It's not worth continuing this argument as you are "convinced" in your "hypothesis" and refuse to look at information that is against your "conclusion". You cherry pick and don't understand what a first world developed nation looks like. If Norway was an extraction based economy it wouldn't, by...
Except that being 1/5th of the GDP still doesn't make oil the largest sector. Like all developed nations the service sector is the largest sector of the economy and the sector that DRIVES THE ECONOMY. Per Statistics Norway.
Oil wasn't discovered until 1973 which means you're wrong because Norway was already a first world industrial nation and diversified economy. There is a big difference between the UAE method of industrializing and diversifying as a third world developing nation versus a Norway or Canada that...
And Norway was diversified before oil. Oil doesn't and didn't drive Norway's economy. Norway's environment and economic potential doesn't equate to "Alaska can do it too, they're both cold!". Alaska would be more like Libya, Nigeria, and Venezuela. It would actually be more like Nicaragua, a...
Because high gdp per capita through oil has done so well for Libya and Venezuela, it hasnt even made Kuwait, UAE, or Brunei developed nations. A resource extraction led economy rarely turns into an industrial "making things" economy that actually helps the citizens of the nation.
A multi-POD scenario- first) have the Japanese never occupy Attu or threaten Aleutian Islands, eliminating the "sympathy" for Alaska to become a state because it and Hawai'i; both territories that had battles while not having full rights. 2nd) Alaska and Hawai'i arent put on the UN's list of...
How do you think being independent gives Alaska the ability to turn having an exploitative natural resource economy into having a better economy than they have in OTL when part of a developed nation? At best an independent Alaska turns into a third world nation exploiting their natural resources...
Immediate annexation to Canada is unlikely as British Columbia wasn't even part of Canada until 1871 (and it was only with the promise to absorb the massive debt BC had along with a promise of a transcontinental railroad). British colonization also unlikely as they had little to no interest in...
In case the map doesn't make it clear and people don't want to research it- the answer to your question is- yes. Porus was the only king of the Pauravas known to exist before Alexander came. All evidence points that he was a local "big man" who took advantage of the collapse of Persian...
A language is a dialect with an army to back up the claim. Which is why when languages like Ukrainian and Belorussian don't have nation-states they were (and by many still are) classified as dialects; but when independence is achieved or widely promoted the "evidence" for language-hood is more...
Not even close. He conquered India because it was part of the Persian Empire. The Indus Valley has always and still is part of INDIA (India is more than just the name of a current republic nation-state). The biggest region known to the Greeks was Libya (what we call Africa). Alexander simply...
Well he probably would have first asked "what is a jungle and spices?" Whereas the west has things already explored and already being exported to his empire- tin and copper from Britain, Spain; grain from Carthage and those exotic items from beyond the Sahara; Greek and Carthaginian colonies...
Ok, some corrections so we all understand some terminology- The Persian Empire already ruled parts of India, so to say "Alexander stops with conquering Persia but doesn't invade India" means- he leaves some of the Persian Empire out. He continued to Central Asia and India precisely because he...
The French effectively were not able to finish after 1894 when the Compagnie Nouvelle du Canal de Panama took over basically to just keep the minimum requirements to hold the rights from Colombia and to keep the machinery operational for sale purposes. So, if there's no USA to come in; either...