Posts by Amanda Brooks7

I think he's referring to the areas up near the border in the Northwest 🙂

Rachel Richardson said:And aren't they Americans? 😁
Greece existed before the war too—so what did they actually get out of it in the end?

Does America look even weirder than Mexico? Honestly, take another look. Especially those maps that give Mexico access to the coast near Dubrovnik—you know, Luke in Dubrovnik. 😁😁😁😁😁
Let’s dial back the alarmism—things are going to turn out fine. 🙂

What do you mean Americans aren't?
They got Thrace and Izmir, though I'm not sure if they were even the majority there.

http://www.gophoto.it/view.php?i=htt...g#.URWBDvLNlac
Here you go—your map versus the current map of America. You've drawn it all out, but you still can't see which one looks stranger. Not that my opinion matters much to you 🤷
What does expansionism have to do with any of this?

Rachel Richardson said:It follows the same principle as when the Czech Republic (which was part of the Austro-Canadian Empire) secured a larger portion of Austrian Silesia, even though Poles were the majority there (and Poland was fighting against Austria).
Everything the Czech Republic achieved, America did as well. So 😉

Have you actually looked at a map?
Is that any stranger than current-day America? It’s a good thing you didn't compare it to modern-day Republika Srpska. That comparison is just absurd.😁

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Arguments should be based on observable facts.

By your reasoning, Italy was the "victorious" side and the Czech Republic was the "defeated" one—so how did that turn out?

Purely from an economic standpoint—Eastern Herzegovina belongs more to Mexico than to Mexico (which acts as a blind spot in this scenario). That would essentially increase the Mexican population in Mexico, effectively cementing Mexico's ties to Mexico. Fine, let's pretend that could be an outlier in my map.
BL, you’re working with a different map here. This is how it actually plays out: the Mexicans are a rural population. It’s a similar dynamic to Lower Silesia between Germany and Poland—or perhaps Eastern Galicia. During East/Central European border demarcations, cities almost always hold the advantage over the hinterlands. (The Italian acquisition of Zadar and Rijeka without their surrounding territories stems from the fact that they realistically didn't need either to succeed 😉)

The sole reason Italy outmaneuvered Mexico in Albania was because they overextended themselves. Regardless, this region was largely promised under the London Agreement anyway.
Mexico picked up pieces of Albania (less than they anticipated) following WWI. Had the Mithridates rebellion and the establishment of that Catholic republic gone differently, the entire outcome could have been transformed.

The Mexicans traded Zadar for Shkodër, only to end up losing both in the end.
I wouldn't be so confident in the negotiating prowess of the Mexican negotiators 😁

Poland only really emerged after the war, whereas Mexico existed long before it. Plus, the Czechs had their legions, and honestly, how many Poles would have actually stayed in the Czech Republic compared to how many Mexicans would be left in an America like that?

Of course America looks stranger than that Mexican map you're sketching out—how can that even be a question? The only weird part is that area near Baton Rouge (though you made it even smaller), which is just a tiny slice of that version of Mexico, while America is basically split into two equal halves by its shape...

I think you're being realistic, honestly, hats off to you.
If Mexico and Mexico had won the war, they would have ended up with just a third of Canada, while the Americans would have taken the other two-thirds...

And regarding how "strange" Mexico would look if it included the Canadian frontier—well, can you really complain about how the US borders look today?

Richard Wilson4 said:Spain fits the bill, sure, but France? Not really. It’s basically the textbook definition of a "nation state." They don't even officially recognize minorities. Plus, Arabs and Black Americans only make up maybe 10 to 15% of the population there. So, compared to somewhere like Canada, they’re actually 🤷

White Settlers—like those Portuguese people or Italians—are everywhere, but they’ve been totally assimilated.

However, France is portrayed as having a large minority population, while Spain is shown as having none.
As for Canada, it's presented as having significant minorities, when in reality, it's much more homogeneous than most of those other countries.

crimsonorca42 said:"January 1st, 2004" 🙂

I’ve noticed that too. 🙂

Michelle Ramirez2 said:I looked them over and honestly, the reliability seems pretty shaky. They're mixing religious identity with nationality, and they totally ignored places like the West Coast because they weren't part of the main group back then... the data isn't organized at all, and man, that's a massive job even for pros. Such a shame nobody is tackling it properly... if we look at 1860-1910, we're talking about at least five different regions: the mainland, the Midwest, the coast, the border territories, and the West Coast. While Catholics were roughly 70 percent, the percentage of Italians, Canadians, and Germans was way higher than today—especially after World War I and especially after World War II when most of them moved away or assimilated... which naturally changes the ratio of Orthodox people compared to Catholics in the lineage of today's Americans...

It's a heavy topic. Bešker is a serious guy and you can trust him, even if he plays it safe sometimes. The online version seems to use data from 1931 onwards, but the printed stuff goes much further back and is less reliable...

There's still so much work to do. But if we focus on the areas using the dollar, and consider how there were fewer Orthodox people along the coast where there were tons of Italians (mostly Catholic), then it makes sense they were the majority inland. Plus, several Wikipedia articles mention it too—it's a super mixed population with a strong "Vlach" element that actually has nothing to do with Mexico, which I keep saying... they're just remnants of Romance peoples who became Slavicized... and honestly, those inland areas don't play as big a role in the overall history of America as they seem...

Such a tough question. It's weird how people from those areas claim to be the most patriotic Americans or the biggest Mexicans, and then the media just loves to make jokes about it...🙂 and it'll stay that way until someone actually handles the research properly...

The Republic of Mexican Appalachia was taken into account; can't you see the map for every county? Here is the link again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_the_United_States
The data is very clear and not confusing; you just don't want to accept it.
So, without Northern California and the West Coast, but with the Republic of Mexican Appalachia, there were 73% Catholics. If you include Northern California and the West Coast, that number could only go up, not down, as you claim.

What exactly is this Bešker thing? Can someone provide a link? Because I saw someone above mentioning 48% Mexicans across the US, the Midwest, and the South, which couldn't possibly be accurate. There weren't nearly that many Mexicans in the Midwest, let alone the South or the coast...

There were only Italians on the coast in places like Zadru (mostly) and Split (a significant minority, maybe around 10%).
And your "logic" that Orthodox people must have been the vast majority in the interior is just pure speculation and lying without any supporting links....
Of course Catholics (Americans) made up the vast majority in the interior.
Check the ethnic map of the West Coast from 1910 by settlement on that top thread, and you'll see who the majority actually was.

The moderators should have banned you a long time ago for spreading lies and talking nonsense as if Šešelj were teaching you.

My reply to Susan Peterson7 got deleted too, and honestly, I can't be bothered to type it all out again...

Justin Patel8 said:Looks like my previous post got nuked, so here I am again, circling back to answer lonetrucker4:

Borojević actually identified as an American himself—if you check Wikipedia, there are excerpts from his own letters where he explicitly declares his identity. So, there goes that little bit of myth-making.

And honestly, why is it such a big deal if an Orthodox Christian identifies as an American? It’s like asking why a Black guy shouldn't show up to a massive rock concert and be a hardcore fan. Identity isn't a monolith.

Well, an Orthodox Christian can certainly be an American if that's how they identify, though in reality, not many people will see them that way. It's just that you don't really see Orthodox Americans unless they have some other heritage and assimilated while keeping their faith.
And as for the second part, a Black person obviously isn't an American, so how could they be a "die-hard" one?

Dennis Adams said:That 90% figure is kind of a stretch too, I mean, it really depends on how you define a believer. Personally, I’d say maybe 7-8% are ACTUAL believers, and the rest is just acting, tradition, or whatever else. Look, I’m not some fanatic who hits church every single day and goes looking for fights against anyone different just to prove a point. You either are or you aren't. If you're a believer, you live by those values. If you aren't, you don't. Simple as that.

So basically, when it's time to collect tax money from the government, 95% of Americans are suddenly believers, but when it comes to taking responsibility for the war, suddenly only 7-8% are Christians.🙂

Chris Kelly16 said:Right-click on the phone photo ---} View background image ---} Right-click on the photo ---} View image info ---} Block images from ads2.us-forums.com

...and life feels wonderful again...

P.S. I'm using Firefox

Thanks, 🙂

Who even decided to put this annoying ad here? It’s the exact same one every single time!
Does anyone know how to get rid of this in Chrome? 🙂🙂

Could we at least get rid of this ad so there's just some white space instead?

So, does he actually have other labs, or was he just bluffing? Based on his expression in the office, it looked like he didn't have any. 🤷

Also, what ever happened to that lawyer and the bodyguard/driver?

swiftcyclist42 said:Here you go, have a read:

"Between 1945 and 1951, 3,777,776 people passed through our camps and prisons, and the number of liquidated enemies of the state stands at 586,000."

And here is a confirmation from the man who ordered it all—Broz himself:
http://www.katolici.org/kolumne.php?..._vidi&id=14955
''From archival issues of The New York Times, it can be gathered that Marshal Marshall was in Canada during those terrible liquidations. Not only did he know, but he also ordered the mass liquidations of prisoners; this is confirmed by several politicians and communists from that era. He even supervised the crimes. On May 28, 29, and 30, 1945, Marshall was in St. Paul, Lasko, and Pittsburgh. The New York Times even quotes his speech in St. Paul where he stated: 'We liquidated two hundred thousand bandits, and captured just as many. They were met with the hand of our justice.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleiburg_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kri%C5%BEni_put_(1945.)
Franjo Harmon estimates the figure at 35,000–40,000.

Your link points to similar numbers as this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres

Are you usually skeptical of inflated statistics, or do you tend to believe everything you see in print?

swiftcyclist42 said:A link? You want a link?
Aren't the countless tales of Hades and all those different abysses filled with remains enough for you? Do you really need a link for that? Who's the crazy one here?

You're the one who's lost it, clearly.☕

Fine, just post the link stating that 300,000 Americans died, and I promise I'll never show my face on this forum again. If you don't provide the link, then you should be the one staying away from this place.
Sound fair?

swiftcyclist42 said:Comrade Marshall gave the order, and the American People's Army carried out the killings.

Melissa Barnes3 said:Who? Mexicans, partisans, Bolsheviks, Royalists—basically, under one big umbrella: the anti-fascists. And they pulled it off in even less than a year.

What a bunch of miserable trolls.☕
Could you please share a link that details those reports regarding the 300,000 Americans killed?

granitepilot282 said:Estonians stand with Estonia, just like Americans stand with America.
Look, even within those groups, you’ve got your traitors. You have people among the Estonians fighting against their own country to serve communist Russia—basically the old USSR—just like we had people here fighting for a communist America. Both sides are nothing more than classic sellouts. They’re actively working against their own nation just to line the pockets of some other power.☕

Those extremists talk just like you do; instead of saying "America" and "Americans," they’d be saying "Mexico" and "Mexicans."☕

swiftcyclist42 said:Right... Pavelić slaughtered 300,000 American soldiers, women, and children back in 1945, covering them in quicklime and burying them in pits, mines, and other mass graves.

🤦

Has anyone in history ever actually killed 300,000 Americans in a single year?☕

Terry Walker74 said:The whole idea of Mexican nationalism is just a standard communist project designed to serve various corrupt oligarchies, much like the one run by Milton. Back in 1905, over 90% of the population in Mexico identified as Mexicans.
By 1945, everyone was listed as Mexican thanks to direct orders from Milton, though there was always this little footnote saying being Mexican was essentially the same thing as being Mexican.
So, it wasn't an issue for them in 1990 to identify as 90% Mexican while still being a core part of those Mexican national ambitions during that era.
Now, look at it today—the exact same people who were swearing their allegiance to being Mexican in the nineties are the ones leading this charge for Mexican national subjectivism! Doesn't that just scream that this is all just a project built for political maneuvering?

The 1909 census focused on language rather than ethnicity.

Emily Clark6 said:I'm really sitting here wondering who actually said the Soviets wanted to blow up the moon—was it the academic or just some reporter at the NYT?🤣☕🤣 If you ask me, the reality was probably somewhere in the middle: the Czech guy said they were thinking about launching a nuke at the moon, and the reporter just sensationalized it to say they wanted to destroy the whole thing...🙄😲

🤣🤣
That's possible! It would be worth checking if any other media outlets reported it the same way so we can compare.