They would win WWIII, but still start it, which is not what is best for humanity as a whole regardless of who wins
Who would you bring back from history?
- Thread starter Civman33
- Start date
- Status
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
One global government might be great for humanity. Let's have Napoleon conquer the world, then we can kill him and bring back Marcus Aurelius to rule us. Let's just not accidentally hand things over to his son.
The Reds tried it - it doesn't work. People are too divided naturally and proud of their groupings to accept a world government. When the Austro-Hungarians and the Turks did it in the 18-1900s they both collapsed (WWI just accelerated this). Besides, so many would die fighting (and getting nuked) that the world would be destroyed in the process
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
The Reds tried for world domination? Buy into ridiculous Cold War propaganda much?
I'm sure people were proud of their nationalities when Rome conquered them as well. Didn't stop them becoming Roman. It can be done, if you know what the hell you're doing.
Napoleon would defeat the nukes through clever troop manoeuvres. You know it's true.
The Reds took over Eastern Europe, and unashamedly tried to bring Communism to the whole world (hence all the AK-47s around the middle-east and Africa). Bear in mind also that Rome was forever plagued with revolts and only Italy really stayed loyal for all of its history - and that they ruled a totalitarian state, which almost nobody supports today.
And as for Napoleon - the yanks would just nuke his cities and force him to stop the war
And as for Napoleon - the yanks would just nuke his cities and force him to stop the war
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
Naivete, thy name is Flying Pig.
Firstly, of course communists attempted to spread communism worldwide: the idea of a global proletariat is part of their ideology, after all. And if you read Marx, you'll note he never actually calls for the disestablishment of nation-states, they simply won't be exploitative.
Also, Russia and China influenced the Third World, not for ideological or megalomaniacal reasons, but as part of the same exact power plays that had been going on for millenia. By your logic, the US is still seeking global domination, since they sell guns to people, and openly attempt to spread capitalism and liberal democracy everywhere.
Rome wasn't totalitarian. Totalitarianism wasn't even possible until the 20th, maybe late 19th century. Technological issue. They were authoritarian. And you must have missed all those Italian revolts and civil wars. Plus, the vast majority of revolts in Rome weren't based on nationality, it was usually upstart generals.
And while you were doing that he'd occupy a lighthouse overlooking Washington D.C., and force you to retreat. Checkmate.
Since when did the USSR actually listen to Marx? They pretended to, but if they had they would have produced a free and fair society in which everyone was happy, not the mess that they did. I'm not judging them on the fact that they tried to spread their ideology (which, as seen with China at first, was always reverential to the USSR) but poining out that they did it. The diffence with the US is that democracy doesn't always entail sucking up to the Americans, and their methods don't encourage dependance as much.
Fine, the Romans were Authoritarian. And as for the cause of the revolts, I name Spartacus, Boudicca, Vercingetorix etc as 'revolts because of unhappy people', and the others were probably fuelled by discontent. If things had been good, the army would not have followed the generals
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
They usually believed in him, even though they didn't listen to him much. Even Stalin is supposed to have genuinely believed in communism, according to several biographers, though it's debateable. And my point on great power politics remains. They initially worked with the Kuomintang in China, not the Communists, as they felt the KMT would prove more favourable to them.
You are aware of the amount of dictatorships America has propped up, and even established, over the years, aren't you? Several times by overthrowing democracies that didn't bend over for them?
The army followed the generals because they were more loyal to their immediate superiors than a guy in Rome they'd never even seen. This is a large reason why regional governors often weilded more actual power in large empires pre-telecommunications than the ruler.
Point at one which they established intentionally
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
Guatemala.
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
Anymore. Neither's Chile. They propped up Apartheid for many years as well. Seriously, don't even try arguing this point, you can't possibly win. The US has even released files proving they did such.
Alright, point taken - though it looks like all powerful nations try to dominate others - the British Empire, the USSR, the USA, Germany etc
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
Umm, you kind of just made my point about the USSR not going for world domination for me. Nations naturally seek their own security first, power second. Trust me, the USSR was far more interested in security after WWII, what with being at a massive disadvantage the whole Cold War and everything.
No; I say that they did go for world domination, but so does every powerful country
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
Nah, they go for power. If they had a shot at world domination they'd take it, but no nation has ever stood a chance in hell at pulling said off, not even Britain, which was way more powerful that the US in its prime.
That is ludicrous. Is the US going for world domination?
See above - that's what we've just been arguing about, and concluded yes
You concluded that the United States is seeking world domination? Well, I hope you'll understand if I'm not entirely convinced by that.
I'd also like to point out that the whole of this past page seems to me to have nothing whatsoever to do with the supposed topic of this thread.
I'd also like to point out that the whole of this past page seems to me to have nothing whatsoever to do with the supposed topic of this thread.
We decided that countries seek to ensure their own security first and then to increase their own power. What the US does with its work in the 3rd world constitutes increasing its own power, and so we can safely assume that they want as much power as they can get; ie world domination.
And the second bit is true.
BACK ON TOPIC: I would bring back Elvis Presley now.
And the second bit is true.
BACK ON TOPIC: I would bring back Elvis Presley now.
- Status
Similar threads
