BrikWars Forum

by **OneEye589** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:53 am

Summary of the Cold War: Everyone being scared of everyone else.

by **Hoboman** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 10:40 am

Summary of this thread: blah blah blah Cold War blah blah blah.......

by **Silverdream** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 10:58 am

Zupponn wrote:I have serious doubts that China ever really had too close of relations with the USSR because their militaries fought numerous times during the cold war. The only reason they ever agreed on anything was because they were both communist states, but the desire of both of them to be the communist leader led to confrontation and eventually the 1960 split.

There's no real evidence to support the theory that Russia and China were ever at war. However this could be because both governments had everything under wraps.

by **mgb519** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:15 am

Fact: china and Russia did not like each other. Deal with it.

by **Silverdream** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:22 am

mgb519 wrote:Fact: china and Russia did not like each other. Deal with it.

Yes, but the "secret war" was never proven to exist.

by **Zupponn** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:26 pm

Silverdream wrote:
mgb519 wrote:Fact: china and Russia did not like each other. Deal with it.

Yes, but the "secret war" was never proven to exist.

Wikipedia wrote:1944-1949: Red Army troops and Republic of China troops clash in Xinjiang over Soviet support for the Second East Turkestan Republic. A Chinese muslim unit loyal to the Chinese government, the 14th Tungan Cavalry regiment fights against Soviet forces on the Mongolian border.

Wikipedia wrote:1969: A longstanding ideological feud between the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China] erupts into several occasions of inconclusive armed conflicts.

No secret war. Open war.[/quote]

by **OneEye589** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:42 pm

Dammit Silva, stop making up alternative histories.

by **Hoboman** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:21 pm

While Zupponn maybe right, I find it real funny he based his argument on entries on Wikipedia. :lol:

I mean we all know Wikipedia is so very reliable. :wink:

by **OneEye589** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:26 pm

It actually is mostly reliable if you check the sources. More reliable than most other places online that aren't official databases.

by **Ham701** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:30 pm

Also, at it's peak the USSR had over 45,000 warheads, while the US had 32,000.

by **Hoboman** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:43 pm

OneEye589 wrote:It actually is mostly reliable if you check the sources. More reliable than most other places online that aren't official databases.

What ever you say OneEye. :lol:

by **OneEye589** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 5:05 pm

Here, read this Wikipedia article and educate yourself.

by **Ham701** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 5:09 pm

It's true, I've vandalized pages before and they fix it very quickly.

by **OneEye589** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 5:18 pm

Plus, there are millions of articles on tons of topics, why would someone mess around with the information on some random page?

by **Hoboman** » Sat Aug 27, 2011 5:19 pm

OneEye589 wrote:Here, read this Wikipedia article and educate yourself.

That is just so funny OneEye. It is an article from Wikipedia saying how reliable Wikipedia is. That is just so rich.

But I go ahead open the link and start to read it. The first thing I see? Wikipedia questions the reliability of the article itself based on a lack of neutrality.

"The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2011)"

:lol:

Thanks for the "education". :mrgreen:

BrikWars Forum

Re: Alternate History is dumb

Who is online