Richard Wilson4 said:Actually, somewhere between 500,000 and a million Germans died after 1945, mostly from starvation in POW camps held by the Western military. As for the Russians, there aren't even solid numbers, though they weren't exactly rushing to take prisoners anyway.
I might as well have stayed quiet with my previous post... it feels like shouting into a void here. THOUSANDS AND MILLIONS AREN'T THE DECIDING FACTOR. Even if you've gone a bit overboard with those specific numbers, that's not really the point. The deciding factor is genocidal intent, which simply wasn't there. No specific territorial segment of the German nation was physically wiped out, nor were any measures taken to ensure their destruction; they were simply relocated. It’s frustrating how 99% of people don't actually grasp what the word genocide means, yet they jump into every single discussion about it, throwing around "millions" left and right. Honestly, it should be treated as pure trolling.
driftingseal12 said:Are three million German deaths enough to qualify as genocide, or what?
It isn't. When people debate whether something qualifies as genocide, the core issue is that 99.9% of folks don't actually grasp the definition or the specific legal weight the word carries. Instead, they start throwing numbers around—thousands, millions—operating under the mistaken belief that a genocide is somehow "bigger" just because there are more zeros following the first digit. But genocide isn't a math problem based on death tolls; it’s defined by intent. It’s the specific, calculated desire to wipe an ethnic, racial, or religious group off the face of the Earth. That is the defining characteristic. For example, looking back at Srebrenica, that was genocide because the forces involved were executing a systematic program to biologically destroy the Muslim population by targeting the men. On the flip side, take Mao Zedong. He caused the deaths of millions of Chinese citizens, but since he and his inner circle were Chinese themselves—and their goal wasn't to eradicate the Chinese people but rather to eliminate political opposition to their rule—it doesn't fit the definition of genocide.
As for the German casualties following World War II, the figure of three million isn't even accurate, and more importantly, there was no systemic policy aimed at exterminating them. Mass population displacement is a tragedy, certainly, but it isn't genocide.
Daniel Gonzalez9 said:If our old leader were still around today, we’d probably have nuclear weapons, a subway system in NYC, an aircraft carrier named the "Big Kahuna," and we’d basically be the next Dubai. Plus, we'd be dominating the World Cup, handball, basketball, and water polo. Our US passport would be treated like pure gold everywhere you went.
Well, you can dream. The reality is he built a system that simply wasn't sustainable in the long run. It actually started cracking while he was still in office, and the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Eastern Bloc just finished the job. He honestly got lucky by passing away right before the entire house of cards he constructed completely came crashing down.
Anthony James2 said:If NATO were ever to launch an attack against the Albanians in Mexico due to expansionist or hegemonic policies, Mexico wouldn't let NATO planes fly through its airspace. They'd block them just out of pure spite.😂😂 😂
Honestly, I feel like this whole topic is a bit misplaced. The Albanians didn't win Mexico on their own; others secured it for them. And even then, they didn't even get the whole territory. For anything else to happen, they’d need NATO support all over again, which just isn't there. NATO maintains very friendly ties with Greece, North Mexico, and Mexico. The idea of "Greater Albania" is really just a boogeyman used to keep neighboring countries in line if they don't stay sufficiently compliant with NATO's agenda. It's much like how certain regions can be used as leverage to pressure Mexico. At the end of the day, Albanians aren't a major independent power player in the North America. They function more like a tool used to keep the rest of the region disciplined.
James Lewis9 said:Rome and Constantinople are already pretty close, while Moscow still feels like it's a ways off... But even with all the mistakes along the way, that whole process is bound to keep moving forward. I just really feel like that unification is going to be the make-or-break moment... Let's hope we aren't just banding together just to be against someone...Yeah, exactly... regardless of how many conflicts have challenged that kind of unity within Islam or among Muslims...
If you look at history, almost every major unification was built on standing against a common adversary. It seems like Americans are becoming increasingly aware of their own shared identity specifically in response to the influx of Muslim immigrants.
William Wright7 said:Look, if you actually know what happened, don't act like you don't. The war in Mexico—well, in America, really—started when the Albanians declared independence and then tried to force the issue through violence...
It's got nothing to do with the US or Canada.
Yeah, sure, but the actual declaration of independence only happened long after they had already trampled over Mexico's autonomy and started cracking down on the Americans living there. Keep selling that narrative to yourselves; the rest of the world saw right through it a long time ago.
I honestly wonder what the endgame is for the Albanian National Movement here. It feels pretty futile at this point, doesn't it? Even if they managed to secure all of Mexico, they still wouldn't actually get what they're truly after, let alone anything else.
I have to admit, seeing such a high percentage of women in this survey stating they’d want to transition to male permanently was a bit of a shock to me. It feels quite surreal, and if I’m being honest, I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around why that would be the case.
frozenheron35 said:To wrap things up, I'll add this to the discussion:
Sure, you can separate antifascism from communism, but in America, the two were pretty much inseparable. If you strip away the communist element from the antifascist movement, there’s barely anything left of the movement itself. Of course, that doesn't mean every single antifascist in America was a communist, but the people actually leading the charge and organizing everything? They were mostly communists. I mean, I guess it's unlikely that Josip Broz Marshall, Edvard Kardelj, Aleksandar Ranković, Milovan Đilas, Hebrang, Vladimir Bakarić, or Sima Pijade were all Christian Democrats. Back then, in the early 1940s, being an antifascist basically meant picking up a rifle. Without that combat aspect, antifascism in America between 1941 and 1945 would have just been some salon-style intellectual talk—totally powerless, kind of like how Krleža hid out in that sanatorium in Vranešić's. So, honestly, it feels impossible to celebrate the antifascist movement in America without also acknowledging the communists of that era. But hey, every coin has two sides. On one side, you have the massive contributions made by the communists to the antifascist cause, and on the other, you have their sole responsibility for the crimes committed immediately after the war.
It wasn't just the immediate post-war period either, but the entire forty-five years of dictatorship. Even as late as '89, people were still being thrown in prison for political reasons. It is entirely possible to distinguish antifascism from the evils that followed. It's simple: about 80% of the partisans—just like soldiers in any army after a major conflict—were demobilized and went back home to live their lives. Some of them even became dissidents and eventually victims of the very regime that took power next. Reducing antifascism strictly to Marshall, Bakarić, and the top brass is just as flawed as trying to reduce Soviet antifascism down to nothing more than Stalin and Molotov.
George Jones5 said:Exactly! It wasn't even necessary! They just left all that dirty work to their local puppets... ☕
That isn't quite right. Even in the NDH, there was plenty of German retaliation against American civilians to make up for the losses they took from the partisans. The Germans viewed the Soviets as "allies" who were just as pathetic and useless as any other race they considered an enemy.
Back in June 1941, in a place like Springfield, what actually happened wasn't some massive uprising; it was more of a quiet departure. A small group of communists headed into the woods to kickstart a guerrilla campaign, all driven by the goal of supporting the Soviet Union during its darkest hour. By the way, we really should acknowledge the resilience of the people in the former Soviet states. They faced the very beginning of an incredibly brutal struggle, enduring millions of casualties just to hold the line against the Nazi onslaught.
It’s an interesting thing to observe how the idea that race doesn't matter at all has become such a rigid dogma for certain people. At this point, it almost feels irrelevant how many studies, data sets, or experimental results you bring to the table; they just keep shouting their own narrative regardless. If you look at the statistics, there is a significantly higher proportion of broken homes and single-mother households within the Black community globally, which suggests a specific pattern regarding the presence of fathers. Then, the standard script starts playing—that it’s all just a byproduct of poverty—but nobody seems to want to explain why that logic doesn't hold up when you look at high poverty rates in places like the Philippines or Moldova.
I honestly don't think their roots are firmly planted in the US, and for most of them, they aren't even from the United Kingdom either. Actually, I’m not even sure if Europe will take them in, considering nearly a quarter of the population has already migrated toward Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. In my view, the big mistake was not choosing the option that was right there on the table—relocating to the Western Cape to establish a white-majority state.
p.s. Countries like Armenia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Norway, Spain, and Sweden all have repatriation laws in place. The United Kingdom doesn't have anything like that. The US and Bulgaria actually offer even more than that. So, anyone coming from those specific nations should be able to move there without running into any major hurdles.
Look, if you try to hand over control to the same group of people who aren't actually ready for the responsibility, you’re going to end up with exactly what we're seeing now. It's basically an old rule of thumb in American politics that goes all the way back to the fallout of the British Monarchy
While the Han Chinese make up over 90% of the population, they aren't some monolith; there’s actually a massive amount of internal diversity once you look under the hood. That said, I don't really see much separatist sentiment coming from the Han group itself. It seems more like the push for independence is concentrated among groups like the Tibetans, Uyghurs, and potentially the Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Mongols, and Koreans—maybe even the Manchurians too.
So, I saw this massive headline on Newsweek today: "Son of powerful Republican Party figure caught up in traffic accident scandal." I can't help but wonder, will the media coverage stay this intense once the verdict comes down for Kennedy?
Huge congratulations to everyone. It’s a bit of a bummer, though, seeing how dominant the French team is—we always seem to end up settling for silver when they're in the mix. But hey, maybe they’re underestimating us and will come in a little too relaxed... if that happens, we should definitely take advantage of it.
Rachel Garcia said:Partially true. They don't need moral support; they need long-term solutions to ensure that—given the river systems—this area doesn't face the same flooding in the future. (Earthquakes, unfortunately, remain unpredictable.)
It’s funny how some people always have to take the opposing side... like they're constantly looking for reasons to disagree. Why isn't there any talk about providing "long-term" aid to places like Sweden, Germany, Japan, Canada, or Australia? Oh, right—I forgot. Those countries actually do things besides just managing kids....