Hypothetical: If a small European country elected Hitler, would you immediately move there?

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Lugger 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Of course.

And yet, it's hard to call a country 'white' when white people were always such a small fragment of the population.

'White-controlled' or 'white-dominated' — sure, but not 'white'.

And white South Africans were unbelievably dumb for thinking they could keep it that way.

[–]NeoRail 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Why do you think so? Didn't they lose their grip on the country because of the coordinated and determined sabotage of the entire northern hemisphere rather than any domestic factors?

[–]Lugger 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Because sooner or later they'd have to deal with the black problem, either by ending discrimination like they did or by deporting them.

And the latter would be near impossible to achieve due to the vast majority of the country being black.

The South Africa was doomed from the start; how many more years do you think the old regime would have lasted without the pressure from Western Countries? 30, 40 years?

Yeah, a minority may rule over a majority if that group that wields vast power, but this scenario is impossible to sustain when the privileged minority belongs to a different racial group.

Remember Haiti? Black folk just risen up and massacred their white masters. This would have been the fate of South Africa had the Apartheid not ended; frankly, there's still a possibility of it happening today, but white SAs got only themselves to blame.

[–]NeoRail 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I do not see how your claims can be reconciled with history. To give you just one example among many, the Islamic caliphates in Spain lasted centuries even though Muslims formed a small minority.

Haiti is an interesting example, but I don't think it is comparable. Firstly, if my memory serves me right, the Haitian slave revolt exploited a political crisis, more specifically the dissolution of central authority caused by the French Revolution. In fact, all successful anti-colonial movements of recent times seem to be heavily reliant on political crisis in the West in order to obtain victory. Secondly, the living conditions of Haitian slaves were, to my knowledge, utterly atrocious and entirely different from those of South Africa.

[–]Lugger 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I do not see how your claims can be reconciled with history. To give you just one example among many, the Islamic caliphates in Spain lasted centuries even though Muslims formed a small minority.

Sure thing man. History has a shitton of examples of a small ethnic/racial minority ruling over a massive number of foreign people.

What they all have in common is that eventually the people boot the foreign overlords out, either by military means, or by taking advantage of the political turmoil in the capital.

Secondly, the living conditions of Haitian slaves were, to my knowledge, utterly atrocious and entirely different from those of South Africa.

Yeah, and white SAs didn't face the same fate as white Haitians either.

[–]NeoRail 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

What they all have in common is that eventually the people boot the foreign overlords out, either by military means, or by taking advantage of the political turmoil in the capital.

That's not really true, in many cases what happens instead is an external force invades or destabilises the country, like what happened in India for example. However it's important to note that "eventually" is not a very useful category to work with. According to this same logic, all monoethnic societies "eventually" collapse. It's technically true, but it's not a very useful observation.

[–]Lugger 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

However it's important to note that "eventually" is not a very useful category to work with. According to this same logic, all monoethnic societies "eventually" collapse. It's technically true, but it's not a very useful observation.

I'll put it another way.

A 'monoethnic society', depending on various factorts, may or may not 'eventually' collapse.

An order based on having a small racial minority rule over a majority of people of other race(s) is 100% bound to crumble due to the very rotten nature of such a foundation, which is, as I have said, unsustainable.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

A 'monoethnic society', depending on various factorts, may or may not 'eventually' collapse.

That's a truism, it is not a meaningful observation. That's my point. When you say something will "eventually collapse" or "may or may not eventually collapse", you are not making any meaningful arguments. Over time, polities do have a tendency to collapse, yes. In order to make a meaningful point, you would have to make a more specific claim. So, for example, the Ottoman Empire lasted roughly 600 years, probably a bit more. It "eventually" collapsed, but I do not think that it experienced any particular longevity issues when compared with monoethnic states. Do you see the problem?

[–]Lugger 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

That's a truism, it is not a meaningful observation. That's my point.

And my point is that 'normal' societies rise and fall, but, in theory, there's nothing stopping them from lasting forever whereas SA-tier type ones are guaranteed to break down just because of that single factor we're discussing.

So, for example, the Ottoman Empire lasted roughly 600 years, probably a bit more. It "eventually" collapsed, but I do not think that it experienced any particular longevity issues when compared with monoethnic states.

I don't think Empires can be compared to countries like SA. They are fundamentally different entities.

Empires, naturally, are all about expanding, conquering other people, exploting them and sucking their resources dry for the good of the capital while enforing this order at gunpoint.

Oh, and don't forget that empires, barring a few very rare cases, tended not to settle the conquered territories with large amounts of the founding ethnic group, leaving 'just' a military garrison and occupational government instead.

Case in point: British-ruled India.

Even if Ramajar was a second-class citizen in the greater British Empire, in his homeland there were little British people to interact with, so he didn't have as many reasons for resentment as blax in South Africa who shared the country/land with their white 'masters'.

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

And my point is that 'normal' societies rise and fall, but, in theory, there's nothing stopping them from lasting forever whereas SA-tier type ones are guaranteed to break down just because of that single factor we're discussing.

So in theory there is nothing else stopping them from lasting forever except for all the things that do stop them? Again, it would appear that there are many factors which can lead to the collapse of the society and that a "diverse" population is hardly the most decisive one, else we would not have examples of such societies lasting centuries.

You are also evading the issue. I pointed out that South Africa collapsed because of external factors, not because of domestic ones. You asserted that it would have collapsed anyway because a racial minority cannot sustain its ruling class status. I gave you an example of the opposite, which lasted centuries and clearly contradicts your claim. Now you are talking about issues of resentment, but I fail to see how this advances your argument, because again, South Africa fell because of outside interference, not domestic factors. Resentment is quite irrelevant as a factor and many of the most resented occupiers have also been the most successful ones. If your claim is that inter-group resentment is what leads to state collapse, you will have to demonstrate that by explaining why this is an important and influential factor.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And white South Africans were unbelievably dumb for thinking they could keep it that way.

They only lost when they released Mandela from prison and held a nation wide election in 1994 that included Black voters.

Otherwise, they won every military engagement against the rebels, and built nuclear bombs to stop the U.S, China or USSR from directly invading them.

The only reason you don't hear about the bombs today, is because the Apartheid regime dismantled them before handing over power.

[–]Lugger 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, they could have still held out back in 1990s perhaps.

My point is, the regime itself was unsustainable and would have crumbled sooner or later just because it's very foundation was rotten and antithetical to what makes a successfull country.