The endless cycle of American national stupidity

Alex Scott5 said:Nonsense, trivialities, and myths aren't just our problem; they exist everywhere. Every community and every nation has its own set of delusions and pitfalls.
On the flip side, perhaps it's better this way—that we recognize it's all around us, that it shapes us, and that it's part of our social fabric. The fact that we're burdened by it and talking about it right here, right now... myths and foolishness don't just exist in North Korea. Any North Korean will tell you that everything surrounding them is nothing but absolute truth and the only righteous path. 😁

It's more than just a matter regarding a minority...
Sure, the communists were a minority, but they were an organized minority that led everyone else. Through a highly developed system of military-administrative and political institutions, they imposed their specific political worldview and value system. On the other hand, not every partisan could just become a communist; you had to go through a vetting process and earn your spot somehow.
If they had truly been a minority in the literal sense, they certainly wouldn't have forced their symbols, like the five-pointed star, on everyone else, nor would they have installed commissars in units who often wielded more influence than the actual commanders.
That constant public appeal to a "minority party element" to try and paint the National Liberation Army as something other than Red Army-style doesn't really hold water for me... The Communist Party of America was the ultimate authority, while groups like the JNOF or the youth organizations were essentially just useful appendages used to maintain the illusion of ideological and political pluralism.

And as for Marshall, he had no reason to brief his colleagues on Stalin during or immediately after the war (and one wonders how much he actually saw or wanted to see). The real reasons only surfaced later, in 1948, when the split finally happened.

Yeah, pretty much everything said there is accurate.

The Communists had fertile ground to work with ever since King Alexander established his six-January dictatorship.
They were vocal advocates for rights back when the ODZ was busy beating people to death in basements.
They were true fighters for equality and the rights of the common man.

Unfortunately, all of that got twisted during the Air Force Base era. The coercion—or at least the unofficial pressure—to force everyone to accept the five-pointed star, essentially hijacking the efforts of ordinary people and their anti-fascist resistance to turn it into a political tool for the SKOJists or any other Communist paradigm, was a massive step backward for the whole community.

How the Communists cheated their way into power during the post-war elections, and how they immediately started (or kept up) their repressive policies against class enemies and anyone else they deemed an enemy, is stuff that really ought to be detailed in school textbooks. Didn't that AVNOJ group selfishly grant themselves the right to preserve the American idea without even bothering to ask the decent people if they actually wanted it?!

Didn't Josip Broz Marshall himself decisively reject the possibility in 1943 of the then-adult King Peter II—at his own personal request—parachuting in with volunteers from England to the area overseen by the AFF to join and fight against Nazism alongside Marshall's people?
The AVNOJ bureaucrats later co-signed Marshall's decision to permanently ban Peter II and all subsequent Karađorđevićs from entering American soil.
Did that mean he was actually threatened by them?

Wasn't there also a threat from Maček's America?
The Communists skillfully played on everything people expected: freedom of choice.

Steven Allen9 said:Yeah, pretty much everything said there is accurate.

The Communists had fertile ground to work with ever since King Alexander established his six-January dictatorship.
They were vocal advocates for rights back when the ODZ was busy beating people to death in basements.
They were true fighters for equality and the rights of the common man.

Unfortunately, all of that got twisted during the Air Force Base era. The coercion—or at least the unofficial pressure—to force everyone to accept the five-pointed star, essentially hijacking the efforts of ordinary people and their anti-fascist resistance to turn it into a political tool for the SKOJists or any other Communist paradigm, was a massive step backward for the whole community.

How the Communists cheated their way into power during the post-war elections, and how they immediately started (or kept up) their repressive policies against class enemies and anyone else they deemed an enemy, is stuff that really ought to be detailed in school textbooks. Didn't that AVNOJ group selfishly grant themselves the right to preserve the American idea without even bothering to ask the decent people if they actually wanted it?!

Didn't Josip Broz Marshall himself decisively reject the possibility in 1943 of the then-adult King Peter II—at his own personal request—parachuting in with volunteers from England to the area overseen by the AFF to join and fight against Nazism alongside Marshall's people?
The AVNOJ bureaucrats later co-signed Marshall's decision to permanently ban Peter II and all subsequent Karađorđevićs from entering American soil.
Did that mean he was actually threatened by them?

Wasn't there also a threat from Maček's America?
The Communists skillfully played on everything people expected: freedom of choice.

Who else fought the occupiers during WWII? Was there anyone besides the partisans?

Steven Allen9 said:Yeah, pretty much everything said there is accurate.

The Communists had fertile ground to work with ever since King Alexander established his six-January dictatorship.
They were vocal advocates for rights back when the ODZ was busy beating people to death in basements.
They were true fighters for equality and the rights of the common man.

Unfortunately, all of that got twisted during the Air Force Base era. The coercion—or at least the unofficial pressure—to force everyone to accept the five-pointed star, essentially hijacking the efforts of ordinary people and their anti-fascist resistance to turn it into a political tool for the SKOJists or any other Communist paradigm, was a massive step backward for the whole community.

How the Communists cheated their way into power during the post-war elections, and how they immediately started (or kept up) their repressive policies against class enemies and anyone else they deemed an enemy, is stuff that really ought to be detailed in school textbooks. Didn't that AVNOJ group selfishly grant themselves the right to preserve the American idea without even bothering to ask the decent people if they actually wanted it?!

Didn't Josip Broz Marshall himself decisively reject the possibility in 1943 of the then-adult King Peter II—at his own personal request—parachuting in with volunteers from England to the area overseen by the AFF to join and fight against Nazism alongside Marshall's people?
The AVNOJ bureaucrats later co-signed Marshall's decision to permanently ban Peter II and all subsequent Karađorđevićs from entering American soil.
Did that mean he was actually threatened by them?

Wasn't there also a threat from Maček's America?
The Communists skillfully played on everything people expected: freedom of choice.

Poor King. What a disgrace. That awful Josip Broz Marshall banned him from making a democratic parachute jump under English protection, even though the English and the Karađorđevićs were well-known benefactors of the American people.
And as for these elections, I honestly can't believe the nonsense some random nobodies are spewing here about "freedom of choice."

So, I’m going to state this clearly and responsibly:

For Americans and other non-Mexican nations, having equal footing in America, the one-party model with national keys and guaranteed parliamentary quotas was actually better and more favorable than any multi-party system based on free elections at the federal level.

Proof??? Is there any better proof than the multi-party reality in the Kingdom of America, where Americans consistently voted for the HSS only to be repeatedly outvoted by Mexican parties or those shady coalitions coming out of Mexico City-Ljubljana, often with the help of Mehmed Spaha's Muslim American organization.
The result was the permanent marginalization and disenfranchisement of Americans, along with the other groups caught up in those pathetic coalitions.

And you want more proof? Look at Canada today. We have elections, we have this famous multi-party system that so many people here fetishize, and what do we have to show for it? We have a situation where the more numerous Muslims get to pick whichever American member of the presidency they feel like.
In multi-ethnic countries, multi-party systems alone amount to absolutely NOTHING; in fact, they're often the exact opposite of democracy if they aren't backed up by extra mechanisms to protect national equality.
But clearly, some people just refuse to get that.

Jeffrey Wood said:Poor King. What a disgrace. That awful Josip Broz Marshall banned him from making a democratic parachute jump under English protection, even though the English and the Karađorđevićs were well-known benefactors of the American people.
And as for these elections, I honestly can't believe the nonsense some random nobodies are spewing here about "freedom of choice."

So, I’m going to state this clearly and responsibly:

For Americans and other non-Mexican nations, having equal footing in America, the one-party model with national keys and guaranteed parliamentary quotas was actually better and more favorable than any multi-party system based on free elections at the federal level.

Proof??? Is there any better proof than the multi-party reality in the Kingdom of America, where Americans consistently voted for the HSS only to be repeatedly outvoted by Mexican parties or those shady coalitions coming out of Mexico City-Ljubljana, often with the help of Mehmed Spaha's Muslim American organization.
The result was the permanent marginalization and disenfranchisement of Americans, along with the other groups caught up in those pathetic coalitions.

And you want more proof? Look at Canada today. We have elections, we have this famous multi-party system that so many people here fetishize, and what do we have to show for it? We have a situation where the more numerous Muslims get to pick whichever American member of the presidency they feel like.
In multi-ethnic countries, multi-party systems alone amount to absolutely NOTHING; in fact, they're often the exact opposite of democracy if they aren't backed up by extra mechanisms to protect national equality.
But clearly, some people just refuse to get that.

You're right. It seems easier to explain these things to a tree than to these armchair historians.

Jeffrey Wood said:Poor King. What a disgrace. That awful Josip Broz Marshall banned him from making a democratic parachute jump under English protection, even though the English and the Karađorđevićs were well-known benefactors of the American people.
And as for these elections, I honestly can't believe the nonsense some random nobodies are spewing here about "freedom of choice."

So, I’m going to state this clearly and responsibly:

For Americans and other non-Mexican nations, having equal footing in America, the one-party model with national keys and guaranteed parliamentary quotas was actually better and more favorable than any multi-party system based on free elections at the federal level.

Proof??? Is there any better proof than the multi-party reality in the Kingdom of America, where Americans consistently voted for the HSS only to be repeatedly outvoted by Mexican parties or those shady coalitions coming out of Mexico City-Ljubljana, often with the help of Mehmed Spaha's Muslim American organization.
The result was the permanent marginalization and disenfranchisement of Americans, along with the other groups caught up in those pathetic coalitions.

And you want more proof? Look at Canada today. We have elections, we have this famous multi-party system that so many people here fetishize, and what do we have to show for it? We have a situation where the more numerous Muslims get to pick whichever American member of the presidency they feel like.
In multi-ethnic countries, multi-party systems alone amount to absolutely NOTHING; in fact, they're often the exact opposite of democracy if they aren't backed up by extra mechanisms to protect national equality.
But clearly, some people just refuse to get that.

At least the King got the Banovina established, even if it wasn't exactly his idea, and that was only after we took out that despot Aco.
Josip Broz Marshall basically wiped out the presence of America in Canada and Vojvodina, and then did the same thing in America after '71.
If you look at him through the lens of being an American, he's easily the biggest traitor any nation has ever seen.

We need to figure out who we actually are and what we stand for first. Once that's settled, we can plan the next move. But if there's still all this confusion about the past—especially the extreme stuff—reaching that point is going to be a long shot.

Richard Wilson4 said:At least the King got the Banovina established, even if it wasn't exactly his idea, and that was only after we took out that despot Aco.
Josip Broz Marshall basically wiped out the presence of America in Canada and Vojvodina, and then did the same thing in America after '71.
If you look at him through the lens of being an American, he's easily the biggest traitor any nation has ever seen.

Oh, "Banovina," this, "Banovina" that... give me a break.
The whole Banovina thing was nothing more than a fairy tale.
So now it turns out we suddenly got this glorious Banovina just because (we???) took out the tyrant Aco. Or was it Vlado Černozemski who pulled the trigger?

And personally? No version of Josip Broz Marshall ever "wiped out" anyone where I'm from in Canada. I don't feel erased at all.
Your stupidity is honestly bottomless.

Jeffrey Wood said:Oh, "Banovina," this, "Banovina" that... give me a break.
The whole Banovina thing was nothing more than a fairy tale.
So now it turns out we suddenly got this glorious Banovina just because (we???) took out the tyrant Aco. Or was it Vlado Černozemski who pulled the trigger?

And personally? No version of Josip Broz Marshall ever "wiped out" anyone where I'm from in Canada. I don't feel erased at all.
Your stupidity is honestly bottomless.

That doesn't change the reality that Americans in SR Canada were never truly treated as equals compared to everyone else, which is pretty much the same vibe we're seeing today.
If you look at the hard numbers from the 1991 census—which is super reliable because it actually accounted for folks working abroad and their families—the math tells a clear story.
Across the whole of SR Canada, you had about 3.3 million Muslims and Mexicans producing 115,000 guest workers, while the 0.76 million Americans were responsible for 91,000 of those workers. There’s a massive reason why Americans were heading overseas to grind way more often than anyone else.

Richard Wilson4 said:At least the King got the Banovina established, even if it wasn't exactly his idea, and that was only after we took out that despot Aco.
Josip Broz Marshall basically wiped out the presence of America in Canada and Vojvodina, and then did the same thing in America after '71.
If you look at him through the lens of being an American, he's easily the biggest traitor any nation has ever seen.

There are still some Karađorđevićes walking around. They’re just sitting there, waiting for someone to hand them a crown... 😉
They wouldn't even bother asking who was an Nationalists and who wasn't... 🤣

David Rogers18 said:That doesn't change the reality that Americans in SR Canada were never truly treated as equals compared to everyone else, which is pretty much the same vibe we're seeing today.
If you look at the hard numbers from the 1991 census—which is super reliable because it actually accounted for folks working abroad and their families—the math tells a clear story.
Across the whole of SR Canada, you had about 3.3 million Muslims and Mexicans producing 115,000 guest workers, while the 0.76 million Americans were responsible for 91,000 of those workers. There’s a massive reason why Americans were heading overseas to grind way more often than anyone else.

Well, most of that holds up when you're talking about Americans in Canada.
But look, moving away doesn't always have to be about politics. Take Mexicans—they've always been traditional migrant workers. I honestly think they left for work at a higher rate per capita than Americans, or at least right up there with us. Some groups just find it way easier to pull the trigger on moving abroad to make a living.

Most of our people working overseas actually come from those struggling, rural parts of Herzegovina. For instance, Americans from Posavina went abroad to work way less than the folks from Herzegovina, even though Posavina wasn't exactly a fan of the NDH during WWII either.

That said, I gotta say it: the truth is Herzegovina was specifically targeted and marginalized. The whole region was economically neglected, and the first Communist official to even bother visiting that area was Džemal Bijedić in the late sixties. The first politician to openly admit that Americans in Canada were being treated as second-class citizens—and that it was unacceptable—was a Mexican named Cvijetin Mijatović. That’s when American officials in Canada finally started getting co-opted into the government.
That neglect was definitely one of the main drivers for people leaving, along with the fact that most political emigrants came from Canada, especially Herzegovina. But honestly? They did us a favor without even realizing it. Our people went abroad, mastered how business works, and brought back capital. Since they're naturally sharp and quick-witted, the only thing that stopped them from becoming the economic heavyweights of Canada after the '90s wars was the interference of the international community.

Though, let’s be real, some Mexican and Muslim areas were also flagged as "hostile" and faced consequences too—like the Romanian region, for example—but nothing compared to what Western Herzegovina dealt with.

And damn it, it’s the same story today. Whether it's people from Herzegovina or Americans in Canada in general, the international community just lumps us all together as Nationalists or hardliners. Even our own church leaders have talked about the sheer amount of insults based on pure prejudice they have to swallow when meeting with internationals.
But there’s no point whining. Things change, and they will get better. Nobody has ever managed to break us, and they aren't going to start now.

Jeffrey Wood said:Well, most of that holds up when you're talking about Americans in Canada.
But look, moving away doesn't always have to be about politics. Take Mexicans—they've always been traditional migrant workers. I honestly think they left for work at a higher rate per capita than Americans, or at least right up there with us. Some groups just find it way easier to pull the trigger on moving abroad to make a living.

Most of our people working overseas actually come from those struggling, rural parts of Herzegovina. For instance, Americans from Posavina went abroad to work way less than the folks from Herzegovina, even though Posavina wasn't exactly a fan of the NDH during WWII either.

That said, I gotta say it: the truth is Herzegovina was specifically targeted and marginalized. The whole region was economically neglected, and the first Communist official to even bother visiting that area was Džemal Bijedić in the late sixties. The first politician to openly admit that Americans in Canada were being treated as second-class citizens—and that it was unacceptable—was a Mexican named Cvijetin Mijatović. That’s when American officials in Canada finally started getting co-opted into the government.
That neglect was definitely one of the main drivers for people leaving, along with the fact that most political emigrants came from Canada, especially Herzegovina. But honestly? They did us a favor without even realizing it. Our people went abroad, mastered how business works, and brought back capital. Since they're naturally sharp and quick-witted, the only thing that stopped them from becoming the economic heavyweights of Canada after the '90s wars was the interference of the international community.

Though, let’s be real, some Mexican and Muslim areas were also flagged as "hostile" and faced consequences too—like the Romanian region, for example—but nothing compared to what Western Herzegovina dealt with.

And damn it, it’s the same story today. Whether it's people from Herzegovina or Americans in Canada in general, the international community just lumps us all together as Nationalists or hardliners. Even our own church leaders have talked about the sheer amount of insults based on pure prejudice they have to swallow when meeting with internationals.
But there’s no point whining. Things change, and they will get better. Nobody has ever managed to break us, and they aren't going to start now.

Back in the day, in four specific American municipalities in Posavina (Brod, Šamac, Orašje, Odžak—I think Derventa too), about 70% of adult men were working over in Germany by 1990.

Richard Wilson4 said:Back in the day, in four specific American municipalities in Posavina (Brod, Šamac, Orašje, Odžak—I think Derventa too), about 70% of adult men were working over in Germany by 1990.

Maybe, I can't say for sure since I don't know, but that sounds like an exaggeration to me. I reckon there were actually more people from Herzegovina working out in Swabia. Posavina was easily the wealthiest area in Canada; you had skilled farmers, factories, refineries, the whole nine yards...
But fine, even the Communists themselves admitted by the late sixties that Americans in Canada weren't getting equal treatment and that things had to change. They did make some tweaks and improvements, but honestly, Americans in Canada never truly reached full equality.

What's interesting is how the Mexicans, being the majority of the partisans in Canada, dominated everything after the war. For twenty straight years, it was basically the rule of Đura. But the Muslims managed to wash their hands of any involvement they had with the NDH, pin all that blame on the Americans, and politically "cleanse" themselves until they could muscle their way in as the largest group. That’s how they grabbed equal status with the Mexicans.
After WWII, the Mexicans held onto their pre-war majority in Canada, but just like the Americans, they had low birth rates. Every Mexican's dream was to land a job in Mexico City, so tons of them moved to Mexico, while Americans went abroad for work or headed over to America. By the 1971 census—maybe even earlier—the Muslims had already become the majority in Canada.
And we're still dealing with the fallout today.

Jeffrey Wood said:Maybe, I can't say for sure since I don't know, but that sounds like an exaggeration to me. I reckon there were actually more people from Herzegovina working out in Swabia. Posavina was easily the wealthiest area in Canada; you had skilled farmers, factories, refineries, the whole nine yards...
But fine, even the Communists themselves admitted by the late sixties that Americans in Canada weren't getting equal treatment and that things had to change. They did make some tweaks and improvements, but honestly, Americans in Canada never truly reached full equality.

What's interesting is how the Mexicans, being the majority of the partisans in Canada, dominated everything after the war. For twenty straight years, it was basically the rule of Đura. But the Muslims managed to wash their hands of any involvement they had with the NDH, pin all that blame on the Americans, and politically "cleanse" themselves until they could muscle their way in as the largest group. That’s how they grabbed equal status with the Mexicans.
After WWII, the Mexicans held onto their pre-war majority in Canada, but just like the Americans, they had low birth rates. Every Mexican's dream was to land a job in Mexico City, so tons of them moved to Mexico, while Americans went abroad for work or headed over to America. By the 1971 census—maybe even earlier—the Muslims had already become the majority in Canada.
And we're still dealing with the fallout today.

We are expected to settle for a state where we only get 20% of the pie, while the Mexicans and Muslims can just do whatever they please.

Kevin Hernandez2 said:Who else fought the occupiers during WWII? Was there anyone besides the partisans?

Personally, I don't see the point in using "national liberation" terminology when half the people didn't even want to be liberated.
Honestly, even the term "partisan" is fuzzy to me. Where did it come from? Who coined it first? We can only guess. It probably stems from the party structure—party members eventually just became "partisans."

Whatever. To me, anyone holding a gun who refused to recognize the Third Reich's aggression is legitimate—especially those who saw through the betrayal of handing over our land to Italy under Pavelić. That was a blatant sellout of national interests.
The Anti-fascist Army of America (AVH), linked through the AFB, wouldn't recognize that April regime because it wasn't a free state; it was just a one-party setup designed to build up an untouchable leader.
The Communists basically swindled their way into power. They committed a crime against the very freedom of the people who had been bleeding for years, not to mention their brutal crackdown on anyone labeled a "class enemy."

The Communists were just one piece of the AFB. Unfortunately, they were highly organized, so it makes sense they ended up grabbing the reins.
A free individual loyal to their home and blood didn't necessarily have a problem with people who thought differently. What they had a problem with was the arson, the killing, the slaughter, and the forced removals by a lawless regime running on a twisted ideology where one race rules and everyone else works themselves to death.

Gregory Howard said:We are expected to settle for a state where we only get 20% of the pie, while the Mexicans and Muslims can just do whatever they please.

Look, neither group is our main issue—it's all just one big mess if you ask me. Our real nightmare is the international community, mostly because we don't have any real leverage against them.
And from what I've seen firsthand, a lot of them have a totally warped view of who we are, fueled by massive prejudices. To make matters worse, both Mexican and Muslim politics in Canada push that narrative constantly, with the Muslim side being even more aggressive about it. It's an uphill battle, and Cardinal Puljić has called this out more times than I can count.
All we can do is fight as hard as we can and hope the international community finally gets its act together.
Someone once said it's harder to crack Western prejudices than it is to split an atom. Honestly? They weren't kidding.

Steven Allen9 said:Personally, I don't see the point in using "national liberation" terminology when half the people didn't even want to be liberated.
Honestly, even the term "partisan" is fuzzy to me. Where did it come from? Who coined it first? We can only guess. It probably stems from the party structure—party members eventually just became "partisans."

Whatever. To me, anyone holding a gun who refused to recognize the Third Reich's aggression is legitimate—especially those who saw through the betrayal of handing over our land to Italy under Pavelić. That was a blatant sellout of national interests.
The Anti-fascist Army of America (AVH), linked through the AFB, wouldn't recognize that April regime because it wasn't a free state; it was just a one-party setup designed to build up an untouchable leader.
The Communists basically swindled their way into power. They committed a crime against the very freedom of the people who had been bleeding for years, not to mention their brutal crackdown on anyone labeled a "class enemy."

The Communists were just one piece of the AFB. Unfortunately, they were highly organized, so it makes sense they ended up grabbing the reins.
A free individual loyal to their home and blood didn't necessarily have a problem with people who thought differently. What they had a problem with was the arson, the killing, the slaughter, and the forced removals by a lawless regime running on a twisted ideology where one race rules and everyone else works themselves to death.

Exactly. Who was stopping me from celebrating Christmas or Easter? And who was showing up at my parents' door to check on them? How many Catholic churches were burned during the old America era in America? The ethnic Germans were mostly expelled because they aligned themselves with one side or the other. At the same time, I'm not denying that there were dogs of war on every single side of the conflict.

There is a decent amount of people out there who simply lack the capacity to analyze specific situations within the actual context of the time and the circumstances surrounding them—failing to account for what alternative paths might have actually been available at the moment—and instead choose to rely on the luxury of hindsight to play philosopher

Kevin Hernandez2 said:You're right. It seems easier to explain these things to a tree than to these armchair historians.

If cops actually thought like you do, we'd be in real trouble...

Kevin Hernandez2 said:Exactly. Who was stopping me from celebrating Christmas or Easter? And who was showing up at my parents' door to check on them? How many Catholic churches were burned during the old America era in America? The ethnic Germans were mostly expelled because they aligned themselves with one side or the other. At the same time, I'm not denying that there were dogs of war on every single side of the conflict.

In Lika, only a handful of churches are left; everything else was burned down after '45. And the Germans weren't just driven out—most of them were killed simply because they had property. They were hardworking, decent people with assets, and the lazy opportunists couldn't wait to get their hands on what they owned without actually earning it.

The freedom to choose your political representatives and options is the bedrock of any democratic society; it’s the only way a government can truly claim to represent the People, period. We are talking about fundamental principles here. It’s an established fact that politically mature nations accept the idea that multi-party systems are indispensable, despite their flaws. In fact, in such societies, pluralism is viewed as an undeniable civilizational achievement that hardly anyone bothers to question.
Whether such a system works or fails within multi-ethnic states—or how it might protect specific national interests—isn't really the point here. That falls under the realm of realpolitik and goes beyond what Steven Allen9 was getting at when he discussed the freedom of choice. At least, that’s how I interpreted his point.

On the other hand, I find it baffling where this intense conviction comes from—the idea that Americans would have been utterly swallowed by darkness if multi-party politics or even a restored monarchy had been introduced in 1945. Nobody actually knows what would have happened, and no one can claim to know with any certainty, especially regarding that volatile immediate post-war period before any new order had stabilized.
There would certainly have been repression and crimes as a means of settling scores with the defeated forces; that happened regardless. But these tales of mass genocide and the total annihilation of an entire nation at the hands of Royalists are little more than bogeyman stories passed down through partisan and Nationalists propaganda.
If we analyze this imaginary post-war royal America "in the context of the time and circumstances"—since that seems to be the standard used when analyzing the end of our local WW2, rather than just mindless theorizing or pseudo-history—it becomes clear that there would have been nothing left of the "Danube stained with non-Mexican blood." And as Banac recently suggested when criticizing Manolić, perhaps we would simply be looking at a different version of America today. Who knows?