The Souths Succession

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
 

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
Imagine the implication for WWII for example the racist south would have been very friendly with Uncle Adolph and is regime, most likely a few concentration camps would have appears in the south… Europe without America’s help would have lost its war resulting in the Nazi coming to America to help their friends….Today the capital of the world would be Germania ( Berlin renamed) & everybody left would speak German. There would be no Jews, Black, Gays, Jehovah witness & everybody else the Nazi hated. Civics liberties wouldn’t exist anymore & the SS would have kidded your door long ago for frequenting ROLLITUP . So not a good idea I think.
There was an American who was betting on Hitler but he wasn't a southerner. In fact, he fathered and grandfathered two US Presidents.
 

billybob420

Well-Known Member
That wasn't secession so much as a crumbling. The host nation simply stopped existing. Yugoslavia flew apart similarly. Recent successful secessions from host nations that retained continuity (East Timor, Eritrea) involved much fighting. Unsuccessful ones (Tamil Eelam) as well. cn
You could say the same for the Civil War. Many of the states held statehood for only a short amount of time before the war broke out. Some territories involved in fighting weren't states at all. The US wasn't as solidified as it is now, or as it seems now.

In my opinion, Yugoslavia experienced a civil war, or rather a series of civil wars. Very different than how things unfolded in the USSR. Of course there are similarities, a new country held together by a Communist Dictatorship, but as far as their collapses, I think they unfolded very differently. Damn shame really.

Of course, the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslav Wars were driven by nationalism, that seems to be the only significant difference (and of course, the Confederates didn't win their independence). USSR was a country for 70 years, only 20 years younger than the USA was when it experienced it's civil wars.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
You could say the same for the Civil War. Many of the states held statehood for only a short amount of time before the war broke out. Some territories involved in fighting weren't states at all. The US wasn't as solidified as it is now, or as it seems now.

In my opinion, Yugoslavia experienced a civil war, or rather a series of civil wars. Very different than how things unfolded in the USSR. Of course there are similarities, a new country held together by a Communist Dictatorship, but as far as their collapses, I think they unfolded very differently. Damn shame really.

Of course, the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslav Wars were driven by nationalism, that seems to be the only significant difference (and of course, the Confederates didn't win their independence). USSR was a country for 70 years, only 20 years younger than the USA was when it experienced it's civil wars.
I haven't thought about it that way. History is written by the winners, after all. cn
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Imagine the implication for WWII for example the racist south would have been very friendly with Uncle Adolph and is regime, most likely a few concentration camps would have appears in the south… Europe without America’s help would have lost its war resulting in the Nazi coming to America to help their friends….Today the capital of the world would be Germania ( Berlin renamed) & everybody left would speak German. There would be no Jews, Black, Gays, Jehovah witness & everybody else the Nazi hated. Civics liberties wouldn’t exist anymore & the SS would have kidded your door long ago for frequenting ROLLITUP . So not a good idea I think.
the idea that the south was "racist" and thus would ally with hitler is insane. you are aware that mexico was closely aligned (yet technically neutral) with the nazis throguhoiut ww2, as was spain. meanwhile ireland was technically neutral yet closely aligned with the allies. your presumption that slavery=racism, and racism = socialist nationalist germany is not only a leap of illogic but patently foolish.

the south was supported by the french, while the north was supported by the brits. neither side would embrace the socialism and control advocated by nazism. you assume facts not in evidence.

it may also surprise you that hitler and the nazis did not "hate everybody who wasnt german" the nazi platform was very clear, germany and greater europa was for EUROPEANS which excluded asians, orientals, slavs jews africans etc. meanwhile asia was to be a land for ASIANS (they were allied with the japanese who shockingly enough are NOT WHITE!) hitler's goal was hegemony and world socialism with clearly demarcated spheres of influence, asia for asian socialists, europe for european socialists, america for american (european ) socialists and africa for european colonial powers (who would also be socialists)

the antebellum south was essentially a semi-fuedal system with large landholders, tenant farmers, share croppers (serfs) and slaves (double serfs) as well as small holders, some industry, and an overall CLASSICAL european world view. this may seem like racism now but at the time it was considered progressive, since most of africa was held in bondage by colonial powers and the natives were simply slaves in their own homeland, and throughout the east and the orient a massive arab slave trade continued (and still continues today)
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
You could say the same for the Civil War. Many of the states held statehood for only a short amount of time before the war broke out. Some territories involved in fighting weren't states at all. The US wasn't as solidified as it is now, or as it seems now.

In my opinion, Yugoslavia experienced a civil war, or rather a series of civil wars. Very different than how things unfolded in the USSR. Of course there are similarities, a new country held together by a Communist Dictatorship, but as far as their collapses, I think they unfolded very differently. Damn shame really.

Of course, the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslav Wars were driven by nationalism, that seems to be the only significant difference (and of course, the Confederates didn't win their independence). USSR was a country for 70 years, only 20 years younger than the USA was when it experienced it's civil wars.
yugoslavia was also victim of the russian's penchant for mix and match destabilization.

the russians would move whole villages across previously established borders and resettle ethnic groups near people with long standing grudges so they would fight each other and not the soviets, a brutal and vicious refinement of britain's "divide and rule" strategy in their colonies.

the former yugoslavia was NEVER one country, ever. it was a small cluster of middleweight kingdoms that alternately fought each other and the ottomans for most of their history as nations the prussians (and later the soviets) simply squashed them all into a single administrative region for their own imperial convenience, and after the war (ww1) all the big nations said "fuckit" and declared the status quo good enough for government work. after the prussians became footnotes in history in came the soviets to fuck shit up royally (as they were prone to do) with imperious commands, wool headed ideas of socialism and ultimately oppression, ethnic rearrangement and finally balkanization. the presumption in the west that yugoslavia was a nation at all is laughable especially when it comes from the same assholes who GAVE POLAND TO THE SOVIETS like an unwanted kitten!

there was no way yugoslavia could hold together, the united states all chose to be a nation, only the heavy handed abuses of the north with their domination in congress and their attempts to gain dominance in the senate could drive the states into secession.

thats what the late unpleasantness was about.

the north, with it;'s greater population of free men of voting eligibility had a decisive edge in the house of representatives, and they used that edge to push through initiatives (no more slave states provisions, taxes, tarrifs, etc) that put the south and the states dependent on cheap forced labour on the hind tit, and the north continued to press harder until the schism was inevitable. they "negotiated" just like the democrats do today, "yield or perish" and compromises are the other guy's responsibility. needless to say the south was a little pissed, and said fuck you, we're goin home.

they ordered the north to get their tropps out of fort sumter and the north said fuck you, we will leave when we are ready, and thats NEVER! we own you bitches!

next thing you know, its a rumble.

THATS what the war of northern aggression was about.
 

billybob420

Well-Known Member
The countries that make up the former Yugoslavia have been part of one country on multiple occasions.

EDIT:
Austrian Empire 1804-1867
Austria-Hungary 1867-1918
State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs 1918
Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1918-1943
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 1943-1992
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
the idea that the south was "racist" and thus would ally with hitler is insane. you are aware that mexico was closely aligned (yet technically neutral) with the nazis throguhoiut ww2, as was spain. meanwhile ireland was technically neutral yet closely aligned with the allies. your presumption that slavery=racism, and racism = socialist nationalist germany is not only a leap of illogic but patently foolish.

the south was supported by the french, while the north was supported by the brits. neither side would embrace the socialism and control advocated by nazism. you assume facts not in evidence.

it may also surprise you that hitler and the nazis did not "hate everybody who wasnt german" the nazi platform was very clear, germany and greater europa was for EUROPEANS which excluded asians, orientals, slavs jews africans etc. meanwhile asia was to be a land for ASIANS (they were allied with the japanese who shockingly enough are NOT WHITE!) hitler's goal was hegemony and world socialism with clearly demarcated spheres of influence, asia for asian socialists, europe for european socialists, america for american (european ) socialists and africa for european colonial powers (who would also be socialists)

the antebellum south was essentially a semi-fuedal system with large landholders, tenant farmers, share croppers (serfs) and slaves (double serfs) as well as small holders, some industry, and an overall CLASSICAL european world view. this may seem like racism now but at the time it was considered progressive, since most of africa was held in bondage by colonial powers and the natives were simply slaves in their own homeland, and throughout the east and the orient a massive arab slave trade continued (and still continues today)
Ireland was technically neutral, but we had anti-British subversive organisations who at the time held a lot of power...and they were given guns by Hitler.

During WWI the same, free guns for the IRA to fight Britian with.

Ireland's neutrality is always called into question tho, one example is our allowance of US warplanes to land and refuel on both the way to the Middle East,refuel on the way back and (behind closed doors) we allow extraordinary renditions on the way back to GITMO.

Also there's a huge cross-Atlantic high speed data cable that makes landfall from the US on our West coast. This is crucial so you's don't have "lag" on your drone missions, which would render your drones useless.

It's just the "boots on ground" part we leave out really.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Ireland was technically neutral, but we had anti-British subversive organisations who at the time held a lot of power...and they were given guns by Hitler.

During WWI the same, free guns for the IRA to fight Britian with.

Ireland's neutrality is always called into question tho, one example is our allowance of US warplanes to land and refuel on both the way to the Middle East,refuel on the way back and (behind closed doors) we allow extraordinary renditions on the way back to GITMO.

Also there's a huge cross-Atlantic high speed data cable that makes landfall from the US on our West coast. This is crucial so you's don't have "lag" on your drone missions, which would render your drones useless.

It's just the "boots on ground" part we leave out really.
I hear American whiskey is popular in Ireland.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
The countries that make up the former Yugoslavia have been part of one country on multiple occasions.

EDIT:
Austrian Empire 1804-1867
Austria-Hungary 1867-1918
State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs 1918
Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1918-1943
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 1943-1992
yes... did i not mention that the prussians (hapsburg dynasty) amalgamated them into a single administrative zone for their imperial convenience or did you miss that part?

only outside forces compelling them to be one "country" made them a "country" at every opportunity they split off into their own small middlewegiht kingdoms again, and again and again until once more they were re-consolidated for some empire's convenience. di you miss that part? did you think i didnt know that they were squashed together several times? you failed to mention the romans also consolidated them into a single "province" with predictable results. the ottomansd tried to do the same thing with the birts of the balkans that they controlled, and they had to eliminate almost the entire armenian population to pacify their piece of the region. you forgot to mention that bit too.

that entire region of eurasia, all around the caucasus mountains is a seething pressure cooker of old feuds, bitterness and rivalries from the simple fact that they have been repeatedly conquored, reshaped to fit the whim of outsiders, then left to cook till they explode in a firey, cataclysm or just a nasty mess of burnt porridge all over the stove.

the small nations of the balkans have NEVER actually been one nation, not even under Phillip of Macedon (look it up). they have always been many small nations and tribal groups under the varying levels of oppression from outsiders since the days of the macedonian empire.

that is the point of the statement you failed to read. NOT a single country, but many times forced into the shape of one by outside imperial forces. this makes them unhappy, unstable and prone to sexploding in violence. these sexplosions triggered (but did not cause) ww1, the collapse of the ottoman empire, eroded the foundations of rome, cracked the base of the macedonian empire, and lit the russian's nuts on fire while they were trying to fuck the polish solidarity movement in the ass resulting in the ultimate (and inevitable) failure of the grand socialist experiment of the soviet union.

everybody who ever tried fucking with the balkans got a nasty rash, or their dicks bitten off. same in afghanistan.
 
Top