Indeed, slavery isn't based on racism. However, the slavery carried out by the Confederates was.

Indeed, slavery isn't based on racism. However, the slavery carried out by the Confederates was.

Why did my earlier post get deleted? And why did that one appear twice?

^ This.

Gosh, the bullheadedness seems to go two ways here.

"The Americas, also collectively called America" :) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas)

Alright fair enough :P But still, all other wars in "america" have specific names, so unless you're being really annoying, there's no reason to confuse people by referring to them as simply the "American Civil War". Besides being way too general of a term for these specific wars, it is doubly confusing since there is actually a single war called the "American Civil war":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

Honestly If you're talking about the Shining path in Peru, say the "Internal Conflict in Peru", if you're talking about the Colombian Cocainian Wars, just say the "Colombian Conflict". And for that mater if you're talking about the Secession crisis that happened in the US over slavery, just say the "American civil War". There's no reason to use any name except for the actual name of the conflict.

Edited 8/12/2016 15:09:38

Irrelevant, the USA will balkanize because of multiculturalism.

the US will conquer the world because it is multicultural

Both statements have about as much evidence and reasoning.

which?

Spain

defeating people who are behind you technologically hundreds of years isn't impressive

Occupying places thousands of miles away is

not on its own

The US played a much larger role in destroying Germany's industry than Britain did, and Japan's navy and much of it's army and Air Force was defeated primarily by the US.

which it threw away

NATO still exists bud

and a lack of social cohesion and morale to cripple said military.

And the CSA would have had more cohesion? Pfft, give it a decade or two and it'd collapse.

this is a shitpost

You're a shitposting tumor, please leave warlight

incorrect

No, not incorrect. The Confederacy cannot win unless it defeats the Union army in a large battle, which forces a peace.

why?

Union tariffs, Egypt being a competitor against them, India being a competitor against them, the South having been wrecked thoroughly in some areas, union troops maintaining a presence in some areas after the war.

give an example

About half of it's population was enslaved, prone to rebelling, running away, and now had a supporter to the north which could supply an insurgency for it.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word aristocracy.

the highest class in certain societies, especially those holding hereditary titles or offices.

so?

The Union would have been preparing for war since the secession, while the confederacy was trying to put down rebellions.

don't care about your reasoning. There has never been a multicultural civilization in history

I don't care about your made up history and definitions. Your ideas require lying to stand.

America has failed all occupations

America achieved almost all of it's goals in the Banana Wars

Americas impact on the 2nd world war was negligible

Stop making assertions, the defeat of Japan was not negligible.

irrelevant trade organization

NATO is a military allaince, stop acting you know anything about the real world.

Dubious

You are the least intelligent person on this site

They could have won by a number of means.

What means?

That presumes that the Union would be the Confederacies main trade partner and that their economy would remain cotton based indefinitely.

The Confederacy had no alternatives to cotton, and was bested by the Union in industry and agriculture.

dependent upon external factors

The US occupying the Mississippi is not dependent on external factors.

In what way is that supposed to affect the economy

Cutting off roads and rivers bogs down trade

incorrect

A historian was able to find 250 instances of slave revolts in the south.

dependent upon external factors

The US isn't going to give up the oppurtunity

Wrong definition

Not the wrong definition, it's a definition and it applies to the southern aristocracy. Stop ignoring and making up the meaning of words.

Not if they had won the first war

How is a victory that only puts off a northern invasion going to stop rebellions?

Then give an example of a multicultural civilization

Austro-Hungary, Second Polish Republic, Russian Empire, China, USA, etc

They don't have those countries occupied, they have failed their occupation.

The goal was not to keep them occupied, it was to defend US interests.

Yes it was, Japan didn't want to wage war against America.

Japan attacked America first. That is wanting to wage war.

alliance*, character attack,

I don't care, you were wrong and you still act like you have any brain cells.

if they're a military alliance they would make preparations for war against an external threat, they haven't done so.

They've been preparing for an invasion of Russia for a while. And that's not even the damn definition of military allaince, stop making things up.

You've resorted to namecalling, you're clearly in the wrong.

Then why weren't you in the wrong when you were calling me a Jew?

none of these are multicultural

They all have multiple cultures.

That doesn't refute my point.

Yes it does, they achieved their goals so they did not fail.

Japan didn't attack first.

Yes they did, the US did not attack before Pearl Harbor, stop making things up.

salt

Cancer

deflecting and I don't resort to solely namecalling, you have.

Not deflecting, and you did resort solely to namecalling.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/huge-nato-drills-poland-prepare-west-possible-conflict-russia-n593456

Austro-Hungary, Second Polish Republic, Russian Empire, China, USA

Austro-Hungary : Fell due to the ethnic unrest.

Second Polish Republic : Polish massacred the Germans.

Russian Empire : Do i need to tell you various rebellions of ethnic minorities during it's existence? Russia was not civilized as well, its economy was based on agriculture and most were serfs

China : There were multiple China's and all had rebellions. Almost same with Russia.

USA : USA is not a civilization and i don't think Natives accepted multiculturalism well.

Edited 8/13/2016 13:06:57

Austro-Hungary : Fell due to the ethnic unrest.

It fell to World War One

Second Polish Republic : Polish massacred the Germans.

Pidulski accepted different sub cultures

Russian Empire : Do i need to tell you various rebellions of ethnic minorities during it's existence? Russia was not civilized as well, its economy was based on agriculture and most were serfs

Was it a civilization? Yes. Civilization is not based on what kind of economy you have. Was it multi-cultural? Yes. Were there cultural groups that did not rebel often? Yes, the Finns.

China : There were multiple China's and all had rebellions. Almost same with Russia.

Weren't most rebellions caused by general discontent directed torwards the government, and not for nationalist reasons? Even the rebellion that knocked off the dynasties, it wasn't a particularly nationalist one; it accepted all the groups and made a point of it with the flag.

USA : USA is not a civilization and i don't think Natives accepted multiculturalism well.

If a country can be called a civilization, then any country can be called that.

It fell to World War One

-If most ethnicities did not try to overthrow the govt. then WW1 would have gone differently.

Pidulski accepted different sub cultures

-Doesn't mean the people did.

Was it a civilization? Yes. Civilization is not based on what kind of economy you have. Was it multi-cultural? Yes. Were there cultural groups that did not rebel often? Yes, the Finns.

- If Finns were so obedient (also i liked you picking the only one not ''frequently'' rebelling) they would still be a part of Russia or atleast remained for sometime instead of creating a new nation. The moment Russia was in chaos 99 ethnic groups out of 100 rebelled. Also Finns were a new group in the Russian Empire, if you gave them enough time they would also rebel frequently.

Weren't most rebellions caused by general discontent directed torwards the government, and not for nationalist reasons? Even the rebellion that knocked off the dynasties, it wasn't a particularly nationalist one; it accepted all the groups and made a point of it with the flag.

-Nope

If a country can be called a civilization, then any country can be called that.

- I never called a country civilization.

Edited 8/13/2016 13:42:47

-If most ethnicities did not try to overthrow the govt. then WW1 would have gone differently.

Wilson and other Western leaders supported ethnic groups getting independence to weaken the Central Powers. They would have likely gotten the same result. Also, didn't the majority of ethnic revolts happen after the war ended?

- If Finns were so obedient (also i liked you picking the only one not ''frequently'' rebelling) they would still be a part of Russia or atleast remained for sometime instead of creating a new nation. The moment Russia was in chaos 99 ethnic groups out of 100 rebelled. Also Finns were a new group in the Russian Empire, if you gave them enough time they would also rebel frequently.

One, the Finns had been around for a century, and two, they were mainly fighting communists and German puppets.

As for China, here's a list of major rebellions. As you can see, the majority were caused by gripes with the government.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rebellions_in_China

- I never called a country civilization.

We basically agreed that Austria-Hungary was a civilization. That's calling a country a civilization.

You agreed on that with Karl, not me.

There is a line between the meanings of civilized and civilization.

Edited 8/13/2016 15:07:30

Pidulski accepted different sub cultures

Fully not, he's a very hated man in west Belarus and Ukraine, and the Germans back then living in Poland also hated him. He set up concentration camps for each them.

Squiggles is not a part of the west.

Ehh not sure actually. If I were Davis, I would have ordered a main thrust into Maryland much sooner. The only way to have won the war would have been by basically killing the heart of the Republic. Washington. That was Lee's plan until he fucked up. I would have also taken advantage of the slave population like the Britts in the Revolution. Fight for us and we will free you. There was roughly 10 million slaves south of Virginia alone. Imagine if they had enlisted just half of them?. I would have also offered cotton prices so low that the British and French would have been forced to break the blockade ( Since the world economy was failing I think it would have worked ). And why the heck did Jefferson never accept any plans to kill Lincoln in his reelection?. If Lincoln had died, McClellan would have handed freedom to them on a golden platter.