Who is really to blame for the Holocaust?

[Bradylama]

That is the problem with Revolution. That a select few can affect the outcome of an entire nation is what gives hope to every crackpot Revolutionary out there.

The Black Hand and the assasination of the Archduke shouldn't be considered a revolution, however. Ultra-Nationalists acting in the name of national sovereignty aren't revolutionaries.

 

[Sander]

The Black Hand and the assasination of the Archduke shouldn't be considered a revolution[/qutoe]
Of course, that wasn't mentioned as a revolution.

Ultra-Nationalists acting in the name of national sovereignty aren't revolutionaries.

Ehhh.....huh? And why not?

 

[Bradylama]

They were rebels. The Black Hand was acting to gain Serbian sovereignty from the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

There's nothing "Revolutionary" about nationalism.

 

[The Commissar]

rev·o·lu·tion

2. The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another.


If by creating an independent Serbia they overthrew or separated themselves from the Austro-Hungarian Empire (Which was the goal) it would have been, by definition, a revolution. As they were working towards this goal, it makes them revolutionaries.

The American War for indepenance/War of Rebellion is often called the American Revolutionary War for this same reason. Also note the French Revolution.

 

[Bradylama]

I'm talking about the ideological implications of the word Revolution.

The American and French revolutions are called such because they were upheavals made in the pursuit of new ideals.

 

[John Uskglass]

Yet you are again dead wrong. The USA did not go into the war from a humanitarian incentive or anything else. It went into WW1 because of the clumsy attempts of the Germans to have the Mexicans attack them. Their sovereignity had been threatened by Germany so they basically had to help. So by your logic "they're to blame because something way back they did partially caused this" the Americans aren't to blame, but the Germans are for drawing in the Americans.

I don't know where you got this, but I agree with you here. Then again, we did save the war for you, and for the record, Germany wanted to put the Netherlands in a customs sphere similar to the EU, so eventually you would have been effected.

That doesn't change a thing about the fact that 60 people took over the power in one of the largest countries in the world. Yes, there were other circumstances, so what? Does that mean that only those specific circumstances can cause such a thing, and that such circumstances will never happen agaiN? Hah!

I doubt they will in my life time and in the US. Russia was not the US; they'd already gone through a revolution in 1917 and a commie one in 1905. They where a gunpowerder keg. America is'nt.

AHa. Right, so what if the terrorists get together, throw a couple of more plains at you (which is possible) and kill a lot of Americans. What if this leads to huge economic problems, which is very likely. What if this leads to the president being impeached: revolution.
Right, so where, exactly, are those conditions completly impossible?

Impeachment is'nt a revolution, duh. By that definition there was almost an American Revolution in the '90s.

You have no idea how messed up Russia was in 1917. America is'nt 40 years from that, and that's if a plain hit us every year from here to 2044.

 

[Bradylama]

Not to mention that the United States is a federation, and that in order to acquire complete control of the US, 60 guys would have to take over every single state capital.

Federal power isn't entirely centralized in Washington like it was in St. Petersburg, either.

 

[John Uskglass]

Excellent point. 60 guys pop up in Washington D.C., and you have a hundred thousand men marching on D.C from Richmond in less then a month.

 

[Sander]

I'm talking about the ideological implications of the word Revolution.

Ideological implications? What the fuck?
There are no ideological implications with the world "revolution".

I don't know where you got this, but I agree with you here. Then again, we did save the war for you, and for the record, Germany wanted to put the Netherlands in a customs sphere similar to the EU, so eventually you would have been effected.

Ehh....so? I'm not saying the USA shouldn't have helped, you know.

I doubt they will in my life time and in the US. Russia was not the US; they'd already gone through a revolution in 1917 and a commie one in 1905. They where a gunpowerder keg. America is'nt.

1905 wasn't really a revolution. The Czar still ignored the Duma, so it really made little difference. It was more of an image-revolution than an actual one.
Having gone through a revolution isn't necessary either, disorder is. Revolution can cause this disorder, but so can terrorism.

Impeachment is'nt a revolution, duh. By that definition there was almost an American Revolution in the '90s.

You have no idea how messed up Russia was in 1917. America is'nt 40 years from that, and that's if a plain hit us every year from here to 2044.

An impeachment could be large enough to have disorder start. The prerequisite of having a revolution beforehand isn't really a prerequisite, though.


That all said, part of the reason why those revolutions worked was because of a huge discontent amongst the civilians. Because of the demi-Republican system of the USA it's improbable that such an amount of public discontent will ever surface in the USA.

Not to mention that the United States is a federation, and that in order to acquire complete control of the US, 60 guys would have to take over every single state capital.

Federal power isn't entirely centralized in Washington like it was in St. Petersburg, either.

Very true, and this is one of the advantages of a federation. Though it can also be seen as a disadvantage, since beneficial revolution can't really go through either.

 

[Wooz]

Not to mention that the United States is a federation, and that in order to acquire complete control of the US, 60 guys would have to take over every single state capital.

Wait, how many people are there in the Bush family?

 

[John Uskglass]

Wait, how many people are there in the Bush family?

That's moronic. They are'nt the Capetians or the fucking Hohenstaufens.

Ehh....so? I'm not saying the USA shouldn't have helped, you know.

This was more about an earlier argument where you argued that Germany winning in WW1 was no big whoop for the Dutch. I argued diffirently. Not really appropriate here, just found that fact interesting.

1905 wasn't really a revolution. The Czar still ignored the Duma, so it really made little difference. It was more of an image-revolution than an actual one.
Having gone through a revolution isn't necessary either, disorder is. Revolution can cause this disorder, but so can terrorism.

Lots of people died in 1905. If that was'nt a revolution, then neither was the one of the Communards.

It was. It failed, but it was.

Terrorism can cause disorder, yes, but WTF does that have to do with anything? A string of terrorist attacks will lead to people like Dan Savage being President, not a revolution. Those kind of things don't happen in American politics the way they used to.

You're also ignoring the fact that America's poltiics have in one way or another been focused on Centrism. It's no fluke that the biggest third parties in our history- Debb's Socialist and the Anti-Mason party- where tiny.

An impeachment could be large enough to have disorder start. The prerequisite of having a revolution beforehand isn't really a prerequisite, though.

Dude, this is Anarchism we are talking about. A revolution is the entire fun of it.

You're talking about a gradual reformation of a country be means of mass disorder due to either terrorist (ie 9/11 * X) or some kind of massive social issue (ie Detroit in the '70s) that could cause a big change. Sure that could happen. But a revolution on the scale enough to enter a period of true "anarchy"? No fucking way.

That all said, part of the reason why those revolutions worked was because of a huge discontent amongst the civilians. Because of the demi-Republican system of the USA it's improbable that such an amount of public discontent will ever surface in the USA.

And if it does'nt happen in the USA it fails. This is'nt the Russian Civil War with a half a dozen half hearted helping hands to the Whites. America, is and will be for the next fifty years is world power, and with the kind of power America has no Anarchist revolution will happen worth anything without the Marines cleaning up after it.

Very true, and this is one of the advantages of a federation. Though it can also be seen as a disadvantage, since beneficial revolution can't really go through either.

Beneficial revolution? Way to infrequent to make that of any consequence. Federations rule!

 

[Claw]

The American and French revolutions are called such because they were upheavals made in the pursuit of new ideals.

Yeah, right. They were totally idealistic.

 

[Wooz]

Dude, this is Anarchism we are talking about. A revolution is the entire fun of it.

You're talking about a gradual reformation of a country be means of mass disorder due to either terrorist (ie 9/11 * X) or some kind of massive social issue (ie Detroit in the '70s) that could cause a big change. Sure that could happen. But a revolution on the scale enough to enter a period of true "anarchy"? No fucking way.

To quote Orwell, "The Dictatorship (the people's) isn't meant to maintain the Revolution, The Revolution is meant to instaure and maintain the Dictatorship"

Well, I agree on that. Unless the masses aren't aware and ready to ditch out their leaders as soon as they have fulfilled their role, no chance of a revolution changing anything than a change of masters.

That's moronic. They are'nt the Capetians or the fucking Hohenstaufens.

*cue cartman voice* ISLAMOFASCIST!

 

[John Uskglass]

To quote Orwell, "The Dictatorship (the people's) isn't meant to maintain the Revolution, The Revolution is meant to instaure and maintain the Dictatorship"

You just proved a big thing of mine against Anarchism.

Well, I agree on that. Unless the masses aren't aware and ready to ditch out their leaders as soon as they have fulfilled their role, no chance of a revolution changing anything than a change of masters.

You know, you're way to much of an absolutist. The American government, for all it's faults, is alot better then most, and it's foundations by guys as anarchistic as you should be another biggie. There's a diffirence between a Bush and a hypothetical Savage president.

 

[Bradylama]

Very true, and this is one of the advantages of a federation. Though it can also be seen as a disadvantage, since beneficial revolution can't really go through either.

In my opinion the only beneficial revolution is one that involves a majority of the people. Bolshevik meaning Majority is one of the greatest comedic ironies in history.

Revolutions that are instigated by a tiny proportion of the population have almost never been beneficial. The 511 incident in Japan caused a silent revolution that turned the nation into a militaristic police state, and doomed it to become the Asian heel of America. All because 11 military students assasinated the Prime Minister.

Half the nation owns a firearm. If the people are ready for armed dissent or a revolution, there's not a whole lot the government can do to stop us. Federation or no.

 

[John Uskglass]

Hell yes there is. No offence to the people, but a shotgun can't do much to an airforce, or a tank. Only hope the people would have is rebellious sections of the armed forces.

 

[Elissar]

Agreed, If you truly want a revolt to go through in the US, you need the backing of the Armed Forces, at least the army and marines.... to a lesser extent, the airforce...

All the armed forces are sworn to defend america against any enemy "forgin or domestic"

 

[Bradylama]

All of the F-16s in the world aren't going to stop an armed citizenry from overrunning... everything.

The American military is an offensive force aided by a massive support structure. Combat troops can't be everywhere at once.

There's also the question of the National Guard. Which are more institutes of the State than those of the Army. (state states, not the state of the Union)

 

[Sander]

[quote="CCR']
This was more about an earlier argument where you argued that Germany winning in WW1 was no big whoop for the Dutch. I argued diffirently. Not really appropriate here, just found that fact interesting. [/quote]
Heh. Okay.

Lots of people died in 1905. If that was'nt a revolution, then neither was the one of the Communards.

I'm not saying it wasn't a revolution, I'm saying it failed.

Terrorism can cause disorder, yes, but WTF does that have to do with anything? A string of terrorist attacks will lead to people like Dan Savage being President, not a revolution. Those kind of things don't happen in American politics the way they used to.

Because of the way in which the USA is run there will probably never be one big revolution. However, disorder plays into the hands of the revolutionaries and, moreover, disorder could allow them to grab power in a few states and be left alone by the rest of the states. That's how revolutions also happen.

You're also ignoring the fact that America's poltiics have in one way or another been focused on Centrism. It's no fluke that the biggest third parties in our history- Debb's Socialist and the Anti-Mason party- where tiny.

That's just due to your fucked up two-party system. "Oh, look, a third party. I'm not voting for it, because that'll never help." Fucking moronic system.

Dude, this is Anarchism we are talking about. A revolution is the entire fun of it.

You're talking about a gradual reformation of a country be means of mass disorder due to either terrorist (ie 9/11 * X) or some kind of massive social issue (ie Detroit in the '70s) that could cause a big change. Sure that could happen. But a revolution on the scale enough to enter a period of true "anarchy"? No fucking way.

Agreed. Although I think that the Anarchism Wooz is talking about, Social Libertarian Anarchism, is a different case.

And if it does'nt happen in the USA it fails. This is'nt the Russian Civil War with a half a dozen half hearted helping hands to the Whites. America, is and will be for the next fifty years is world power, and with the kind of power America has no Anarchist revolution will happen worth anything without the Marines cleaning up after it.

I sincerely hope you're wrong. And you know why? Because I don't like the idea of the USA thinking "Oh, small country number 55 has just gone through a revolution. INVADE!"

Beneficial revolution? Way to infrequent to make that of any consequence. Federations rule!

Ehe. Federations are quite sucky. Giving local governments more power is more effective and nicer and can actually have a decent electoral system be preserved.

Yeah, right. They were totally idealistic.

...
Yeah, they were. The result of the French revolution may have been fucked, but that doesn't change a thing about them being idealistic.

The American and French revolutions are called such because they were upheavals made in the pursuit of new ideals.

No. The American and French revolutions are called such because they overthrew the governments. This has jack shit to do with ideals. Pinochet had a revolution without ideals (unless you want to call "get the fuck away socialists!" an ideal).

In my opinion the only beneficial revolution is one that involves a majority of the people.

So if someone had instigated a revolution to get rid of Hitler and stop the holocaust that would not have been beneficial? Interesting...

 

[Bradylama]

That's just due to your fucked up two-party system. "Oh, look, a third party. I'm not voting for it, because that'll never help." Fucking moronic system.

Not true. The Two Party system keeps the country from being controlled by a majority government. To see how a majority government is a bad thing, one need only look at Canada.

People not voting for a third party has more to do with their own ignorance than anything set up by the system. Its because of the third parties that the Democrat and Republican parties have become the things they are today.

In America, the purpose of a third party isn't to win the national election, but to steal as many votes away from the major parties as possible. The idea is that by taking enough votes from the parties, the parties will implement their own agendas. A prime example of a third party affecting the larger was the Bull Moose Party. Though, it had the benefit of having Theodore Roosevelt as its candidate.

Currently the most succesful third party is the Libertarian Party. They haven't made strong showings in congress or the presidency, but they hold more local positions than the other 3rd parties.

Hell, the Republican Party didn't even exist before the mid-19th Century. Ever heard of the Whigs?

Of course, a two party system has its faults, but its no worse than Parliamentary governments.

Ehe. Federations are quite sucky. Giving local governments more power is more effective and nicer and can actually have a decent electoral system be preserved.

Actually, the local governments having too much power is exactly why the electoral system has these perceived problems.

Some states like Maine divide their electoral votes proportionally with the Popular Vote, while others use a winner-take-all aproach.


Also, a political revolution is defined as the overthrow of one government in exchange for another, but a rebellion is defined as open, armed, and organized resistance against a constituted government.

Does that make a failed revolution a rebellion? Does a rebellion become a revolution when it succeeds?