see it, the phrase "The War to End All Wars" was not taken literally, at least not by some. The way I see it, the phrase was taken by some to mean that this would be the biggest war fought yet. As in, wars may still be fought after this, but they could never rival the scale of the Great War.
Chinese Civil Wars: *_Am I a joke to you?_*
well that aged amazingly
@@susanlee594 In that case:
ruclips.net/video/c-fUGBfJHCY/видео.html
to be fair, he did say france, uk, spain, portugal, asia, etc are tired of war and they DID stop after WW2, which was really a continuation of WW1. so he was right in that. Since WW2, there have been no wars in Europe (except ukraine but does that really count)
AFAIK, the figurative meaning of the idiom "X to end all X" came from this exact phrase, but it was originally intended literally.
I’m sure Alabama Louisiana and Mississippi would be totally chill being ruled by Mexico 🇲🇽 😂
That makes me laugh the most about the map. The Deep South being ruled my Mexico is peak clownery 🤡
The Munich Agreement should be a great lesson to anyone who honestly believes that giving in to Putin's demand would be a good idea...
Also a warning about telling empty red lines and doing nothing over a looming threat (because """" peace """" and """ dimplomacy """ and " negotiation "). War shall become an option again to settle big, irreconcilable problems. Way better than terror exchange with nukes threats.
no one who is pro-Ukraine thinks appeasing Putin would work.
@@dominicguye8058 fr the only people who think appeasing him would work are pro Russian supporters lol
But we should also learn the lesson of numerous western interventions. There is a limit to how long Western nations will support a losing effort. All the Russians have to do is wait this out. Of course even if they win, they lose. They are wasting an entire generation of men, in a nation that is already losing population quite rapidly.
Oh yeah when I think of South Carolina, I definitely think “yeah these guys seem like they’d be right at home in the EU” 😂😂😂
Or West Virginia, for that matter... Not exactly Belgium, are they...
Here is a fun fact
"This is not Peace. It is an Armistice for twenty years." - Ferdinand Foch, 1919 after the Treaty of Versailles
If anyone ever cites 'moral degradation', they are blowing smoke.
IDK about that
Conservatives and their ridiculous morality 😂
@@thepolarphantasm2319 Yeah, how could we dare to have Morals. Pesky things.
nah that's pretty accurate
@@SA345yt lol, you don't. You just pretend to so you can judge people 😂
Conservatives are the biggest jokes in the world for a reason bro
About the "war to end to end all wars", some wars didn't even wait for it to even end.
So the first prediction being in the WSJ makes sense in my personal timeline because my US History teacher in 8th grade (2009-10 was the year I was in 8th grade) was convinced Mexico was going to take over Texas (where I lived though it wasn’t racist as he was Mexican) and that the US was going to collapse into civil war. So much so that he had rations of food, a bomb shelter ready and gave us info on how to stockpile goods.
Texas is more likely to redeclare independence than go back to Mexico
And he was a teacher??
@@TylerMarkRichardsonI’m concerned
LOL even my Mexican buddy I worked with said if Mexico ever took over their former territories he would just move up North. No one wants Mexican government to take over.
Mannn, I was only three years old when the United States fell appart :( truly a tragic moment of history
I love that Panarin's rubric from determining which foreign power would hold sway over which part of the former US is just "what major power is physically closest in that cardinal direction?"
Krugman was coreect in one regards: Even today most have nothing to say to each other, it doesn't mean they would be quiet about it at Tik Tok as shown us.
When I was a kid, I knew this one guy, a friend of the family who was like Jeff Bridges meets Alex Jones, who believed in the first prediction (breakup of the US into client states) and got me to believe it, to such an extent that when I noticed that a singer on the radio had a slight accent, I actually thought that the US had already collapsed and so now all American songs had to be covered by foreign artists because the country that produced them no longer existed.
Did you live in the US at the time?
@@Plumjet09 Yes, somehow I thought that the most powerful country of all time would calmly accept its own demise to such an extent that they wouldn't even bother announcing it
@@z3iro383 Not the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. I knew a kid in 8th grade who used now instead of know because “it is shorter” even after I explained that they had different definitions.
5:44 Another classic case of bad history. No, the Ottomans didn't ban Europe from the spice trade kickstarting the age of exploration by the Iberians. Summarizing a much bigger (and much more in-depth) post from r/badhistory:
1. The Portuguese started their voyages of exploration decades before the city fell. By 1453 they had already reached the area around modern day Guinea/Sierra Leone.
2. The Portuguese sources from the time mention no "lack" of spices.
3. Constantinople wasn't important for the Asian/European routes. The majority of that trade was done via Beirut in Syria and Alexandria in Egypt (both controlled by the Mamluk Sultanate), mostly by Venetian and Genoese traders (due to the Crusades) but also by Catalan and French merchants. Those 2 cities only fell to the Ottomans in 1517, and by then the Portuguese already had estabilished outposts or taken cities all the way to Indonesia and even defeated the Mamluks in India.
4. There is no evidence of spice prices rising after 1453 as one would expect if the Ottomans suddenly cut off the supply.
5. Lastly, and probably most importantly, banning an entire continent (by 1450 Europe had an estimated population of 83 million) from trading with you simply makes no sense. The Ottomans were very capable rulers (at least during this period, one could argue about the later empire but that's a whole 'nother can of bad history worms), why would they simply block off Europe? Because they were of a different religion? Until the second half of the 15th century, most of their population was christian and the empire was (when compared to Europe) very tolerant of other religions. Not to mention the Franco-Ottoman alliance of 1536 and other treaties with European "nations", including a request by the Pope for help against the French king in the late 15th century. Mehmed II also was a romanophile and thought of his empire, post conquest, as the rightful successors of the Roman Empire by right of conquest and styled himself as Qayser-i Rûm, Caesar of Rome, showing they didn't hate Europe.
This comment turned out longer than I intended but this is the historical myth I hate the most.
"Why would they simply block of Europe?"
They wouldn't have to, they just jack up the prices now that the competition is supposedly gone. To monopolize it.
There was a video game called Shattered Union. It was both similar and wildly different to how the US broke up. The two major similarities is that Alaska went back to Russia and the EU secured Washington and surrounding areas to evacuate civilians and protect international interests.
I doubt Alaska would go back to Russia...
@@elyenidacevedo1995 Only reason it would happen is Russia would try to invade and get military victory somewhere. Then they would probably fail because Russia.
@@maxbennett5412 Alaska would sooner burn to the ground than join Russia, that's for sure.
@@stephenjenkins7971 Russia would have a fun time trying to find all the people and then they would have to deal with the ones they did not find shooting at them. It is Siberia but the people really really don't like the Russians in control. I don't know how much the Siberians like Russia anyway.
The invading Russians would have a helluva time dealing with the full-on guerrilla war in Alaska… so many moose rifles around, a hostile populace, and so many miles to cover.
"Economist" Paul Krugman has a history of getting it wrong. The best advice when reading anything he writes, besides not reading it in the first place, is to go in the opposite direction of whatever he says and you'll in all likelihood be a lot better off. One other bit of information about Professor Krugman is that he was an advisor to Enron. And we all know how well that went.
Seriously? The 2008 crash happened ON MY BIRTHDAY!! I surely was affected by it as it was super difficult to find a job in 2009 and 2010.
An amazing video. I am also very glad you included the Munich betrayal.
The American collapse one wasn’t a bad setup for a novel, but it makes absolutely no sense for the real world lol
I think the Russian professor had being playing a bit too much Kaiserreich...
I've read quite a few NY Times op-eds by Krugman and I think his 1998 prediction on the internet as completely consistent with most of his opinions about the economy: It's based on another reality from ours.
"The other states would just be ok with joining for some reason." I don't know why, but how you said that made me laugh hysterically, almost as funny as the idea of Kentucky in the EU. 😂
South Park teaches that we should never underestimate the Canadians!
To understand why Spain sent Columbus to the new world you have to understand hispanic culture. I can imagine queen Isabella was annoyed by this guy and said " let him set sail and get lost, and he can take some criminals with him". She was probably cracking up after she let him do that. Probably in the tune of " vete pal carajo".
Theyre spanish. Not hispanic.
The craziest part of this is assuming Texas would willingly join with Oklahoma
If there’s a thing we are worse at than trying not to kill each other, it’s predicting the future.
>Wall Street Journal
>"Well respected"
Lol
I know some people who read that paper and go, “Scam me once, I’ll subscribe to you. Scam me a thousand times, shame on me.” 🤦♂️
@@ConnanTheCivilized , "Scam me in a million ways a day, I'll vote for your candidate."
POV: You let the AI run wild and now your playthrough of hoi4 has gone off the rails.
"Without a crystal ball, the future will always remain a mystery until it becomes the present."
-Wonder Why 2022
The criticism towards Paul Krugman is a bit unfair. With the tech bubble bursting during this period it is easy to see how he made such a bad prediction. He even admitted his mistake. But you are correct that economists tend to get a lot of predictions wrong. It's kinda in the nature of economics/finance.
"It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future" - Yogi Berra (attributed). Then again, he also said, "I never said half the things I said."
It's still inexcusable, even if hyperbole. Even in 1998 I was using the internet for a lot. Email alone was revolutionary. And you can't get very good pron over the fax machine. Yeah it was worth waiting a minute for a picture to download. 🙂🙂
An economist has one of the few jobs I know of where its members can be wrong about everything throughout their entire careers and still keep their positions.
I remember the whole Panarin prediction thing. A few of my high school teachers read it to us and treated it as fact.
Gotta love them marxist school teachers peddling misinfo
"The United States will collapse."
🤔
"The people of Idaho and Utah will join California."
🤣
There is of course Lord Kelvin's famous prediction from the end of the 19th centure, when he claimed that physics is pretty much done and there is nothing left to discover.
"I think itll take between 1 million and 10 million years for Humans to fly"
SpongeBob time card: 2 months later 😂😂
My unironic prediction: The sponsor will be Morning Brew
Edit: Oh dear I actually got it correct
I can't get enough of these videos. Thank you
If airplanes were once called flying machines, why wasn’t vehicles called a rolling ground machine? 🤔
You mean I've been calling them the wrong name all along? Well guess I learned something today then.
🤔
They were first called horseless carriages. bigger question is why aren't carriages called rolling ground vehicles.
@@maxlostchild7187 but when the horse was discovered and tamed, was it called double legged human?
@@therealspeedwagon1451 No, it was called an ox with go-faster stripes...
Once upon a time, an automobile was often called a "horseless carriage."
I think one of the more absurd bits of the "America Splits Up" prediction, is the notion that just because some entity next door failed, that it's neighbour would rush in to "pick up the pieces". This assumes for example that Canada has any kind of territorial ambitions. It doesn't. It never has. Unlike a lot of countries, it has quietly minded its own business and stayed at home. We have many offers by either small states to become a part of Canada and the answer has always been "What??? No!!! Not interested." We have never had colonies, or protectorates, and never will. We don't want you.
Y'all annexed NFL not even 30 years ago
Canada doesn't have territorial ambitions because it is too weak to have them, was controlled by the British for too long to have an independent foreign policy to take them, and expanded where it could already. That's not some moral high ground; that's just common sense.
@@stephenjenkins7971 Patent nonsense. Canada is huge. Doesn’t need extra territory. Hasn’t been “controlled by the British” for over a century. Your argument is complete rubbish.
@@vivocanada Canada won actual autonomy after WW1, I believe. By then there was nowhere to colonize, unlike the US which had the Carribean and Pacific.
@@pitchkinker This is news to me, I thought NFL joined as a province in 1949.
"The North Pole will be ice-free in the summer by 2013 because of man-made global warming." - Al Gore (2009)
"Man Bear Pig will kill us all this time time around guys! I swear I'm not fear mongering!"
You should see how they used to scare us in the late 80s and early 90s. I thought the Earth would be hotter than Venus by 1999!
Hah political bs@😁
Pretending global warming isn't happening is fucking wild.
Y'all must literally have your heads fully encased inside your own asses.
The "war to end all wars" thing is understandable.. Many people said something similar after WW2, acknowledging that nuclear Armageddon was a possibility, but sure that we were done with war short of that. And today people talk about a not to distant future in which humanity will have outgrown war. It's not going to happen, but it's wonderful to believe.
So because of the 2008 economic crisis, the Wall Street Journal thought that the U.S. would collapse and be carved up in 2 years time?
"The internet is arguably the biggest invention of all time".
2 words: The plow
The idea that TEXAS would become a part of mexico is hilarious. The Texan economy would be the 10th largest in the world if it was its own nation. Mexico is 15th. California's the 5th largest on its own. Why the heck would the 5th largest economy join another nation?
Laughable. Literally, most US states would be better off as individual nations than joining other countries. More than likely if the US collapsed, it would form some sort of confederacy for self interests and eventually reform into a new US over time. Likely weaker than it once was but still stronger than most other nations could ever hope to match in terms of resources, scale, or military.
Yeah I agree, realistically they would be independent countries with an EU style of confederacy. Maybe some of the smaller states would merge but certainly California would remain independent.
@@cn1878 Yeah, definitely. Plus, could you imagine another nation trying to manage a US state? Just one phrase for that _good luck_ lol
Americans are nuts. (I say this as an American)
Bro the russian guy didn’t realize that his country was about to collapse💀
💀
he made that prediction in 1998, so no Russia was not about to collapse. What are you on?
You need to go back to history class💀
@@dominicguye8058Russia was going through an economic meltdown, had survived a coup 5 years before and lost a war to keep Chechnya in the country. The future was extremely uncertain for Russia back then
Same today😃
I love the higher amount of jokes in this video than usual, this video was pretty good! :)
Texas going back to Mexico is the craziest thing I’ve heard of. And if anything, Alaska and most of the other northern states, would go to Canada, but most definitely not all of them. And assuming that all of the states would just keep their borders is also absurd.
Not at all. The more likely out come would be a USA 2.0 A divide between Red and Blue. The Red States would form a newer USA🇺🇸 None of those States would ever join with another country. This prediction here is more of a dream of the Globalists. To defuse the USA’s power.
the breakup of the US reminds me of one of those Fantasy football games
It's especially funny when you consider that each of these hypothetical breakaway countries has enough power and influence to be a world power in their own right, greater than any of the countries they would hypothetically become a client of.
I'm reminded of Kurt Vonnagut's (possibly satirical) prediction in Slaughterhouse Five (written in 1969) that America would be "balkanized" and broken up into smaller states by the rest of the world in the 1970's for its mis-handling of foreign wars.
OMG what??? Someone wrote that in 1969? 😂😂😂 that really is absurd
A hilarious idea considering that European colonization was ongoing and Soviet foreign intervention was also ongoing. And how many wars were being waged beyond them too.
Haha, "possibly" satirical? Slaughterhouse-five is maybe the best satire ever written! Vonnegut was like the 20th century Mark Twain.
This is a book where the protagonist gets kidnapped by aliens and forced to live in a human zoo with an adult actress.
@@michaellisinski2822 Although, it's ambiguous as to whether the protagonist was really unstuck in time or if he had just gone crazy.
I chuckle a little when you said "A Well Respected Journalism" the Wall Street Journal is a Rich and Politicians control news outlet.
The Columbus fact you say is also wrong
Columbus didn't underestimate the size of the planet he overestimated the size of Asia and thought it was way bigger than it actually is and that he could sail to Japan from spain
I thought a fair bit of both was involved; he cited low estimates for the size of the world and high estimates for the length of Eurasia to convince people (possibly including himself) that it was achievable.
He literally thought the earth was shaped like a pear
@@ntfoperative9432 And he was right the Earth is more pear shaped than spherical and is more noticeable if you remove all the water
@@Ms666slayer no
@@Ms666slayer the scale of earth so big that your wrong 6,378 km radius on earth Mariana Trench 10.9km
This is the kind of map YA dystopian novels have at the beginning of the book
the part I laugh at the hardest is Tennessee and West Virginia being in the EU 💀
Great video topic, I LOVE looking back at past predictions
The 1st prefiction is hilarious. Why would Canada want the Midwest at all.
Warmer weather.
Less French people.
And it has twice the size of Canada too. 😂
The boys will be home by Christmas. - every year, in every war
Irony...
It was believed that after WW1 there'd be no more wars and it was wrong. After WW2, several wars were predicted that luckily didn't occur. Many people were skeptic about man flying. After the airplane became true, many people believed that by now there'd be flying cars and that's nowhere near. Paul Krugman said that internet would be long gone by now, because he was trying to be provocative, to get a reaction out of people, predicting how a lot of people are using internet now.
There was quite a lot of wars between ww1 and ww2,just none of them the scale of ww1 or ww2
It was more of a "hopefully this is the last big war in europe" than "this is the last war"
I mean there was quite a bit of wars RIGHT AFTER ww1 ended,one of the larger ones was the polish soviet war (1919-1921).
Most experts agree that flying cars aren't feasible beyond a curiosity for one simple reason: What happens when your car breaks down mid-flight? Even Zemekis were aware of this when making "Back to the Future, Part 2," but he thought that flying cars were too cool not to include.
As a Canadian, I laughed when I saw that the "Central North American Republic" would be "under Canadian influence". The role of Canada is a small open economy tied to the US. We can't project power or influence without the large economy we are tied to.
the usa collapse just reminds me of how many youtubers have been predicting china's collapse for years (and it's not going to happen)
Plenty of people have been predicting the US' collapse for decades now, and still are. Chinese Weibo site has bunch of videos on it as well.
At least the China thing has a lot more historical basis, I agree tho
china economy relies on factory's that make smog its Templary and not a long time plan so its economy at lest going fall
The US collapse story is just so goofy, he might as well proclaim that the Balkans are going to reform the Byzantine and Ottoman Nations
wake up babe new WonderWhy video dropped
As an arizonan, i'll be god damned if that thumbnail ever even became a remote reality.
You know it was a crazy idea when you hear it comes from the wall street journal 🗿
Ah yes something really scary for Halloween , bad historical predictions.
I'm not scared, now give me some chocolate 👻
Culturally it makes more sense for Colorado to join California and Idaho join the Midwest. I could also see Az and Missouri aligned with Texas.
The central North American republic actually does make sense. Its just the Midwest. But it would have a larger economy and population than Canada so its highly unlikely Canada could influence it.
As a Canadian, I like the sound of this partition.
No one in Idaho would want to join California
that man's country (soviet union) literally died during his life, pretty sure he wasn't the right person to talk about a country's death
Great video, I can see all the work you put into this!
That first prediction is basically just wish fulfillment for terminally online Europeans. It always floors me too, that there are non-Americans who think immigration will kill the US. Are these people really so wrapped up by their assimilationist ethnostates where, even if you're born in the country, have citizenship, and have lived there your entire life, you're not a "true [insert nationality]" because of your ancestry, that they see anything different as a systemic flaw?
Betting against Krugman's predictions rarely proves unprofitable.
Frankly, the prediction from Columbus that he would reach East Asia should have been included in the least of worst predictions. The fact is that the Portuguese crown rejected him, not because they were content with going the other way around, but because the court mathematicians concluded that Columbus was severely underestimating the circumference of the Earth and there was no way he would be able to reach East Asia with the sailing technology of the time. And they were absolutely right, as if America didn't actually exist, his expedition would have perished in the middle of the ocean.
Also, describing Columbus trips as the beginning of the age of discovery is very American-centric and frankly wrong. The Portuguese were already setting discovering new lands in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans for decades and it was only a matter of time for America to be discovered (Brazil was discovered not even a decade after Columbus reached the Caribbean). Thus, it pretty reasonable to say that the (European) Age of Discovery had already started in 1434 when Cape Bojador was passed, 17 years before Columbus was even born.
Something that does not get mentioned enough for poor Chamberlain is that the window for stopping Hitler militarily without great cost was already closed in late 1938. Had France and the UK tried to stop him, they would have fared even more poorly than they did when they finally did say "no" at Poland. The time purchased at Munich may have made the war shorter by allowing Britain more time to get ready and the Anglo-American technology gap advantage to grow a bit more, especially in the areas of radar and cryptography.
You couldn’t be more wrong about Wells. First of all, WW1 is the greatest of all wars… It was named “The Great War”. So he was technically correct.
Second of all, The Great War was the end of war… At least as we knew it. That war ended thousands of years of “codes” or “chivalry”. It was the first war (on a big scale) that used modern tactics. Tactics that involved killing your enemy without seeing them.
Every war before hand u virtually had to see your enemy in order to kill them. This is the first war where that wasn’t true.
Fast forward 100+ years and most wars are not fought with armies anymore, and in the rare times they are it’s almost always a larger power fighting against guerrilas. Countries don’t even legal declare war anymore.
His words are much wiser than the superficial analyzation you’re giving them.
I’m honestly offended that they think Kentucky would have let the eu take us over… 😂