Ayayay

*sigh* The reason nothing happened when Germany remilitarized, why the Anschluss took place, and why Germany was given the Sudetenland at the expense of Czechoslovakia was because the allies felt that German was treated to harshly. They thought Hitler was being bombastic for propaganda and would be more reasonable in private when in fact he was even less so. WW2 may not have happened if a more reasonable man was in control of Germany and the terms against them were lifted, as they more or less were right before the start of the war. Revanchism can be contained, it is not an absolute.

You're joking right? Hitler was crazy and wanted a war, he felt cheated after the Munich Agreement.

Germany was the largest at ~850000 at the start of 1938 but the Czechs and the French still had favorable odds at nearly 2:1 (Yes I didn't even bother looking up the USSR, the officer Purge made their army operate like an unorganized mob, as opposed to later in the war when they were more of an organized mob) The British army did not even number 250000 and even then they only had 2 divisions capable of actually being fielded in 1938 with the rest of their army scattered around their Empire. On top of that, British policy in 1936-39 was based on the fact that Britain, France, Russia, and Italy combined had barely managed to beat Germany in the First World War, winning only after the USA entered and the subsequent German revolution. Now Germany was acting aggressively again, the USSR was communist, the USA was isolationist, and Italy and Japan had gone over to Germany's side. That left Britain and France alone, and as such they had no serious hope of defeating Germany in a war. The best war plan the British could come up with was to sit on the defensive, blockade Germany for years, and hope that eventually they starved or a revolution broke out again. It wasn't until after Germany broke the Munich Agreement that popular opinion in France and Britain started swaying from appeasement. Even after Fall Weiss and Operation Weserübung a large portion of their population did not want to fight the Germans again. It wasn't until the invasion of France that it changed but by then it was to late. Silly democracies, having to listen to their populations...

Not even close, non-intervention caused WW2, Czechoslovakia was fully mobilized and the German army was not in a position to fight both the Czechs and France. Actually I should be more specific, appeasement led to Germany taking over Western Europe. Japan was already at war with China and their navy would probably still have attacked someone they shouldn't have.

Everyone and their mother has seen that...well I already have at least... "What's crazy about this is that America gives a lot of these countries foreign aid so that they can come here and buy weapons systems from their companies"

I have to go to sleep so I'll just leave these here

Holy hell, there is a lot of statements you said that I would love to argue but this one is the only one that made me laugh. America dominates China in everything but population, Authoritarianism, and maybe land area. China's economy is 2nd rank to Americas. After all who do you think is "investing" to build most of the factories? And who do you think is buying most of the products from said factories? China has an abundance of cheap and uneducated labor for the low end manufacturing jobs. America out produces China by miles in the High-end manufacturing area as well. Now onto the real funny part. America is utterly superior in both those fields, I said earlier in a different topic that the reason the F-22 is being decommissioned is because there is nothing that can compete with it. It literally rules the skies. There are private companies in America that are further ahead than the Chinese military is in aeronautics for Gods sake! Intelligence is an iffy one though, I can only get information from declassified sources/old books so I will refrain from arguing that point. I am however confident that America is better than China is when it comes to intelligence. (due to the nature of intelligence I won't go so far as to say that America is the leader either, it could easily be Russia using USSR trained people) Anyways, when talking about military always remember this bastardized quote from some source I couldn't find "The Business of America is War and no one does business like the Americans"

ooo I love these topics. Let's break it down though Interventionism works, plain and simple. If it wasn't America it would have to be someone else, a superpower is needed in the modern world. The revolution in Syria was inevitable, I don't like using that word when discussing things like this but it was. Although it could have been greatly mitigated had the government of Syria not ignored the warning signs so utterly. They basically funneled weapons to every damn rebel group in that part of the Middle East for the past two decades, most notably with Hezbollah and Iraqi militants. The thing about funneling weapons though is that some of those weapons tend to stay inside the country instead of leaving. Then, in 2006 Syria had an absolutely devastating drought, 1.5 million farmers lost their farms and became nothing more than homeless beggars. In 2011, when the drought ended, those farmers wanted their lands back but couldn't because, ya know, the government is corrupt. So Syria now had black market guns and 1.5 million discontented farmers, you do the math. Although there were other reasons for the rebellion those two factors I mentioned were the main reason it grew into what it is now. Later, a bit into the war, it started becoming Sunni vs Shia (at least according to the media)but at the end of the day it was 1.5 million pissed off [homeless] farmers with guns. I would say secondary, true we gave those dictators (and their armies, can't put all our eggs in one basket now can we?) buckets of money but we didn't force them to be corrupt !@#$ about it. They could have done something to mitigate it like Saudi Arabia did where they more or less paid people to not revolt(big oversimplification I know) but they didn't and are now either dead or exiled. The "best" part is that we are just going to give money to their replacements as well because we don't want them to attack our strategic ally in the region(that by supporting makes everyone in the region hate us) and because money makes the world go 'round in general.

Please stop using literally in non-literal situations. Anyways, the USSR collapsed because closed economies in and of themselves are flawed. The fact that they also built up an educated population also brought about their collapse as educated people seem to hate authoritarianism for some reason or another. Not all empires collapse either, the colonial nations of Europe were able to avoid it mostly. De-Colonization is, after all, a different situation to the complete and utter destruction or Balkanization of a far flung empire. Now, they did suffer the effects of losing large amounts of territory that supported their empires and home population, but what France and Great Britain went though in the mid to late 1900s is quite different than what happened to the USSR.

It is a Representative Democracy but a variant of Democracy nonetheless I don't think you understand the meaning of "literally" Anyways, the electorate college is flawed. The problem is that we will be stuck with it forever simply because smaller states would never want to give it up as it is not in their interests to do so. To be fair, the American election system has the best manipulators in the world. They are able to successfully manipulate people using relatively basic and tribal rhetoric such as the ever famed "Us or Them" mentality, the "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" system, and the often overlooked slogans and chanting. America has made an art of elections, would be a shame to have those two and a half centuries of manipulation tactics go to waste. Or they could just go to other countries and work there (I was going to post an old video about how the same people who worked the 2008 election campaigns helped elect a really corrupt guy into power somewhere in Eastern Europe but I gave up because I don't remember the country or care to much)

Take a look at any Empire in world history that collapsed. Did any of them (that survived even as a shell) end up in better shape after collapsing? No, not a single one. It is called common sense. The only exceptions are when the economy of the world itself increases or if they end up reclaiming most of their lost land ala post-Imperial China

And what about the other 5 million? Or the 21 million dead under Stalin? Genocide happens for political and/or economic reasons. No government decides to kill an entire race for no reason whatsoever. (Although the reasons are always bad and and is never excusable) So NATO is evil and we should allow the poor defenseless Russian Federation and Peoples Republic of China do whatever they want to whomever they want? Nah, we haven't exterminated every culture we've encountered yet Democracy is the lesser of all evils Perfectly intelligent and rational people can end up having a completely different opinion as you and that's okay.

Left-wing fascism and left fascism are terms that have been used to describe tendencies in left-wing politics that contradict or violate the progressive ideals with which the Left is usually associated. Syntagmas such as left-wing fascism provide shorthand labels, but they lack any scientific precision, not the least due to the broad meaning of each of the components. Considering the general classification of fascism as being on the far right, crossovers may be expected according to the extremes meet theory. The touching point between the far left and the far right may be the use of power and/or political terrorism.

Do not turn me into a strawman. A cultures views on gun ownership does not make them superior or inferior to a different cultures stance or view on the subject. I meant it as it doesn't exist because, again, it was used as an insult.

Well, different cultures have different standards and norms. For example, America loves the 2nd amendment and infringing on it just doesn't seem possible. UK on the other hand doesn't have a tradition or a constitution based on guns, thus enforcing American views on gun ownership would make little sense. The idea that all nations can follow the same set of rules and standards is, in my opinion, mindbogglingly naive. Culture, history, and societal norms all play a role in shaping the politics of a nation. A one-size-fits-all approach seems completely impossible to me without infringing upon the rights and expectations of the populace. But I digress, this is getting off topic. To answer your original question more directly, no, I am not a Bourgeois Nationalist.

My first result was disheartening since other people agreed with me, so I tried it again. To be honest, political tests are pretty weird in my opinion. Are you supposed to pick what you believe now? Or do you pick what you'd do if you had your own country to destroy rule? As an aside though, Bourgeois Nationalism doesn't actually exist. It was an insult to the ruling governments (monarchys) of Post-Napoleonic Europe. It would be the equivalent of calling all the members of NATO an Oligarchic Military Dictatorship but more made up.

I did it! You are a bourgeois nationalist. 0 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 0 percent are more extremist than you.

Rap/hip-hop. "Morphin' into an immortal coming through the portal You're stuck in a time warp from two thousand four"

Sorry. I re-read it and I can see that I may have been hasty.

It is most certainly NOT over. Gaza is still controlled by Hamas, which dedicates its entire existence to destroying Israel. Also a large majority of the citizens within the West Bank are fed up with the PNA but do not have accesses to weapons and as such are unable to do anything. If they do get accesses to weapons it could end up with another Intifada. If any of you remember the second or first you will know that a third Intifada is not something to sneeze at. After the failed attempt at a two state solution with the PNA they would probably want nothing short of the complete and utter destruction of Israel and one side will likely have to surrender everything. But anyways, situations like those in Palestine are a result of self-determination. The Palestinians do not want their land controlled by someone else while the Israelis feel that the land is theirs and it is their right to control it. Bloodshed is the only way out, in fact, Bloodshed is a way of life for mankind itself. Us or them, right and wrong, live or die. Humanity has nothing to fear but the horrors it itself creates.

Cares

Politics And War

Downloadable Content

TIL that the forums have an ignore feature.

*ahem* FIRST!!!!!!!!11111oneoneone http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/1536-underlordgc/?p=18551 You're doing this on purpose aren't you?