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 →

[–]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.

[–]Lugger 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So in theory there is nothing else stopping them from lasting forever except for all the things that do stop them?

Way to miss the point.

A 'monoethnic society' in a vacuum doesn't have any inherent factors that will undoubtedly lead to its collapse.

The same thing cannot be said about SA-type ones.

...else we would not have examples of such societies lasting centuries.

I gave you an example of the opposite, which lasted centuries and clearly contradicts your claim.

You gave me an example of an empire, which, as I have stated above, cannot be compared to 'regular' countries like SA.

But yeah, if the land now known as the SA had remained a part of the British Empire, and the Empire still existed, it would indeed have had a chance at lasting as long the Empire itself would, as it would have had its vast military and resources to back up the regime.

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.

Well, as you have written yourself:

You asserted that it would have collapsed anyway because a racial minority cannot sustain its ruling class status.

Honestly, this discussion reminds me of whether or not the Confederacy, had it won the war, would have been able to keep the slavery forever.

Supporters of the CSA apparently believe that the country would have no problem keeping the blax enslaved, as to argue otherwise would mean that, since the deportation was out of the question due to how large the share of the black population was, the Confederacy would 'eventually' have to free the slaves and let them loose in their cities like the hated Yankees did — and this is something the Confederatards would never concede in a lifetime.

Doesn't the theoretical scenario with the victorious CSA remind you of anything?

What I'm arguing is that the SA's situation, as far as demographics are concerned, was waaaaaaaaaay worse that that of the Confederacy, and the country was doomed from the start due to this single factor.

And yeah, looking at the state of the world in the 1990s, the SA would not have lasted 30-40 years more anyway even without outside pressure, because all, literally all the Empires had already fallen and colonies had been freed of the occupiers, so it was only a question of time before the anti-colonial sentiment reached the very colonial-like society of SA.

Agree that the country could have lasted much longer had the colonialism continued to exist though.