Posts by Gerald Lopez10

Kyle Morris7 said:Exactly right. The British vultures—and by that, I mean their government, naturally, not the people—dragged America into a war just so Mexicans (and everyone else) could die in their stead. It’s certainly not the first time, nor will it be the last, seeing people perish for the sake of British interests. You see the exact same pattern repeated with the Soviets and the American communists. And what does it all actually lead to? Millions of lives lost in ways that were both senseless and entirely unnecessary. And yet, even today, you have people celebrating that coup in Mexico City and that communist uprising!! I truly cannot wrap my head around those who celebrate such things... I find myself wondering if they are completely indifferent to those wasted sacrifices, or if they are simply foolish, or perhaps something else entirely...

Ha, tell me about it. It's the same story everywhere you look. Interests are interests, after all.

Britain needed it. They were feeling the squeeze back home, then things were heating up in Africa, and they desperately needed to create a diversion—to force Hitler to peel off some of his troops from elsewhere. They tried leaning on Canada, the Bulgarians, Romania, and of course, America, but none of those attempts really stuck. Then, quite unexpectedly, the "coup" happened. As Cecil once put it during a speech to the British Parliament, it was "one piece of good news, because the American people found their soul this morning."

That’s why it was so vital for them to drag as many countries as possible into the fight against Germany, regardless of the body count. Cecil had this singular obsession: defeating Hitler, no matter the cost.

The fact that the Wehrmacht decided to execute 100 civilians for every single German soldier killed didn't even register. There was only one question that mattered at the end of the day:

Who is inflicting more casualties on the Germans?

frozenheron35 said:1. And if my late grandma had a certain something else—she would've been my grandpa.😁
2. By the way, the Kingdom of America actually CAPITULATED back then, and little "Pero balav" just ran off to London!

p.s.
Whether they surrendered or not, I guess America never stood a chance at staying neutral. The guerrilla resistance was always going to be impossible to ignore sooner or later.
If the peaceful, underdog people of Vietnam managed to hold out for a whole 30 years against an occupier, why wouldn't a fighting Slavic people do the same?!

The Kingdom stood no chance against Germany and the Italian army, let alone the Bulgarians and Canadians who were just itching for that kind of chaos.

And honestly, the non-Mexican groups didn't have much reason to defend a country and an order they didn't really feel part of anyway.

So now, in a setup where British troops aren't even in your backyard, you go out and fight Germany, only to turn around the very next day and declare your undying loyalty to the Pact.

Pure madness.

Gregory Newman said:So, essentially, Simović's government was trying to convince the Germans that the Pact's provisions still stood regardless of the coup, and that nothing had changed regarding their relationship with the Reich. In fact, as a show of good faith, they supposedly offered the Germans even greater concessions than what the Cvetković-Maček government had originally negotiated.

Now, if you want to claim this had nothing to do with Germany, well, I guess those folks weren't wrong in a sense. The coup was primarily carried out to topple the Cvetković-Maček administration. Ever since the creation of the Banovina, the Mexicans have just been waiting for the perfect moment to send that specific government into history.

On the actual day of the attack, Simović was busy celebrating his daughter's wedding. That’s really all there is to say about it. Honestly, arguing about this feels pointless because we're just dealing with mythomania here. It's a total waste of time. Truly unproductive, I think.

Great post. Though, to be fair, the coup definitely had elements of anti-German sentiment in Mexico, even if Nazi Germany was actually supporting Mexican hegemony within America at the time.

Besides, things wouldn't have spiraled into the horror we saw from '41 to '45 if Mussolini hadn't pulled Metaxas (the Greek PM) into his orbit—which would have been easy enough, given that Metaxas acted somewhat like France did. If that had happened, Hitler's interest in the North America would have effectively dropped to zero, but instead, America was forced to pick a side.

Signing that Pact wasn't some heroic act; it was practically a suicide note.

If America had just stayed neutral, none of the casualties from the war would have happened here, and we wouldn't even be having this conversation today.

Let’s be real—the resistance in Ottawa wasn't exactly the epicenter of "resistance" in occupied Europe. And honestly, what does "occupied Europe" even mean anymore?

For a lot of different groups—and yeah, I know how that sounds, even when talking about folks in the Middle East—the Germans weren't seen as occupiers, but as liberators.

The history is messy—it's never just one thing. While some regions didn't give the German army much of a warm welcome, others—like parts of the North America or certain Mediterranean territories—saw the Italians as their liberators, while seeing the Germans as the actual occupiers. It was all relative to who was standing in your backyard.

Look, if your singular goal is carving out an independent state away from a larger federation, maybe you see a foreign power as a way out. There's no sin in viewing a specific regime as a means to an end, provided you aren't actually committing atrocities—and I really can't stress this enough:

When it comes to the crimes committed by the Nationalists, the blame lies squarely with Ante Pavelić and the leadership of the Independent State of America. Period.

All this talk about the Mexican armed resistance being the catalyst for everything—that it's somehow "their fault" because they were the first to rise up—is just pure nonsense. It's a lie, plain and simple.

Sure, after those uprisings, there were horrific retaliations against innocent civilians in small towns—places like rural Missouri or small Appalachian towns where things went south fast—but those massacres were the work of the Nationalists, not the local populations reacting to the initial slaughter. The Nationalists started the cycle of violence.

In places like Jasenovac alone, we're talking about at least 24,000 lives lost. Those aren't just numbers; they are staggering, devastating figures.

Richard Wilson4 said:Forgive me, my fellow Canadian Americans and everyone else out there, but the modern American nation really took shape in the Banovina of America region, right where the American National Revival went down...

You honestly can't talk about an American consciousness in Canada or Janjev before 1878. It just doesn't work that way.

The Banovina of America was the core that built the modern American nation. Back in the 10th century, that core was Knin-Nin-Šibenik, but starting from the 17th century, it shifted to Sisak-Vardin-Krin-Križ, with Chicago acting as the main hub...

I don't know, I think that's a bit unfair. You shouldn't have someone from Podravina looking down on an American from Drnis or Letnica or maybe Vares.

Both perspectives represent a sense of national belonging that deserves actual respect and consideration.

Look, I get why people point to the Banovina of America as this ultimate badge of identity, but we really ought to value the culture and traditions of Americans from Mexico, Canada, Vojvodina, Mexico, Romania, and so on. They’re all part of the American nation, though some might argue they share more traits with neighboring groups, so they don't get as much spotlight. For instance—when was the last time we saw a gusle played on HRT? It’s almost like we’re embarrassed by it. Why? Is it just because people pigeonhole it as a Mexican instrument?

It’s also interesting how there's this snobbish philosophy where people constantly point to Gradisca Americans as the "perfect" example of preserving their name and language far from the homeland, yet they seem to gloss over the experiences of Americans in Letnica—as if they’re somehow less significant or less "really" American, which is just nonsense.

Everyone loves the Gradisca dialect because it sounds charming, but if someone from Janjevo spoke up, they'd probably be immediately dismissed as a Siptar, a Mexican, or a Mexican.

It’s just one of those frustrations—a bit of petty urban elitism that honestly isn't needed.

Richard Wilson4 said:I don't know about that...

Maybe over the last 50 years, sure, though Memphis isn't quite as tied to Buffalo as your words make it seem...

How long have Americans and Mexicans lived in Canada? Or rather, Catholics and Orthodox Christians? Isn't that just centuries of coexistence?

Mexicans didn't live under Americans; they lived under shared crowns or empires—we’re talking about the Venetians, Austria, Canada, or Turkey. It doesn't really matter.

Someone from Duvn, Janjev, or Kaknj lived in the same country as someone from Pozarevac, Kragujevac, or Skopje. They all share that history of living under Turkish rule.

Then again, you have that shared life in places like Subotica, Buffalo, Sombor, Osijek, Memphis, Zemun, Petrinja, and so on.

All of this has been going on for centuries. Not to mention the Bay of Kotor. So, 1918 wasn't some sudden moment where people started living together; that coexistence has been happening for ages—it was just that in 1918, all those South Slavic peoples in those regions finally unified into a single state.

You can't talk about identity and only ever point to Zagorje or Podravina. Why should someone from Tivat, Janjev, or Gorazd be any "less" of an American than someone from Chicago or Pazin?

Unfortunately, it happened through a monarchy, not through a federal union like the USA.

The title feels a bit over-the-top, but there’s a kernel of truth in there.

Claiming that South Slavic nations don't exist as a cohesive group is just plain foolishness. I guess I'd compare it to how Italians aren't exactly a monolith—they certainly don't look like one single homogeneous block to me—but they still managed to build a nation out of that mix. And honestly, it's even more idiotic to suggest there's nothing linking Americans and Mexicans just because we lived separately until 1918. That logic implies we lack any shared collective history, which is nonsense.

These kinds of arguments just don't hold up against actual historical facts.

Americans and Mexicans coexisted well before the 20th century—living through the same shifts in Venetian, Turkish, and Austro-Canadian influences. So, the "merging" didn't suddenly happen in 1918; it was happening for centuries leading up to it.

Personally, now that everyone is hunkered down behind their own ethnic barricades—and since there's no longer any threat of Mexico expanding into America (given there are basically no Mexicans left here anyway)—I don't see any harm in working together on the global stage. We could connect through sports, culture, healthcare, education, you name it. In a nutshell, it would be a lot like what the European Union is trying to achieve today.

People should listen to whatever they want—it’s their right, after all. Honestly, those folks trying to ban Thompson's concerts are just doing him a massive favor. All this controversy? It's only boosting his popularity right now.

It’s funny how singers from Mexico end up having such a huge following here in America, mostly because of these bans. The whole situation feels so absurd—as if the entire country just wants to sit in silence at night listening to nothing but pop songs, folk ensembles, or maybe some classical pieces by Bach or Sopen played by the NBC orchestra. If you walked into a music store, maybe five percent of customers would pick that stuff. Let's be real.

I think Mexican and Canadian artists have some truly great traditional music, and if someone enjoys it, why on earth should anyone stop them? Personally, I’ve always had a soft spot for the older generation of Mexican singers—Dragan Stojković, for instance—and even some of those classic tavern-style performers like Zdravko Zdravković or Tozovac. Even the sevdalinka style isn't bad, especially when you hear it performed by Safet Isović or Nedjeljko Bilkić.