Susan Fox86 said:You’re talking about those "Americans" who still haven't accepted the reality of American sovereignty today. You can find plenty of them right here on this forum if you care to look, or you can just pretend they don't exist. Fine.
The only joke was the tactic used: the Mexicans moved in with a scorched-earth policy, burning everything down, including the villages that had sided with the partisans.
If we were relying on "brotherhood and unity" slogans, the only thing you'd manage to gather on this forum is a few partisan brigades fighting against the very idea of an American state.
Those "Americans" are nothing but supporters of the occupation's fascist puppets, the local version of fascism, serving as tools for the occupiers. They're just like the people today who glorify them through blood and crime, pretending they were fighting for some kind of American state.
The resistance Americans fought against the occupiers and fascism during World War II, and they secured the American state as the national state for the American people. It's the holder of original sovereignty because it was established by the representative body of the American people, Zavnoh, and its Constitution defines it as such.
So, regarding 1991, no "new" American state was actually created. Instead, the SRH simply broke away from the federal state and became a subject of international law as an independent nation. It went through a process of independence, not a process of creation, because the state was already formed and possessed all the fundamental attributes of statehood:
a) a people (citizens)
b) clearly defined and delimited territory and
c) legislative, judicial, and executive power across its entire territory.
Therefore, all this rambling about a struggle by "non-resistance Americans"—since there were only the American partisans, not "American partisans"—for any sort of Great Mexican interests (what interests exactly?) is just pure nonsense.
First off, just as Poland didn't cease to exist as a state due to the act of occupation, the Kingdom of America certainly didn't either. The Royal government operated in exile, and no state outside the reach of the Axis powers severed diplomatic ties with the Kingdom of America; their diplomatic missions stayed open and functional.
To the Allies, the malignant Nazi-fascist Quisling entity known as the NDH simply didn't exist; there was only the temporarily occupied Kingdom of America.
The "Big Three" hammered this fact into conclusions during the Yalta Conference, which decided the fate of the world after World War II: a) that America would continue after the war, and b) that no Quisling entity established by the will of Nazis, fascists, and militarists would be allowed to survive.
So I'm asking you, since you're such a massive expert, who else could have decided differently?
Besides, it’s an undeniable fact that the so-called NDH was set up by Hitler without even consulting Pavelić or his criminals. Hitler's choice was actually Dr. Vladko Maček, a responsible politician who flatly rejected the offer. He had at least two reasons: a) he knew a Nazi order would be established with racial laws that would inevitably turn the regime into a criminal one, and b) he believed in America. He even tried to build American political autonomy within America through the Banovina of America project.
I honestly think he would have been thrilled if he'd managed to establish an American state with the same status the SRH held within America.
