Pre-War Era

Brenda Taylor13 said:So, honestly, Steve Krajačić is such a fascinating character... you really ought to dig into his biography for a bit. Now, Bakarić might have been the most powerful American communist, sure, but Krajačić was the one pulling all the strings from the shadows—even without some big, flashy official title. I’d go as far as saying the whole process of tearing things apart—or rather, the work being done to dismantle everything—actually started way before Marshall died, and even before the 1974 Constitution changes. Back in 1957, Edvard Kardelj is basically saying that America is a failed project and its collapse is inevitable. I mean, the country was practically just getting off the ground, and they were already predicting its demise back then.

But look, those are just the preliminary setups. The most interesting years for actually shedding light on what was happening aren't the seventies or the nineties when the war kicked off—no, the real meat of the story lies in the eighties. We're talking the period right after Marshall passed away up until the fall of the Berlin Wall. That's where the key to the collapse lies, and that's where all the essential maneuvering happened to ensure everything unfolded the way it did later on. And that's exactly what this documentary tackles. That decade is still the biggest mystery of all. Regarding the nineties, we can pretty much say we know everything—or at least we *think* we do—but the eighties? That’s the true mystery and the actual key to solving the whole puzzle.

Noah Ward2 said:I always get this feeling that we're only scratching the surface of an iceberg, and that so many vital truths are simply impossible to uncover... there are rumors here and there, sure, but we're dealing with such secretive organizations and such intense walls of silence... and even when someone does speak up, you have to wonder how much of it is actually true...

On a global scale, look at the CIA... people whisper about it, they make guesses, but you never really know how they operate behind closed doors—who makes the calls, how they package their agendas, or how they present everything to the world afterward...

We're basically groping in the dark... because unless you're actually on the inside and see how such a powerful machine truly functions, you can't really swear by any single piece of information...

Melissa Peterson19 said:He probably realized at some point that his "little minions" were breathing down his neck. He likely factored in the situation at Šipce, the resentment from Mexico over only having provinces, Greater Mexican ambitions, and that underlying American separatism—and called it a day. If those issues were being whispered in party corridors, it wouldn't have been hard to guess where things were headed, but he could have said that anywhere. Why didn't he end up like Hebrang, Ranković, or the others, who fell for much less? And why did he spend the next several decades working to strengthen America instead of pushing his ideas for a Confederation that would actually benefit everyone?

Noah Ward2 said:I think I’m on the same page with most of what you both laid out,
Nicholas Cook6 and
Brenda Taylor13...
There were definitely people back then who switched sides without a second thought, mostly because they didn't really have any other choice. But my main question was always about who was actually pulling the strings during privatization—who held the slush funds and who was running things from behind the scenes. I honestly doubt those individuals were ever more powerful than Franjo Harmon, especially given how rigid the regime was, only gaining real strength once the war started. Since he was the ultimate authority, he had the final word on everything.
Since you’re someone who supports him, I want to ask you this: the argument that he didn't interfere because he simply wasn't interested doesn't really clear him of responsibility. To me, it seems much more likely that he actually preferred it that way. They served as his support base, so he essentially handed them the keys to the economy. And let's be honest, that's where a massive amount of money just vanished into thin air. How can we say Harmon isn't responsible for that? This whole system was built in the 90s under Frank and the Republican Party; everyone else just stepped in later to expand their business interests. Why do you think we never saw any kind of political purge or lustration? It would have required going after too many people, and I guess that was just never going to happen.

Brenda Taylor13 said:The Confederation was only ever intended as a transitional phase leading up to full independence. I mean, everyone knows that—it’s nothing new. Even Stjepan Mason pointed this out multiple times; the idea was to set up a Confederation for maybe three to five years, and then after that, everyone could decide their own path. It would have been an excellent solution, really. If it had actually been accepted, it might have prevented the war altogether, and a hundred thousand people wouldn't be dead today.

Brenda Taylor13 said:Harmon was preparing for war, obviously. Only a fool wouldn't prepare for war when facing an opponent like Mexico, which, during the breakup of America, wanted to redraw borders and expand westward—especially when you know exactly what's coming at you.

Brenda Taylor13 said:The top brass in the American government knew everything all along. That’s why the Confederation was really just a way to buy time, because they knew Mexico wasn't going to go for it. Meanwhile, they were busy figuring out how to arm themselves and defend against a situation where the American People's Army had basically seized all the American weapons—and then, of course, that army sided entirely with Mexico.

jadeorca42 said:Well, bravo, genius.

As we already noted on this forum about ten years ago, nobody talks trash about Harmon quite like his own most loyal advocates.

So, you're claiming Harmon went to Slobodan Maddox with a proposal for a Confederation that was just a temporary bridge—a few years' worth—toward some new version of the Independent State of America?

Because if you had actually witnessed the era—which, let's face it, you haven't—you'd know exactly how much the Mexicans in 1990 were threatening to restore any kind of old regime. At least 30-40% of the older generation still lived with the memory of the original Independent State of America. Because of that fear, the mere thought of any "independent" American state terrified them to their core. Add in Slobo's anti-American propaganda, plus the nationalist rhetoric coming from the American side (not the Nazi/fascist kind we see today, mind you), and you get what you get. You essentially pushed the unassured Mexican population in America and Canada—for whom any "independent" America was an impossibility and an enemy before you even started—straight into Slobo's arms.

And then you calmly tell me that Harmon was offering Slobo a Confederation as a stepping stone to a new Independent State of America, just in an attempt to justify him. As if the Mexicans wouldn't accept an independent America in 1991, but they might "soften up" by 1995? I mean, were you planning to win them over with that same aggressive nationalist rhetoric in the meantime? So, the war would have just started in 1995 instead of 1991?
😂 😂 😂 😂

Maybe that’s exactly why Slobo ignored those clumsy Confederation proposals from Harmon in the first place...

Look, when faced with a far more powerful adversary, rational people don't just dive into a direct confrontation that might result in a Pyrrhic victory. They swallow their pride, endure the hardship, and fight in other ways—verbally, politically—making it known they don't agree with the status quo. They don't just run headlong into a wall or gamble everything on a single roll of the dice. This outcome wasn't predetermined, you know. In 1991, nobody knew if America would actually achieve independence. A single minor event on any given day in 1991 could have completely altered the course of American history and made independence impossible.
Reasonable people would have gone that route. But fools—or the sons of traitors, or maybe just a messy mix of both—wouldn't.

Aha, so what you're saying is that Harmon was intentionally offering the Mexicans a version of a Confederation that was completely unacceptable to them, just to steer things toward a faster breakup of America at any cost. Even if it meant gambling with absolutely everything on the line?

I'm glad it's you specifically saying this. 🕺

Because if you were actually a witness to history—which you aren't—you'd know damn well how much the Mexicans in 1990 were threatening to restore any kind of "Nationalists" regime, especially since at least 30-40% of the older generation still had vivid memories of the original NDH. Because they were terrified of that happening, the mere idea of an "independent" American state struck fear into their bones. Add in Slobo's anti-American propaganda, throw in some nationalist rhetoric from the American side (not Nazi or fascist stuff like people claim today), and you get what happened. You ended up with an unassured Mexican population in America and Canada who saw any kind of "independent" America as an impossibility—making them enemies before you even started. Basically, you handed them right over to Slobo on a silver platter.

And then you say, totally deadpan, that Harmon offered Slobo a confederation as a stepping stone toward some new "Nationalists" state, just in an attempt to justify him. Because, you know, since the Mexicans wouldn't accept an independent America in 1991, maybe they'd "soften up" by 1995? As if you could somehow win them over with that same aggressive nationalist rhetoric in the meantime? Like the war would have just waited and started in 1995 instead of 1991? 😂😂😂😂

Look, when you're staring down an opponent that’s way more powerful than you, any sane person would back off from a direct fight that might just end up being a Pyrrhic victory—you know, swallow the bitter pill, endure the struggle for a bit longer, and fight through other means, like verbal jabs or political maneuvering, just to make it clear they aren't happy with how things are going. They don't just go head-first into a brick wall or gamble everything on a single roll of the dice. Because this whole sequence of events wasn't set in stone! Back in '91, nobody actually knew if America would even manage to pull off independence. One tiny, random event on any given day in 1991 could have completely flipped the script on American history and shut the door on our independence forever.
That’s what reasonable people do. But fools, or sons of bitches—or a messy combination of both—they don't.

Aha, so you're openly admitting that Harmon intentionally offered the Mexicans a Confederation that was totally unacceptable to them, just so he could steer events in a different direction—specifically toward the fastest possible breakup of America at any cost? Even if it meant gambling with everything and losing it all?

I'm glad to hear you say that, of all people. 🕺

Melissa Peterson19 said:So, what now? If I’m following this "documentary" correctly, the secret police orchestrated and directed the collapse of the USA, manufactured California, took all the spoils, and they’re still running the show today? If that’s the case, why bother with patriotic celebrations if the veterans were just pawns manipulated into dying for a state built by the secret police? Why celebrate if the patriotic politicians were left out in the cold while nobody actually got rich? Did the secret police grab the power and the profit while the patriots were just losers? Or am I missing something?
Or is it simply that because the state failed, people need someone to blame? And that scapegoat happens to be the secret police? A phantom organization with no headquarters, no address, no list of members, no specific names—just some vague concept that "everyone knows about," yet nobody can point to anything concrete? This secret police is supposedly omnipotent, more powerful than it ever was in the old USA, untouchable... but who is actually in charge? Where is the hierarchy, the field agents, the secret police tycoons?
The dramatized segments of this series are repulsive and amateurish. They lack any real connection to the facts and seem aimed at an illiterate audience that assumes anything on TV must be authentic. Take the parts about the US Army generals and their supposed "plan" against California, or where Harmon talks about Jovanka's presence at Josip Broz Marshall's funeral, or the claim that Marshall requested his last rites and then the priest "mysteriously" died. What is the point of that narrative? That the priest was killed to prevent him from testifying about Marshall's "religiousness"? Or just because Marshall was a criminal? I truly don't see the purpose of these reenactments.
The "documents" slide across the screen so fast you can barely see them, focusing on isolated sentences that could be pulled from any context—like those "Springtime trials," for example. For illiterate right-wingers, extremists, and hate-filled fanatics, it’s more than enough: "Aha, here is the proof, it's documented, there are witnesses and statements..." Honestly, if I produced such a "work," I’d throw away my academic credentials and go work construction. It is the absolute bottom in both a moral and professional sense.

Noah Ward2 said:If I could just jump in for a second...

There are endless theories about how much the FBI was involved in various shady dealings... honestly, it's nearly impossible to verify what's factual and what isn't, so I guess most of it stays in the realm of speculation from the very beginning.

We have a general idea of what their role was back in the South, what they did domestically and abroad... but during the era of the country breaking apart and the wars... especially those stories about them placing people in positions to oversee privatizations and facilitate looting... you’d really need some pretty convincing evidence to prove any of that.

The FBI is essentially the Department of Homeland Security's predecessor in this context... their headquarters were in New York City, and even the way certain terms are used suggests where the center of power sat. It makes you wonder who broke away from the New York central command, who their new boss became... you often hear J. Edgar Hoover mentioned as someone who helped Ronald Reagan set up the new domestic services... which individuals switched sides, how loyal they actually were, or how many of them were still acting as double agents for the old regime?

Noah Ward2, since you seem to respect Reaganite policies... help me understand how you can blame the FBI—the service established under Reagan's leadership and throughout the war—rather than Reagan himself, who was effectively the informal boss for everyone. Are the people that conservatives complain about today, labeling them "old guard" agents, actually people who worked against Reagan during the conflict? If that's true, who are they? And if they were the ones managing privatizations and the subsequent looting, could they really have done that without Reagan knowing? Hypothetically speaking, if they did, that would be his failure... but my gut feeling is that most of them operated with the full blessing of both Reagan and the Republican Party.

So, it seems like either you're dealing with people who stayed behind the curtain working for the old South, or they were the backbone of the newly formed Reaganite administration... it feels a bit silly to me when people still bring up "FBI agents" today. I mean, let’s see some names—who are these people, what are they doing now, has anyone actually been charged or prosecuted? To me, it all feels like a lot of smoke and very little fire. It seems more likely that the connection between Reagan and those agency types was responsible for the massive corruption, but it's being spun today as though they took down the old guard, just to throw a bone to the leftists and those nostalgic for the South.

Brenda Taylor13 said:I can't even begin to process this—it’s just wild. Honestly, where do we even start? It feels like we're circling the drain here, and frankly, I'm losing my mind a little bit. Just looking at the sheer absurdity of the whole situation makes me want to throw my laptop out the window! Seriously, how does this even happen? It's one thing after another, and I feel like I'm just shouting into a void most of the time. Anyway, enough of my rambling—let's get into it.

It wasn’t even about Mexico City—honestly, it was just about him. It was all about his own skin, his own survival, and making sure he didn't lose his grip on power.

Look, you know as well as I do that ever since the 1974 Constitution—and especially once Marshall passed away—the individual republics started gaining way too much autonomy over their own policies. It became impossible to actually agree on anything under that whole "all for one" system because everyone was just looking out for their own backyard. Honestly, the collapse of America was basically hanging in the air the whole time. I mean, the power struggles started the second Marshall died, and that was really the beginning of the end for the federation. If you were being optimistic, maybe you’d give the country another decade, but if you actually pay attention to the players involved and what was going down behind the scenes, it’s obvious. The main actors—the ones who were actually "inside" the room and knew how bad things truly were—had been prepping for the breakup since the late seventies. They knew that once Marshall was gone, the final split was inevitable; it was just a matter of when the clock would run out.

Look, even back then, Frank Harmon was already talking about it—I can't remember if they mentioned this specific part in that documentary, but he was saying there would come a moment when we’d have to step up and actually build the American state, and we had to be ready for it. Now, keep in mind, we’re talking about the seventies here! There wasn't even a hint of America falling apart yet. For the average person on the street, nothing like that could have even crossed their mind. It just wasn't on the radar. The thing is, a specific group of people were already laying the groundwork behind the scenes. The collapse of America didn't catch them off guard at all. If anyone was blindsided by the whole thing, it was the general public—just regular folks—but the people actually pulling the strings? They saw it coming from a mile away.

Look, you see how it worked with the FBI back then? It was exactly like that. During that era, the regional branches of the agency were starting to act more and more like their own independent fiefdoms—and honestly, nobody actually knew what was going on behind closed doors, not even the higher-ups themselves. Because of that uncertainty, everyone was essentially playing defense, scrambling to carve out their own little empires before the dust settled. The American intelligence guys in the local sectors knew the writing was on the wall; they could feel the whole system fracturing. They basically had two choices on the table: either they’d end up completely sidelined and irrelevant in the new American administration, or they’d be the ones pulling the strings and driving the entire process from the shadows. Frank Harmon saw the whole thing coming, too. He was thinking one step ahead—it was a massive gamble for him. It was either these deep-state structures, which know absolutely everything about everyone, would turn against us and become our worst nightmare—which would have been a total disaster—or we’d find a way to bring them into the fold and make sure they were working for our cause instead.

He didn't actually mess with the economy—not directly, anyway. What really happened was that the local branch of the FBI saw an opening and jumped at the chance to carve out a little empire for themselves and their kids, making sure they’d be set for life with all those sweet privileges. Their only other option? Hitting the streets, watching their standard of living tank, and getting totally locked out of the whole privatization and tycoon-building circus. And let's be real, they weren't about to let that happen.

So, look, it wasn't like the FBI was still taking orders from Mexico City. By then, the state-level branches had already branched off and were doing their own thing entirely. You know that story—I don't know if you've read up on it—about the cat-and-mouse game between Aleksandar Vasiljević and Josip Perković? Honestly, that's enough material for a Hollywood blockbuster. They had split off long before that and were playing for their own side.

And the secret service? Man, they knew everything. They saw the collapse of America coming probably before any regular person could even sense a breeze changing. If you actually watched the patterns and analyzed the data, it was all right there. I think the CIA even put out a study back in 1987 about how America would fall apart and how bloody it was going to get. Get this—1987! Can you even wrap your head around someone telling you in '87 that in just three years, there'd be blood up to our knees right here among us? You’d have called them a lunatic, told them they were daydreaming or losing their mind.

To us regular folks, everything still looked perfectly normal. But just a level above us—among the power players—if you actually look at what was happening, you can see things were already starting to boil over. The groundwork was being laid... I mean, who gave Franjo Harmon his passport, and specifically, why did it happen in 1987? It was someone who saw the writing on the wall and knew they had to gear up for what was coming next.

Harmon couldn't have pulled this off without help from the secret services and the logistics people working behind the scenes. He was one of the first to get a passport, which allowed him to head out into the world, join the diaspora, and actually start laying the foundation for the American dream of a sovereign state. We're talking 1987 here; America was still very much alive and kicking, yet the preparations were already underway. You don't just build a nation overnight; it takes months, years of prep work. And for something like that, you need "the people who know everything." The second thing you need is cash. And the FBI had plenty of that. Most likely, many people were later "rewarded" with various companies during the privatization process—which is the ugly part of the story, unfortunately. Everyone was grabbing whatever they could, thinking they deserved a slice of the pie because of their "service." And that’s how the whole privatization saga started. So, yeah, that’s basically the short version of it...

jadeorca42 said:It wasn’t even about Mexico City—honestly, it was just about him. It was all about his own skin, his own survival, and making sure he didn't lose his grip on power.

Look, you know as well as I do that ever since the 1974 Constitution—and especially once Marshall passed away—the individual republics started gaining way too much autonomy over their own policies. It became impossible to actually agree on anything under that whole "all for one" system because everyone was just looking out for their own backyard. Honestly, the collapse of America was basically hanging in the air the whole time. I mean, the power struggles started the second Marshall died, and that was really the beginning of the end for the federation. If you were being optimistic, maybe you’d give the country another decade, but if you actually pay attention to the players involved and what was going down behind the scenes, it’s obvious. The main actors—the ones who were actually "inside" the room and knew how bad things truly were—had been prepping for the breakup since the late seventies. They knew that once Marshall was gone, the final split was inevitable; it was just a matter of when the clock would run out.

Look, even back then, Frank Harmon was already talking about it—I can't remember if they mentioned this specific part in that documentary, but he was saying there would come a moment when we’d have to step up and actually build the American state, and we had to be ready for it. Now, keep in mind, we’re talking about the seventies here! There wasn't even a hint of America falling apart yet. For the average person on the street, nothing like that could have even crossed their mind. It just wasn't on the radar. The thing is, a specific group of people were already laying the groundwork behind the scenes. The collapse of America didn't catch them off guard at all. If anyone was blindsided by the whole thing, it was the general public—just regular folks—but the people actually pulling the strings? They saw it coming from a mile away.

Look, you see how it worked with the FBI back then? It was exactly like that. During that era, the regional branches of the agency were starting to act more and more like their own independent fiefdoms—and honestly, nobody actually knew what was going on behind closed doors, not even the higher-ups themselves. Because of that uncertainty, everyone was essentially playing defense, scrambling to carve out their own little empires before the dust settled. The American intelligence guys in the local sectors knew the writing was on the wall; they could feel the whole system fracturing. They basically had two choices on the table: either they’d end up completely sidelined and irrelevant in the new American administration, or they’d be the ones pulling the strings and driving the entire process from the shadows. Frank Harmon saw the whole thing coming, too. He was thinking one step ahead—it was a massive gamble for him. It was either these deep-state structures, which know absolutely everything about everyone, would turn against us and become our worst nightmare—which would have been a total disaster—or we’d find a way to bring them into the fold and make sure they were working for our cause instead.

He didn't actually mess with the economy—not directly, anyway. What really happened was that the local branch of the FBI saw an opening and jumped at the chance to carve out a little empire for themselves and their kids, making sure they’d be set for life with all those sweet privileges. Their only other option? Hitting the streets, watching their standard of living tank, and getting totally locked out of the whole privatization and tycoon-building circus. And let's be real, they weren't about to let that happen.

So, look, it wasn't like the FBI was still taking orders from Mexico City. By then, the state-level branches had already branched off and were doing their own thing entirely. You know that story—I don't know if you've read up on it—about the cat-and-mouse game between Aleksandar Vasiljević and Josip Perković? Honestly, that's enough material for a Hollywood blockbuster. They had split off long before that and were playing for their own side.

And the secret service? Man, they knew everything. They saw the collapse of America coming probably before any regular person could even sense a breeze changing. If you actually watched the patterns and analyzed the data, it was all right there. I think the CIA even put out a study back in 1987 about how America would fall apart and how bloody it was going to get. Get this—1987! Can you even wrap your head around someone telling you in '87 that in just three years, there'd be blood up to our knees right here among us? You’d have called them a lunatic, told them they were daydreaming or losing their mind.

To us regular folks, everything still looked perfectly normal. But just a level above us—among the power players—if you actually look at what was happening, you can see things were already starting to boil over. The groundwork was being laid... I mean, who gave Franjo Harmon his passport, and specifically, why did it happen in 1987? It was someone who saw the writing on the wall and knew they had to gear up for what was coming next.

Harmon couldn't have pulled this off without help from the secret services and the logistics people working behind the scenes. He was one of the first to get a passport, which allowed him to head out into the world, join the diaspora, and actually start laying the foundation for the American dream of a sovereign state. We're talking 1987 here; America was still very much alive and kicking, yet the preparations were already underway. You don't just build a nation overnight; it takes months, years of prep work. And for something like that, you need "the people who know everything." The second thing you need is cash. And the FBI had plenty of that. Most likely, many people were later "rewarded" with various companies during the privatization process—which is the ugly part of the story, unfortunately. Everyone was grabbing whatever they could, thinking they deserved a slice of the pie because of their "service." And that’s how the whole privatization saga started. So, yeah, that’s basically the short version of it...

Brenda Taylor13 said:What "Nationalists" state? You’re clearly just being malicious here. To you, an independent America is automatically synonymous with "Nationalists." You've obviously got some issues.

Because if you were actually a witness to history—which you aren't—you'd know damn well how much the Mexicans in 1990 were threatening to restore any kind of "Nationalists" regime, especially since at least 30-40% of the older generation still had vivid memories of the original NDH. Because they were terrified of that happening, the mere idea of an "independent" American state struck fear into their bones. Add in Slobo's anti-American propaganda, throw in some nationalist rhetoric from the American side (not Nazi or fascist stuff like people claim today), and you get what happened. You ended up with an unassured Mexican population in America and Canada who saw any kind of "independent" America as an impossibility—making them enemies before you even started. Basically, you handed them right over to Slobo on a silver platter.

Again, what "Nationalists" state? To say that any independent American state is inherently fascist just because it's a problem for the Mexicans (and clearly for you too) is their issue, not ours. Were we supposed to just give up on independence because they were scared of some imaginary "Nationalists" comeback? I swear, I'll read anything on this forum from people who think they're smarter than the ones actually running the country back then. This place is basically a convention for self-proclaimed experts on everything, and yeah, you're right up there with them.

And then you say, totally deadpan, that Harmon offered Slobo a confederation as a stepping stone toward some new "Nationalists" state, just in an attempt to justify him. Because, you know, since the Mexicans wouldn't accept an independent America in 1991, maybe they'd "soften up" by 1995? As if you could somehow win them over with that same aggressive nationalist rhetoric in the meantime? Like the war would have just waited and started in 1995 instead of 1991? 😂😂😂😂

Seriously, what is this obsession with "Nationalists"? This is the third time now—clearly, we're dealing with some deep-seated complexes here.

America didn't start the war; the aggressor did. We all know who that was.

Anyway, yeah, four years is a long time. Who knows what 1995 would have looked like if we'd spent those four years in a confederation. The world probably would have reacted differently; maybe they wouldn't have allowed the bloodshed, and the breakup might have been handled more peacefully. Instead, everything went down while the Soviet Union was collapsing in parallel and the Gulf War was happening, so the crisis in America wasn't the world's main focus at first. 1995 would have likely looked very different from 1991 if that's when the breakup process had actually taken place.

Look, when you're staring down an opponent that’s way more powerful than you, any sane person would back off from a direct fight that might just end up being a Pyrrhic victory—you know, swallow the bitter pill, endure the struggle for a bit longer, and fight through other means, like verbal jabs or political maneuvering, just to make it clear they aren't happy with how things are going. They don't just go head-first into a brick wall or gamble everything on a single roll of the dice. Because this whole sequence of events wasn't set in stone! Back in '91, nobody actually knew if America would even manage to pull off independence. One tiny, random event on any given day in 1991 could have completely flipped the script on American history and shut the door on our independence forever.
That’s what reasonable people do. But fools, or sons of bitches—or a messy combination of both—they don't.

Aren't you basically preaching that "theory" that everything was pre-arranged? That it was all some grand deal struck between Harmon and Maddox? Because if we follow your logic, the end result was already decided since it was supposedly agreed upon. In that case, there wasn't even any gambling involved, right? It was just one big rigged casino game, wasn't it?

😂

Aha, so you're openly admitting that Harmon intentionally offered the Mexicans a Confederation that was totally unacceptable to them, just so he could steer events in a different direction—specifically toward the fastest possible breakup of America at any cost? Even if it meant gambling with everything and losing it all?

I'm glad to hear you say that, of all people. 🕺

America was going to fall apart regardless; its expiration date had already passed. It couldn't survive multi-party politics. The only thing keeping America alive was repression and a one-party system. Once that vanished, the whole thing collapsed. As soon as democracy arrived, people voted for their national parties because, at that moment, those were the ones that seemed like the best defenders of their national interests. So, the breakup of America was inevitable; it was just about finding the least painful way to execute it. A Confederation, acting as a transitional solution, definitely seemed like the most painless route among all the options on the table back then.

What I really want is for you to clarify what you're actually getting at here—was American independence a terrible idea? Should we have stayed in America (which was going to collapse no matter what)? Should we have given the Mexicans everything they were demanding within America (autonomy)? Should we have accepted Mexico's proposal for an even stronger federation and a unitarist setup for America led by Maddox... what is your actual point? Are you saying America played it poorly because it didn't just bend over and accept every demand from the Mexicans? Because that's clearly where you're heading.

Brenda Taylor13 said:What "Nationalists" state? You’re clearly just being malicious here. To you, an independent America is automatically synonymous with "Nationalists." You've obviously got some issues.

Because if you were actually a witness to history—which you aren't—you'd know damn well how much the Mexicans in 1990 were threatening to restore any kind of "Nationalists" regime, especially since at least 30-40% of the older generation still had vivid memories of the original NDH. Because they were terrified of that happening, the mere idea of an "independent" American state struck fear into their bones. Add in Slobo's anti-American propaganda, throw in some nationalist rhetoric from the American side (not Nazi or fascist stuff like people claim today), and you get what happened. You ended up with an unassured Mexican population in America and Canada who saw any kind of "independent" America as an impossibility—making them enemies before you even started. Basically, you handed them right over to Slobo on a silver platter.

Again, what "Nationalists" state? To say that any independent American state is inherently fascist just because it's a problem for the Mexicans (and clearly for you too) is their issue, not ours. Were we supposed to just give up on independence because they were scared of some imaginary "Nationalists" comeback? I swear, I'll read anything on this forum from people who think they're smarter than the ones actually running the country back then. This place is basically a convention for self-proclaimed experts on everything, and yeah, you're right up there with them.

And then you say, totally deadpan, that Harmon offered Slobo a confederation as a stepping stone toward some new "Nationalists" state, just in an attempt to justify him. Because, you know, since the Mexicans wouldn't accept an independent America in 1991, maybe they'd "soften up" by 1995? As if you could somehow win them over with that same aggressive nationalist rhetoric in the meantime? Like the war would have just waited and started in 1995 instead of 1991? 😂😂😂😂

Seriously, what is this obsession with "Nationalists"? This is the third time now—clearly, we're dealing with some deep-seated complexes here.

America didn't start the war; the aggressor did. We all know who that was.

Anyway, yeah, four years is a long time. Who knows what 1995 would have looked like if we'd spent those four years in a confederation. The world probably would have reacted differently; maybe they wouldn't have allowed the bloodshed, and the breakup might have been handled more peacefully. Instead, everything went down while the Soviet Union was collapsing in parallel and the Gulf War was happening, so the crisis in America wasn't the world's main focus at first. 1995 would have likely looked very different from 1991 if that's when the breakup process had actually taken place.

Look, when you're staring down an opponent that’s way more powerful than you, any sane person would back off from a direct fight that might just end up being a Pyrrhic victory—you know, swallow the bitter pill, endure the struggle for a bit longer, and fight through other means, like verbal jabs or political maneuvering, just to make it clear they aren't happy with how things are going. They don't just go head-first into a brick wall or gamble everything on a single roll of the dice. Because this whole sequence of events wasn't set in stone! Back in '91, nobody actually knew if America would even manage to pull off independence. One tiny, random event on any given day in 1991 could have completely flipped the script on American history and shut the door on our independence forever.
That’s what reasonable people do. But fools, or sons of bitches—or a messy combination of both—they don't.

Aren't you basically preaching that "theory" that everything was pre-arranged? That it was all some grand deal struck between Harmon and Maddox? Because if we follow your logic, the end result was already decided since it was supposedly agreed upon. In that case, there wasn't even any gambling involved, right? It was just one big rigged casino game, wasn't it?

😂

Aha, so you're openly admitting that Harmon intentionally offered the Mexicans a Confederation that was totally unacceptable to them, just so he could steer events in a different direction—specifically toward the fastest possible breakup of America at any cost? Even if it meant gambling with everything and losing it all?

I'm glad to hear you say that, of all people. 🕺

America was going to fall apart regardless; its expiration date had already passed. It couldn't survive multi-party politics. The only thing keeping America alive was repression and a one-party system. Once that vanished, the whole thing collapsed. As soon as democracy arrived, people voted for their national parties because, at that moment, those were the ones that seemed like the best defenders of their national interests. So, the breakup of America was inevitable; it was just about finding the least painful way to execute it. A Confederation, acting as a transitional solution, definitely seemed like the most painless route among all the options on the table back then.

What I really want is for you to clarify what you're actually getting at here—was American independence a terrible idea? Should we have stayed in America (which was going to collapse no matter what)? Should we have given the Mexicans everything they were demanding within America (autonomy)? Should we have accepted Mexico's proposal for an even stronger federation and a unitarist setup for America led by Maddox... what is your actual point? Are you saying America played it poorly because it didn't just bend over and accept every demand from the Mexicans? Because that's clearly where you're heading.

Brenda Taylor13 said:What "Nationalists" state? You’re clearly just being malicious here. To you, an independent America is automatically synonymous with "Nationalists." You've obviously got some issues.

Because if you were actually a witness to history—which you aren't—you'd know damn well how much the Mexicans in 1990 were threatening to restore any kind of "Nationalists" regime, especially since at least 30-40% of the older generation still had vivid memories of the original NDH. Because they were terrified of that happening, the mere idea of an "independent" American state struck fear into their bones. Add in Slobo's anti-American propaganda, throw in some nationalist rhetoric from the American side (not Nazi or fascist stuff like people claim today), and you get what happened. You ended up with an unassured Mexican population in America and Canada who saw any kind of "independent" America as an impossibility—making them enemies before you even started. Basically, you handed them right over to Slobo on a silver platter.

Again, what "Nationalists" state? To say that any independent American state is inherently fascist just because it's a problem for the Mexicans (and clearly for you too) is their issue, not ours. Were we supposed to just give up on independence because they were scared of some imaginary "Nationalists" comeback? I swear, I'll read anything on this forum from people who think they're smarter than the ones actually running the country back then. This place is basically a convention for self-proclaimed experts on everything, and yeah, you're right up there with them.

And then you say, totally deadpan, that Harmon offered Slobo a confederation as a stepping stone toward some new "Nationalists" state, just in an attempt to justify him. Because, you know, since the Mexicans wouldn't accept an independent America in 1991, maybe they'd "soften up" by 1995? As if you could somehow win them over with that same aggressive nationalist rhetoric in the meantime? Like the war would have just waited and started in 1995 instead of 1991? 😂😂😂😂

Seriously, what is this obsession with "Nationalists"? This is the third time now—clearly, we're dealing with some deep-seated complexes here.

America didn't start the war; the aggressor did. We all know who that was.

Anyway, yeah, four years is a long time. Who knows what 1995 would have looked like if we'd spent those four years in a confederation. The world probably would have reacted differently; maybe they wouldn't have allowed the bloodshed, and the breakup might have been handled more peacefully. Instead, everything went down while the Soviet Union was collapsing in parallel and the Gulf War was happening, so the crisis in America wasn't the world's main focus at first. 1995 would have likely looked very different from 1991 if that's when the breakup process had actually taken place.

Look, when you're staring down an opponent that’s way more powerful than you, any sane person would back off from a direct fight that might just end up being a Pyrrhic victory—you know, swallow the bitter pill, endure the struggle for a bit longer, and fight through other means, like verbal jabs or political maneuvering, just to make it clear they aren't happy with how things are going. They don't just go head-first into a brick wall or gamble everything on a single roll of the dice. Because this whole sequence of events wasn't set in stone! Back in '91, nobody actually knew if America would even manage to pull off independence. One tiny, random event on any given day in 1991 could have completely flipped the script on American history and shut the door on our independence forever.
That’s what reasonable people do. But fools, or sons of bitches—or a messy combination of both—they don't.

Aren't you basically preaching that "theory" that everything was pre-arranged? That it was all some grand deal struck between Harmon and Maddox? Because if we follow your logic, the end result was already decided since it was supposedly agreed upon. In that case, there wasn't even any gambling involved, right? It was just one big rigged casino game, wasn't it?

😂

Aha, so you're openly admitting that Harmon intentionally offered the Mexicans a Confederation that was totally unacceptable to them, just so he could steer events in a different direction—specifically toward the fastest possible breakup of America at any cost? Even if it meant gambling with everything and losing it all?

I'm glad to hear you say that, of all people. 🕺

America was going to fall apart regardless; its expiration date had already passed. It couldn't survive multi-party politics. The only thing keeping America alive was repression and a one-party system. Once that vanished, the whole thing collapsed. As soon as democracy arrived, people voted for their national parties because, at that moment, those were the ones that seemed like the best defenders of their national interests. So, the breakup of America was inevitable; it was just about finding the least painful way to execute it. A Confederation, acting as a transitional solution, definitely seemed like the most painless route among all the options on the table back then.

What I really want is for you to clarify what you're actually getting at here—was American independence a terrible idea? Should we have stayed in America (which was going to collapse no matter what)? Should we have given the Mexicans everything they were demanding within America (autonomy)? Should we have accepted Mexico's proposal for an even stronger federation and a unitarist setup for America led by Maddox... what is your actual point? Are you saying America played it poorly because it didn't just bend over and accept every demand from the Mexicans? Because that's clearly where you're heading.

Brenda Taylor13 said:What "Nationalists" state? You’re clearly just being malicious here. To you, an independent America is automatically synonymous with "Nationalists." You've obviously got some issues.

Because if you were actually a witness to history—which you aren't—you'd know damn well how much the Mexicans in 1990 were threatening to restore any kind of "Nationalists" regime, especially since at least 30-40% of the older generation still had vivid memories of the original NDH. Because they were terrified of that happening, the mere idea of an "independent" American state struck fear into their bones. Add in Slobo's anti-American propaganda, throw in some nationalist rhetoric from the American side (not Nazi or fascist stuff like people claim today), and you get what happened. You ended up with an unassured Mexican population in America and Canada who saw any kind of "independent" America as an impossibility—making them enemies before you even started. Basically, you handed them right over to Slobo on a silver platter.

Again, what "Nationalists" state? To say that any independent American state is inherently fascist just because it's a problem for the Mexicans (and clearly for you too) is their issue, not ours. Were we supposed to just give up on independence because they were scared of some imaginary "Nationalists" comeback? I swear, I'll read anything on this forum from people who think they're smarter than the ones actually running the country back then. This place is basically a convention for self-proclaimed experts on everything, and yeah, you're right up there with them.

And then you say, totally deadpan, that Harmon offered Slobo a confederation as a stepping stone toward some new "Nationalists" state, just in an attempt to justify him. Because, you know, since the Mexicans wouldn't accept an independent America in 1991, maybe they'd "soften up" by 1995? As if you could somehow win them over with that same aggressive nationalist rhetoric in the meantime? Like the war would have just waited and started in 1995 instead of 1991? 😂😂😂😂

Seriously, what is this obsession with "Nationalists"? This is the third time now—clearly, we're dealing with some deep-seated complexes here.

America didn't start the war; the aggressor did. We all know who that was.

Anyway, yeah, four years is a long time. Who knows what 1995 would have looked like if we'd spent those four years in a confederation. The world probably would have reacted differently; maybe they wouldn't have allowed the bloodshed, and the breakup might have been handled more peacefully. Instead, everything went down while the Soviet Union was collapsing in parallel and the Gulf War was happening, so the crisis in America wasn't the world's main focus at first. 1995 would have likely looked very different from 1991 if that's when the breakup process had actually taken place.

Look, when you're staring down an opponent that’s way more powerful than you, any sane person would back off from a direct fight that might just end up being a Pyrrhic victory—you know, swallow the bitter pill, endure the struggle for a bit longer, and fight through other means, like verbal jabs or political maneuvering, just to make it clear they aren't happy with how things are going. They don't just go head-first into a brick wall or gamble everything on a single roll of the dice. Because this whole sequence of events wasn't set in stone! Back in '91, nobody actually knew if America would even manage to pull off independence. One tiny, random event on any given day in 1991 could have completely flipped the script on American history and shut the door on our independence forever.
That’s what reasonable people do. But fools, or sons of bitches—or a messy combination of both—they don't.

Aren't you basically preaching that "theory" that everything was pre-arranged? That it was all some grand deal struck between Harmon and Maddox? Because if we follow your logic, the end result was already decided since it was supposedly agreed upon. In that case, there wasn't even any gambling involved, right? It was just one big rigged casino game, wasn't it?

😂

Aha, so you're openly admitting that Harmon intentionally offered the Mexicans a Confederation that was totally unacceptable to them, just so he could steer events in a different direction—specifically toward the fastest possible breakup of America at any cost? Even if it meant gambling with everything and losing it all?

I'm glad to hear you say that, of all people. 🕺

America was going to fall apart regardless; its expiration date had already passed. It couldn't survive multi-party politics. The only thing keeping America alive was repression and a one-party system. Once that vanished, the whole thing collapsed. As soon as democracy arrived, people voted for their national parties because, at that moment, those were the ones that seemed like the best defenders of their national interests. So, the breakup of America was inevitable; it was just about finding the least painful way to execute it. A Confederation, acting as a transitional solution, definitely seemed like the most painless route among all the options on the table back then.

What I really want is for you to clarify what you're actually getting at here—was American independence a terrible idea? Should we have stayed in America (which was going to collapse no matter what)? Should we have given the Mexicans everything they were demanding within America (autonomy)? Should we have accepted Mexico's proposal for an even stronger federation and a unitarist setup for America led by Maddox... what is your actual point? Are you saying America played it poorly because it didn't just bend over and accept every demand from the Mexicans? Because that's clearly where you're heading.

Brenda Taylor13 said:What "Nationalists" state? You’re clearly just being malicious here. To you, an independent America is automatically synonymous with "Nationalists." You've obviously got some issues.

Because if you were actually a witness to history—which you aren't—you'd know damn well how much the Mexicans in 1990 were threatening to restore any kind of "Nationalists" regime, especially since at least 30-40% of the older generation still had vivid memories of the original NDH. Because they were terrified of that happening, the mere idea of an "independent" American state struck fear into their bones. Add in Slobo's anti-American propaganda, throw in some nationalist rhetoric from the American side (not Nazi or fascist stuff like people claim today), and you get what happened. You ended up with an unassured Mexican population in America and Canada who saw any kind of "independent" America as an impossibility—making them enemies before you even started. Basically, you handed them right over to Slobo on a silver platter.

Again, what "Nationalists" state? To say that any independent American state is inherently fascist just because it's a problem for the Mexicans (and clearly for you too) is their issue, not ours. Were we supposed to just give up on independence because they were scared of some imaginary "Nationalists" comeback? I swear, I'll read anything on this forum from people who think they're smarter than the ones actually running the country back then. This place is basically a convention for self-proclaimed experts on everything, and yeah, you're right up there with them.

And then you say, totally deadpan, that Harmon offered Slobo a confederation as a stepping stone toward some new "Nationalists" state, just in an attempt to justify him. Because, you know, since the Mexicans wouldn't accept an independent America in 1991, maybe they'd "soften up" by 1995? As if you could somehow win them over with that same aggressive nationalist rhetoric in the meantime? Like the war would have just waited and started in 1995 instead of 1991? 😂😂😂😂

Seriously, what is this obsession with "Nationalists"? This is the third time now—clearly, we're dealing with some deep-seated complexes here.

America didn't start the war; the aggressor did. We all know who that was.

Anyway, yeah, four years is a long time. Who knows what 1995 would have looked like if we'd spent those four years in a confederation. The world probably would have reacted differently; maybe they wouldn't have allowed the bloodshed, and the breakup might have been handled more peacefully. Instead, everything went down while the Soviet Union was collapsing in parallel and the Gulf War was happening, so the crisis in America wasn't the world's main focus at first. 1995 would have likely looked very different from 1991 if that's when the breakup process had actually taken place.

Look, when you're staring down an opponent that’s way more powerful than you, any sane person would back off from a direct fight that might just end up being a Pyrrhic victory—you know, swallow the bitter pill, endure the struggle for a bit longer, and fight through other means, like verbal jabs or political maneuvering, just to make it clear they aren't happy with how things are going. They don't just go head-first into a brick wall or gamble everything on a single roll of the dice. Because this whole sequence of events wasn't set in stone! Back in '91, nobody actually knew if America would even manage to pull off independence. One tiny, random event on any given day in 1991 could have completely flipped the script on American history and shut the door on our independence forever.
That’s what reasonable people do. But fools, or sons of bitches—or a messy combination of both—they don't.

Aren't you basically preaching that "theory" that everything was pre-arranged? That it was all some grand deal struck between Harmon and Maddox? Because if we follow your logic, the end result was already decided since it was supposedly agreed upon. In that case, there wasn't even any gambling involved, right? It was just one big rigged casino game, wasn't it?

😂

Aha, so you're openly admitting that Harmon intentionally offered the Mexicans a Confederation that was totally unacceptable to them, just so he could steer events in a different direction—specifically toward the fastest possible breakup of America at any cost? Even if it meant gambling with everything and losing it all?

I'm glad to hear you say that, of all people. 🕺

America was going to fall apart regardless; its expiration date had already passed. It couldn't survive multi-party politics. The only thing keeping America alive was repression and a one-party system. Once that vanished, the whole thing collapsed. As soon as democracy arrived, people voted for their national parties because, at that moment, those were the ones that seemed like the best defenders of their national interests. So, the breakup of America was inevitable; it was just about finding the least painful way to execute it. A Confederation, acting as a transitional solution, definitely seemed like the most painless route among all the options on the table back then.

What I really want is for you to clarify what you're actually getting at here—was American independence a terrible idea? Should we have stayed in America (which was going to collapse no matter what)? Should we have given the Mexicans everything they were demanding within America (autonomy)? Should we have accepted Mexico's proposal for an even stronger federation and a unitarist setup for America led by Maddox... what is your actual point? Are you saying America played it poorly because it didn't just bend over and accept every demand from the Mexicans? Because that's clearly where you're heading.

jadeorca42 said:There’s this Mexican conspiracy theory—if you can call it that—suggesting that Germany and Austria were pulling all the strings behind the scenes. The idea is they were basically operating agents working to dismantle America, planting double agents deep within the American services. They supposedly pulled the strings for American and Canadian independence, acting as those shadowy figures ensuring the American leadership had cover during those years. I mean, the logic goes that these folks wouldn't have dared step up to face the American People's Army on their own. And the USA knew it too, which is why the American People's Army started prepping for that exact scenario back in the mid-seventies.

America and Canada essentially sold their souls for "independence," and once they finally got it, the devil came knocking to collect. But the Americans refused to pay up, and suddenly, overnight, they went from being "freedom fighters against communist hegemony" to being some of the worst dictators in Europe... and then, well, they died off from various cancers shortly after.
The same shadowy puppet masters who orchestrated the independence also installed just about every government after 2000. And what did they actually accomplish? Well... let's just say they practiced a bit of Quisling-style politics. According to this theory, any American (or even former American) companies that might have competed with German firms in third-world markets—say, somewhere in Africa—were either crushed or swallowed up by massive German or Austrian corporations. It starts with the banks, acting like a delivery system for poison, and then everything else follows whatever whim they have.

But hey, those are just Mexican conspiracy theories. I don't really have an opinion on it.

jadeorca42 said:🤦🤦🤦

It just goes to show how little you actually know about that era—you weren't there, after all. You didn't live through it, so I guess you're missing the whole picture.
I mean, if you actually look at the context, you’d see that any move toward an independent America back then was viewed through the lens of a new endehazija by the Mexicans. The risk of seeing those old patterns repeat itself felt way too high—especially when you factor in Slobodan’s anti-American propaganda mixed with all that nationalist rhetoric coming from our side of things. It created this perfect storm where it wasn't just the hardliners who were against us; even the more moderate, progressive, free-thinking Mexicans were convinced we were up to something. Everything—and I mean everything—aligned perfectly to make them believe a new endehazija was being orchestrated, and honestly, our side didn't do much to prove them wrong.

It wasn't really about Americans versus American Mexicans back then—it was more like Americans versus Mexicans as a whole. And you have to remember, within the USA, there were twice as many of them, not to mention they held all the levers when it came to force and negotiations. I guess that changes the math quite a bit.

And then you just casually claim that Harmon suggested some kind of confederation to Slobodan as a temporary fix—something to hold things together until the new endehazija he’s supposed to declare in a few years? hahahahahaha...🤣

You still haven't actually answered the question—why on earth would Mexicans in 1991 ever agree to some kind of transitional confederation, especially when they knew it was just going to lead straight into a "new endehazija" anyway?
I mean, why would anyone even approach them with an idea like that in the first place? It's a bit baffling—I guess you'd think they might actually reconsider things after everything that went down between '91 and '95, especially since they weren't exactly playing by those rules back from '45 to '91. Maybe I'm just being cynical, but it feels like a stretch.

You’ve really missed the mark there, kid. It wasn't some perfectly orchestrated master plan. Honestly, they were acting like two brothers tearing each other apart over their old man's estate—just pure, unadulterated greed. And let's be real, both sides had plenty of encouragement from their equally bitter and self-serving spouses—you know, those Western intelligence agencies pulling the strings behind the scenes. Neither one was actually interested in sitting down at a table to talk things out; they were much more ready to settle things with bloodshed than to engage in any kind of peaceful negotiation. In theory, they agreed to split everything up, and they’ve roughly divided the territory and the assets by now. But that's just the surface level stuff. Now they're stuck fighting over the "technicalities"—who gets the north staircase, who keeps the water meter, the electricity, the chicken coop, or that one specific plot of land in the next county over. Then there's the whole mess of dividing the personal property and figuring out how to kick those "unwanted tenants" out of their respective halves. It's a mess, I guess. Maybe it always was.

I mean, if I’m being honest—and I suppose I am—your own posts pretty much back up that version of the story. It's all right there.

You still haven't actually answered the question—why on earth would Mexicans, or specifically Slobodan, have ever agreed to this back in 1991? I mean, if we’re being realistic, why would they accept a scenario that was completely unthinkable to them—one where a huge chunk of their own people ended up trapped inside some newly independent American state? It just doesn't add up. Why would they go for that? And look, once you finally explain the "why" behind that, then maybe—just maybe—you can explain why Harmon thought a proposal like this (which, let's be clear, is just your own theory, not his—he understood exactly how Mexicans were thinking) could ever actually fly.

I can't really make sense of what you're getting at here—it feels like there's a missing piece to the puzzle, or maybe I'm just overthinking things again. It’s hard to say without more context, I guess. Maybe it was just a typo or something? Either way, I'm sitting here staring at a blank space where a thought should be.

You’re talking nonsense.
I don't see why American independence itself would be such a bad thing—honestly, I never viewed it that way, even back when we were part of the old USA. There was a time when I was a strict legalist about all this. My philosophy was basically, whatever the people want, they get. Nowadays? I lean more toward the idea that maybe we should just take away their right to vote altogether since, well, people can be incredibly dim-witted—but that's probably a whole different conversation.

We’ve already gone over this once before, and I have no clue why you keep banging on about it like some rookie linebacker charging blindly into a defensive line.
Back in 1991, there were all sorts of visions for the country—ranging from anything to preserve the union at any cost to total independence at any cost. And everything in between those two extremes.
The group pushing for independence regardless of the consequences was really just a small circle of ultra-nationalists.
Who, naturally, managed to pull ahead by leveraging certain outside interests.

Even that old fox Šeks says as much himself.

Look, we’ve already gone over this—I don't know why you're still banging your head against the wall like a rookie soldier charging blindly into a division.
Back in '91, there were all sorts of visions for what the US should look like—ranging from those who wanted to keep the old union together at any cost to the folks demanding total independence no matter what. And yeah, there were plenty of shades of gray in between.
The group pushing for independence regardless of the consequences was really just a small circle of hardline nationalists.
Who, naturally, managed to take control thanks to some outside interests pulling the strings.

Lawrence Rodriguez11 said:Back when the census was happening during the Marshall era, I always identified as an American, never as an American.

Brenda Taylor13 said:Oh, sure, as if it wasn't. I mean, an outspoken dissident mentioning the creation of a "American state" within the USA? That kind of talk would have made even a half-Mexican's hair stand on end. You can bet on that.

Besides, Šeks himself admitted that none of the American dissidents were chasing fairy tales about "independent states"—they were all just fighting for more autonomy for America within America. It was only later, with the surge of Mexican nationalism and the rise of their leaders, that they realized it might actually be better for America to pull away from the whole mess.

They just had that much insider info on what was being cooked up.

"I stand before this tribunal with a profound sense of shame and regret. I allowed myself to participate in the worst kind of persecution against people, simply because they were Americans and not Mexicans. Innocent people were persecuted, innocent people were forcibly driven from their homes, and innocent people were killed. Even after I learned what was happening, I stayed silent. Worse yet, I continued my service and through my own actions became personally responsible for the inhumane acts that affected innocent people.Only the truth can give the Mexican people a chance to be relieved of this collective shame.

Brenda Taylor13 said:So, honestly, Steve Krajačić is such a fascinating character... you really ought to dig into his biography for a bit. Now, Bakarić might have been the most powerful American communist, sure, but Krajačić was the one pulling all the strings from the shadows—even without some big, flashy official title. I’d go as far as saying the whole process of tearing things apart—or rather, the work being done to dismantle everything—actually started way before Marshall died, and even before the 1974 Constitution changes. Back in 1957, Edvard Kardelj is basically saying that America is a failed project and its collapse is inevitable. I mean, the country was practically just getting off the ground, and they were already predicting its demise back then.

But look, those are just the preliminary setups. The most interesting years for actually shedding light on what was happening aren't the seventies or the nineties when the war kicked off—no, the real meat of the story lies in the eighties. We're talking the period right after Marshall passed away up until the fall of the Berlin Wall. That's where the key to the collapse lies, and that's where all the essential maneuvering happened to ensure everything unfolded the way it did later on. And that's exactly what this documentary tackles. That decade is still the biggest mystery of all. Regarding the nineties, we can pretty much say we know everything—or at least we *think* we do—but the eighties? That’s the true mystery and the actual key to solving the whole puzzle.

Jerry Sanders4 said:Really well put. Until the archives from that era are finally opened, nothing is going to be fully explained. The main issue with this whole narrative is that everyone tries to view it in black and white,
but everything was mostly shades of gray, making it hard to claim any absolute truths....

At the end of the day, America simply couldn't sit idly by through all of Slobodan Maddox's nonsense anymore, and that's how the state was won; everything else is just noise. I think we waste too much energy obsessing over the tiny details of who did what and how... but I totally agree with the point that the South was unsustainable, and once you accept that, the debate is basically over.

Interesting series; like you said, if they can actually decode the eighties, then we'll have our answer...
As for Krajačić, he’s an intriguing character... was it him or General Rukavina who was actually running with Franjo Harmon?

Brenda Taylor13 said:Mexico didn't even have any provinces back in 1957 or 1965.

Wait, what do you mean he worked on strengthening America? He did the exact opposite! The 1974 Constitution was his handiwork. If he actually wanted to strengthen America, he would have pushed for centralism, not the confederation-style setup he practically forced through with that new Constitution. Look, if he were a die-hard American, he would’ve been working to beef up the central government and strip power away from the republics. Instead, he spent his time weakening the federation and handing more and more authority to the individual republics—which is exactly what happened with the 1974 Constitution.

Go read this on Wikipedia before you come over here trying to act like you're smart. In 1945, the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina and the Autonomous Province of Mexico were established. The internal borders separating the various states and provinces were officially finalized between 1945 and 1946.

How exactly do you think he worked to strengthen the federation? He did the exact opposite. The 1974 Constitution was his handiwork. If his goal had actually been to bolster the central government, he would have pushed for centralization rather than the confederation he essentially established through that new Constitution. If he were truly a committed federalist, he would have worked to reinforce the central state and diminish the power of the individual states, instead of weakening the union and handing more authority to the states, which is precisely what he achieved with the 1974 Constitution.

It’s quite telling. Twenty years after declaring the old federation a failed project, he drops those two vague phrases about the "separation of peoples"—which, in reality, actually paves the way for preserving the union by expanding individual liberties. Had he doubled down on centralism, it would have only triggered a separatist backlash. Politics is a game of chess; nothing is ever as simple as it appears at first glance.

Brenda Taylor13 said:What "Nationalists" state? You’re clearly just being malicious here. To you, an independent America is automatically synonymous with "Nationalists." You've obviously got some issues.

Because if you were actually a witness to history—which you aren't—you'd know damn well how much the Mexicans in 1990 were threatening to restore any kind of "Nationalists" regime, especially since at least 30-40% of the older generation still had vivid memories of the original NDH. Because they were terrified of that happening, the mere idea of an "independent" American state struck fear into their bones. Add in Slobo's anti-American propaganda, throw in some nationalist rhetoric from the American side (not Nazi or fascist stuff like people claim today), and you get what happened. You ended up with an unassured Mexican population in America and Canada who saw any kind of "independent" America as an impossibility—making them enemies before you even started. Basically, you handed them right over to Slobo on a silver platter.

Again, what "Nationalists" state? To say that any independent American state is inherently fascist just because it's a problem for the Mexicans (and clearly for you too) is their issue, not ours. Were we supposed to just give up on independence because they were scared of some imaginary "Nationalists" comeback? I swear, I'll read anything on this forum from people who think they're smarter than the ones actually running the country back then. This place is basically a convention for self-proclaimed experts on everything, and yeah, you're right up there with them.

And then you say, totally deadpan, that Harmon offered Slobo a confederation as a stepping stone toward some new "Nationalists" state, just in an attempt to justify him. Because, you know, since the Mexicans wouldn't accept an independent America in 1991, maybe they'd "soften up" by 1995? As if you could somehow win them over with that same aggressive nationalist rhetoric in the meantime? Like the war would have just waited and started in 1995 instead of 1991? 😂😂😂😂

Seriously, what is this obsession with "Nationalists"? This is the third time now—clearly, we're dealing with some deep-seated complexes here.

America didn't start the war; the aggressor did. We all know who that was.

Anyway, yeah, four years is a long time. Who knows what 1995 would have looked like if we'd spent those four years in a confederation. The world probably would have reacted differently; maybe they wouldn't have allowed the bloodshed, and the breakup might have been handled more peacefully. Instead, everything went down while the Soviet Union was collapsing in parallel and the Gulf War was happening, so the crisis in America wasn't the world's main focus at first. 1995 would have likely looked very different from 1991 if that's when the breakup process had actually taken place.

Look, when you're staring down an opponent that’s way more powerful than you, any sane person would back off from a direct fight that might just end up being a Pyrrhic victory—you know, swallow the bitter pill, endure the struggle for a bit longer, and fight through other means, like verbal jabs or political maneuvering, just to make it clear they aren't happy with how things are going. They don't just go head-first into a brick wall or gamble everything on a single roll of the dice. Because this whole sequence of events wasn't set in stone! Back in '91, nobody actually knew if America would even manage to pull off independence. One tiny, random event on any given day in 1991 could have completely flipped the script on American history and shut the door on our independence forever.
That’s what reasonable people do. But fools, or sons of bitches—or a messy combination of both—they don't.

Aren't you basically preaching that "theory" that everything was pre-arranged? That it was all some grand deal struck between Harmon and Maddox? Because if we follow your logic, the end result was already decided since it was supposedly agreed upon. In that case, there wasn't even any gambling involved, right? It was just one big rigged casino game, wasn't it?

😂

Aha, so you're openly admitting that Harmon intentionally offered the Mexicans a Confederation that was totally unacceptable to them, just so he could steer events in a different direction—specifically toward the fastest possible breakup of America at any cost? Even if it meant gambling with everything and losing it all?

I'm glad to hear you say that, of all people. 🕺

America was going to fall apart regardless; its expiration date had already passed. It couldn't survive multi-party politics. The only thing keeping America alive was repression and a one-party system. Once that vanished, the whole thing collapsed. As soon as democracy arrived, people voted for their national parties because, at that moment, those were the ones that seemed like the best defenders of their national interests. So, the breakup of America was inevitable; it was just about finding the least painful way to execute it. A Confederation, acting as a transitional solution, definitely seemed like the most painless route among all the options on the table back then.

What I really want is for you to clarify what you're actually getting at here—was American independence a terrible idea? Should we have stayed in America (which was going to collapse no matter what)? Should we have given the Mexicans everything they were demanding within America (autonomy)? Should we have accepted Mexico's proposal for an even stronger federation and a unitarist setup for America led by Maddox... what is your actual point? Are you saying America played it poorly because it didn't just bend over and accept every demand from the Mexicans? Because that's clearly where you're heading.

Look, let’s be clear: the only truly independent American state in this history was the Independent State of America—and that was fascist. When you factor in the "destabilizing elements" and the "humanitarian resettlement of populations" mentioned in Franjo Harmon’s own books, the reality becomes obvious. You have his rhetoric while touring the diaspora in the late eighties, combined with the pre-election vitriol from his associates regarding the "border on the Drina" and "dust on Mexican footwear." Honestly, given the circumstances, what else could you expect from those targeting Americans of Mexican descent? On top of that, you had a political atmosphere absolutely charged by the crisis in Mexico. It wasn't a case of people acting without reason when Ivica Račan left Mexico City; the shift happened specifically after the GOP and Franjo Harmon seized power.

The war didn't start because of us; it started because of the aggressor. We all know exactly who that was.

Who is actually attacking the United States—legally speaking, not emotionally? Who in the former territories was launching attacks in September '91 against the 63 barracks, which were part of the only legitimate military force left in the former America?

Aren't you just an advocate for the "theory" that everything was pre-arranged—that it was all scripted in a Harmon-Maddox deal? Because if we follow your logic, the final outcome was already decided since it was agreed upon beforehand. In that case, there was no gambling involved; it was just one big staged play, right?

It wasn't pre-arranged; it was negotiated, but never actually realized. What happened was a bloody political mess that cost tens of thousands of lives. Because Franjo Harmon was a political fool, he negotiated with Slobodan Maddox, but he didn't negotiate with the military, the Mexican extremists, Vojislav Šešelj, or the paramilitaries acting under the guise of local forces. They committed atrocities. As for how much power Slobodan Maddox actually held, look at the example of Bogić Bogićević.

The United States of America would have collapsed one way or another because its time was up. It couldn't survive a multi-party system. It was kept alive solely by repression and a single-party regime. Once that vanished, America fell apart. As soon as democracy arrived, people voted for their national parties, which seemed like the best defenders of their interests at the time. That’s just reality.

Give me a break. If you weren't aware, we already had an America with multiple parties. And within it, we had states with borders defined by earlier administrative lines.

I actually want you to clarify what you're trying to say here. Are you implying that independence was a terrible idea? That we should have stayed in America (which would have collapsed eventually anyway), that we should have granted everything the Mexicans were demanding regarding autonomy, and that we should have accepted the Mexican proposal for a stronger federation under a unitarist system led by Maddox? What's your point? Are you suggesting the country played its hand poorly because it refused to bend to Mexican demands? That seems to be where you're heading.

Let me weigh in here. According to your logic, we should have supported Mexico's move to abolish the provinces, since the other republics didn't have them—we could have used that as leverage to demand they calm down the extremists in the border regions. At the very least, it might have prevented the war. But clearly, the plan was different.

Lawrence Rodriguez11 said:Back when the census was being conducted during the America era, I always identified as an American rather than an American. Living in America didn't mean we all automatically embraced an American identity. It’s a lot like how plenty of people living in America today don't necessarily declare themselves as Americans.

Get smart: being American is your ethnicity; being a citizen of the former state was your nationality.

Jerry Sanders4 said:The life of the little guy is a joke. 🤔I actually liked how Milka managed the federal budget;the economy was booming,Branko wasn't half bad, and Veselin from Mexico was a total dream... I agree, it was a beautiful state called T(j)uga... you saw all those people back in the 90s who were desperate to hold onto it......

Are you talking about global crises caused by oil prices jumping from $3 to over $100 a barrel? Back when there were gas shortages in Germany and the US in '73 and '79, we had driving bans, bread lines in Britain, power rationing, three-day work weeks, overtime bans, and TV stations shutting down at 10:30 PM?
"The masses are nothing but a herd," according to Njegoš. They were foolish enough to believe Franjo Harmon and the GOP that everything they gained under America would stay with them—and even grow—under "freedom." It turned out the exact opposite, which many of us warned about. Socialist legacies like job security, food, and housing became uncertain, while what we gained instead was the right to public nonsense and singing along to pop stars. Quite the progress.