NationStates Jolt Archive

There are two options to choose from.

Unified Globe under the Nazis: Here, the world is unified under one nation, the nation being an upholder of Nazism. There is peace and prosperity throughout the world, as most of the inferior peoples have been almost eradicated. Jews and others continue to live in secret and in the underground, so they are not completely wiped out. There are no wars, just prosperity for all mankind (unless they find out you're a jew or some other lowly being).

Hundreds of Smaller Warring Countries: Here, the world is broken up in hundreds, if not a thousand, small countries. All countries experience turmoil, as hostilities persist with their neighbours. There is barely a net prosperity, and many die each day obviously due to the constant warring. However, there are few, if any, injustices. Nearly all countries do battle with honour, and do not mistreat or discriminate against any group, beyond the armed conflicts. The world is a really messed-up place.

I'd live in the second scenario, as a peace protestor. I'd only last a few days, but, given the situation, that's kind of a good thing.

The second option, because we all know that our secret Jewish overlords would never let anything bad happen to us. :p

So, we're supposed to pick one? Well then...

I'd go with the mosaic world of countries. A prosperous world-state under the Nazis is a bit too extreme for my tastes, and my morals.

A constantly warring world would enable me to display my innate love of strategy and warfare. I could command some lads and start an imperialistic drive to dominate surrounding territories and secure my countries place in the world.

A constantly warring world would enable me to display my innate love of strategy and warfare. I could command some lads and start an imperialistic drive to dominate surrounding territories and secure my countries place in the world.

It would only be a matter of time before you'd be beaten back by a temporary unification of your neighbours.

I wouldn't want to have to live in hiding, so #2.

It would only be a matter of time before you'd be beaten back by a temporary unification of your neighbours.

But until then

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :D :D :D

I'd go with the global state; it's much easier to change the system from within than it is to try and change things when the world is effecitvely Balkanized. The Nazi regime could be overthrown, while a world war could not be ended; there would be plenty of support for such a revolution due to the innate nature of the Nazi ideology and the totalitarianism it entailed, and since it is a world state there would be plenty of places to plot it.

Plus, the dire economic and political conditions of the second world would be a breeding ground for radical ideologies and extremism; it's almost 100% certain that a good chunk of those states would be tyrannical, Nazi-esque states with horrendous civil rights records and numerous crimes against humanity...if only for the sake of keeping their people distracted from the poverty at home in favor of the war front.

These countries wouldn't mistreate or discriminate against any group...they would mistreat all of them due to the sheer demands of a constant, worldwide war.

I'll take option #2. Main reason: I'm Jewish. Besides, option 2 has plenty going for it. It will be a lot easier to reform.

First, we NSers get together and take over a country. Then, we stop playing by the rules...

Many smaller powers, perhaps in the form of major trading blocks. I will not acquiesce to any world government. No such large-scale tyranny need take place.

It would only be a matter of time before you'd be beaten back by a temporary unification of your neighbours.

You always have to plan for these eventualities. Such as strategic alliances, and fair peace agreements. What nation would want to overthrow you have you dominated their country and let them maintain self-autonomy? All that changed is the absorbtion of their army into the empire and now they have a new name.

Cthulhu! Why vote for the lesser evil?

Number 2...

Can anyone say GENGHIS KHAN?!??! :D

You always have to plan for these eventualities. Such as strategic alliances, and fair peace agreements. What nation would want to overthrow you have you dominated their country and let them maintain self-autonomy? All that changed is the absorbtion of their army into the empire and now they have a new name.

The countries that you conquered would no longer be able to do much... it's just that your surrounding neighbours, as they would notice your increasing power, would unite against you. Even if you could keep expanding and acquiring land, your military forces would start thinning out, and you might have to risk depending on forces of countries you invaded.

The countries that you conquered would no longer be able to do much... it's just that your surrounding neighbours, as they would notice your increasing power, would unite against you. Even if you could keep expanding and acquiring land, your military forces would start thinning out, and you might have to risk depending on forces of countries you invaded.

And thus the inherent flaw with suggestion 1...

The countries that you conquered would no longer be able to do much... it's just that your surrounding neighbours, as they would notice your increasing power, would unite against you. Even if you could keep expanding and acquiring land, your military forces would start thinning out, and you might have to risk depending on forces of countries you invaded.

True, true. But then you also have to remember that (theoretically) the entire world is at war. My neighboring countries could notice my increasing power, and the increasing power of who knows how many other nations. It's rather like an either-or decision. I could do the same thing to an encroaching nation as well (form an alliance with my un-conquered neighbors). The moment dictates the tactics.

Of course, all of you voting for option #2 seem to think that you would be running your country.

Of course, all of you voting for option #2 seem to think that you would be running your country.
Why naturally, of course! Why do you think the world is at war?

I tell you, of all the statements...

xD

Without WW2 the jet would be something new even today, computers wouldn't be as fast, we wouldn't be nearly as tech sophisticated as we are now. We thrive on conflict, we need it. Without a deadline nothing gets done and there is no better motivation than saving a life or losing your own.

Huge, all-powerful governments always abuse thier power eventually. It would only be a matter of time before a 1984-ish government fell and when that happens we'd end up with the other scenario where everyone fights everyone else.

Everything has a price and I for one would rather die than submit to a totalitarian monstrosity. Those willing to sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.

Everything has a price and I for one would rather die than submit to a totalitarian monstrosity. Those willing to sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.
Hear hear. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Like I said, I would never acquiesce to some world "government". The formation of large trading blocs, like the EU or NAFTA, will suffice.

Those willing to sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.

Who are you to say that? Some people would rather be alive than follow your ideals.

Who are you to say that? Some people would rather be alive than follow your ideals.

He didn't say it. Benjamin Franklin did. Care to question Mr. Franklin's qualifications?


Back on Topic; If I lived in the totalitarian world-state, I'd be pushing for revolution, which would just lead back to smaller warring states. Maybe, just maybe, in the smaller warring states scenario, I could find a leader worth following and a people worth fighting for.

If one is in the situation of option 2 (and, as we've assumed, in control of a country) there's no need to be expansionist! Empires are hard to maintain when provinces are restive and neighbours are unpredictable.

On first question: I too would follow option two. In option one, there's a powerful-and vicious-force to maintain the unpleasant status quo. Whereas in option two, there's a great deal of possibility of developing into a more pleasant world than the "current" situation.

If common sense doesn't force us to calm down and negociate, simple exhaustion will after enough warfare. (And in a world of constant potential enemies, those who don't seek at least temporary truces will quickly be ground down to nothing.)

I think there will be room in the second scenario for a fair few Switzerlands. Countries that are avowedly neutral, liberal and highly prosperous from their profiteering from their neighbours misfortunes.

I would like to live in one of the Switzerlands.

Both horrible situations, but without a shadow of a doubt option 2, because I would have personal freedom to just take to the fuckin' hills. Under Nazism, one has no personal freedom; to dissent, to live as one wants to.

I would risk a violent death to avoid the dismal shade of Nazism. What am I saying? I would die a hundred violent deaths, anything but Nazis.

Both horrible situations, but without a shadow of a doubt option 2, because I would have personal freedom to just take to the fuckin' hills. Under Nazism, one has no personal freedom; to dissent, to live as one wants to.

I would risk a violent death to avoid the dismal shade of Nazism. What am I saying? I would die a hundred violent deaths, anything but Nazis.

Fair enough. Let's ask a related question-say the World Government was someone less psychotic than the Nazi regime. What then?