we had both of those in nam and still lost
History What are some of your most contraversial takes on history?
- Thread starter Winston Bush
- Start date
we had both of those in nam and still lost
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Reasonable but the modern interpretation of the followers of Weber leads to some extremely stupid places.
Like arguing that Mexico's Drug Cartels need to be recognized as the actual government because they have a monopoly on force in some areas, which under Weber's theory automatically makes them the legitimate government.
Or that the US needs to either pass more gun control or else be considered a failed state due to not having a monopoly on force anymore if civilians have firearms, and comparing a hunting weapon to deploying the military.
I like this bit:
On the whole, though, no state worthy of the name can permit exceptions to its monopoly on legitimate deployment of armed force like those in Michigan or North Carolina. Surely no sensible interpretation of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms would say a state must tolerate them.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Latter argument basically argues that US should be authoritharian / totalitarian state. Because force is necessary to have authority, and if legitimacy is connected to force (which in real terms it is), then taking guns away from citizens means moving away from democracy. So why those people don't come out and say that they want a tyranny (be it in Greek or modern sense)?
DocSolarisReich
Esoteric Spaceman
But is it not true that the Cartels are not so slowly replacing the previously established state apparatus in Mexico?
The old republic is no more, we the unorganized militia are no longer part of the state. So yes, the current Regime exists alongside a potential competitor that awaits the moment someone organizes the rabble into a state within the state. But the Regime is rightfully confident that they control enough hearts and minds to make this impossible.
DocSolarisReich
Esoteric Spaceman
They (owners of mass media) mediate reality remember? 'Democracy' now only means their rule (the owners of mass media) and has nothing at all to do with the rule of the citizen class or any particular mechanistic procedural legalism.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
I think the answer to that depends on what you're calling "apparatus" because I've yet to see news of the Drug Cartels building roads, minting currency, or establishing embassies. But I'd like to know what you're referring to and what the apparatus is in your description.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
No they don't build this stuff they just bribe people to do it for them.
DocSolarisReich
Esoteric Spaceman
Collecting taxes and providing justice/vengeance and security. Rulership at is most basic level. Putting on my COIN hat, the cartels are fighting both an insurgency, currently at early stage three (developing standing uniformed forces and collecting revolutionary taxes) and a civil war with each other, which is the only reason the State as it is currently constituted under the 'constitution' of 1917 has survived at all.
Isn't that what all, or at least most, states do?
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
that's my point. whether the cartel is the "Legit" government or not it's no secret that they are essentially the real government.
Yinko
Well-known member
It's things like this that essentially undermine his argument. Because, if you look at history, there would be no "states" to speak of then. If you looked at Athens or Persia you would see a vast plurality of violence, as minor groups enforced their will beyond the ability or care of the ruler to moderate. Today that might be considered a failed state, but mainly just because of the newfangled idea that is "The State" as the corporation of government whose sole goal is controlling the reigns of power.
Resuming the war later on might have been a challenge. I've heard that the war machine isn't exactly easy to turn back on again after it has been shut down, especially if it has been recently shut down. Going to war, getting industrial production ready for this, building up one's military, et cetera all require an extremely giant effort. It's certainly not easy to do once again once you demolish all of it.
Shitpost on the Internet!
That the Confederates did the US a huge favor by seceding since the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments would have been astronomically more difficult to pass and ratify had the Confederacy never seceded from the Union.
Also, that Miklos Horthy made a mistake in trying to prematurely leave the Axis since it resulted in the Nazis occupying his country and murdering over half a million of his country's Jews. It was better for him to either fight on until the very end or at least look like he's doing this and then defect at an actually opportune moment like Romania did.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
So, one of the more famed and undeniably horrific events of the South African Apartheid is the Sharpeville Massacre, where armed police shot quite a few unarmed people (more than a few in the back as they ran). This has often been seen as a key moment in the history of the anti-apartheid movement, as a final decrying of the South African state.
However, I think it's somewhat curious that the Cato Manor Massacre is often not mentioned, a riot in which nine South African police officers were murdered just a few months before Sharpeville. When you take it into account, you can understand why law enforcement were so jumpy that day, especially as a rather large mob hammered on the fence of their police station.
These days, as much as I despise apartheid as a policy (equality before the law is how a society should be run), I'm beginning to wonder if the situation in South Africa was quite as cut and dry as is made out. Whilst the Black population had genuine grievance, perhaps the Whites had good reason to be fearful?
However, I think it's somewhat curious that the Cato Manor Massacre is often not mentioned, a riot in which nine South African police officers were murdered just a few months before Sharpeville. When you take it into account, you can understand why law enforcement were so jumpy that day, especially as a rather large mob hammered on the fence of their police station.
These days, as much as I despise apartheid as a policy (equality before the law is how a society should be run), I'm beginning to wonder if the situation in South Africa was quite as cut and dry as is made out. Whilst the Black population had genuine grievance, perhaps the Whites had good reason to be fearful?
Last edited:
Yinko
Well-known member
If you have a strong stomach, look up "necklacing". It was popularized by Mandela's second wife Winnie Mandela and basically bread and butter for their activities. You can probably also look at the kinds and methods of crimes being performed today in South Africa and make the assumption that similar things were happening then. And since South Africa has been near the top of the global list for overall crimes for a long time now.
Here's a fun little quote about the present day.
"More than 1 in 4 men surveyed by the South African Medical Research Council admitted to committing rape."
So, yeah, given the overall brutality of Mandela and those that came with and after him, I have very little benefit of the doubt to give them.
People tend to forget Mandela was a soviet trained and funded terrorist and the anti apartheid movement was much about genocide against Khoisians as it was against the Beors.
You even have Zulu and Khoisian ethnic groups in this day and age wanting to either restore Boer rule or split Soof Efrika in half to get away from the leftovers of Mandelas era.
Tldr- no leftwing rebel is ever benevolent or deserving of trust. Ever
Edit- controversial opinion time.
I think Abraham Lincoln was a war criminal and a dictator who should have been impeached, tried and executed the moment the 13th and 14th amendments were ratified.
MacArthur should have gone forward with his coup against Truman and we would be in a much better world if someone did the same to FDR a few years before WW2.
You even have Zulu and Khoisian ethnic groups in this day and age wanting to either restore Boer rule or split Soof Efrika in half to get away from the leftovers of Mandelas era.
Tldr- no leftwing rebel is ever benevolent or deserving of trust. Ever
Edit- controversial opinion time.
I think Abraham Lincoln was a war criminal and a dictator who should have been impeached, tried and executed the moment the 13th and 14th amendments were ratified.
MacArthur should have gone forward with his coup against Truman and we would be in a much better world if someone did the same to FDR a few years before WW2.
True but waging a war under such difficult circumstances was very costly for Britain. Having a peace while Britain can look to rebuild defences and think over what lessons it needs to learn as well as possibly looking to improve its production and for more allies could be useful.
The question is not turning the war machine back on as rearmament will be even more essential, although at a somewhat slower rate. More getting the political will to resume the war at a point the leadership thinks is right [or if desperate required] and carrying the population with it. Having been defeated and clearly humiliated in Norway and France is a big incentive for that as would be the continued clear threat of Nazi Germany but it would be a major call as long as Germany looks so dominant. The issues would be:
a) What happens when Germany attacks the Soviets. Its likely to go worse for the Soviets without German OTL losses and commitments against Britain and its allies but then the Germans still have a huge task and Stalin is far less likely to be surprised while Hitler might well do something really stupid, like order an autumn 40 invasion. Britain must act before the Soviet Union is defeated or alternatively defeating the Nazis and their allies. Otherwise the winner, unless it ends up a war of mutual exhaustion, is simply going to be too powerful.
b) What happens in the Far East. With Britain not tied up as completely in OTL and almost certainly France having some sort of peace settlement - I have seen it suggested that Hitler would refuse that so he could continue the massive looting of France but I'm not convinced here - Japan's position is a lot weaker. It might be it gets drawn into the attack on the Soviets, in which case what does the US & UK do? Or it could get alienated from Germany. Britain, once its secured peace in Europe could take a much stronger line with Japan including aid to China from its war industries - assuming China can pay something as Britain needs funds. Is Japan forced to back down in China, or does it risk a war against the western powers and if so does it include the US on its hit list?
The good point about a war in the east would be it would clear up the theatre and remove threat of near term future conflict there as well as giving Britain a chance to test new tactics, equipment etc. Also there's an outside chance of worthwhile defensive relations being established with the US. The bad thing of course is that it ties up Britain and causes draining of resources when they might be needed in Europe.
Yinko
Well-known member
He was a recognized terrorist by most developed countries, till it was more expedient to call him a hero.
Not an area of history I know a whole lot about. What I have heard though is that the actual trigger for the Civil War was the election of Lincoln, because the southern states knew that he was so against them that he would break the careful political compromises and balances of power just to spite them.
If that's true, then a very poor choice of president. A lot of people see southern slavery as something that was already dying out at the time. So, he would have crippled the country for basically no reason other than spite.
So first, southern slavery wasn't dying out. It was thriving. Second, Lincoln was the first Republican president, and he was elected because he didn't like slavery. The only way to stop slavery peacefully was to elect people against slavery. And of course, the second this happened, the south revolted.
Lincoln did do not great things, but overall, he was a good president.
Doomsought
Well-known member
Aparthied isn't what you think it was. It wasn't because they were black. It was because they immigrated into South Africa without becoming citizens. Its what the Democrats are creating with illegal immigration
gral
Well-known member
This, this so much. Someone(I think it was the late Stuart Slade) once said that the situation in South Africa was exactly the same as intertribal politics - with the addition of new tribes(Europeans, South Indians, and so on)