NationStates Jolt Archive


America

UnitedStatesOfAmerica-
20-01-2009, 14:48
Has never ever had a military coup. All transitions between our leaders have been peaceful.

There almost no other countries on the planet where the change in power has come without any sort of bloodshed or rioting. In particular this is true of all third world countries. Even the British have had military coups in their past history as have the French and the Germans. Not to mention the Chinese and the Japanese.

Your thoughts on this?
Neo Art
20-01-2009, 14:49
Has never ever had a military coup. All transitions between our leaders have been peaceful.

Hi, have we met? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis)

OK, sure, we've never had a "military coup". We did have, however, a full on, drag out, full blown civil fucking war. Not to mention our very existance as a nation was brought out by, essentially, a violent opposition to ruling power.
Rambhutan
20-01-2009, 14:50
You have funded a few though
Cabra West
20-01-2009, 14:51
Has never ever had a military coup. All transitions between our leaders have been peaceful.

There almost no other countries on the planet where the change in power has come without any sort of bloodshed or rioting. In particular this is true of all third world countries. Even the British have had military coups in their past history as have the French and the Germans. Not to mention the Chinese and the Japanese.

Your thoughts on this?

I don't know... Nicaragua had a military coup I thought? I'm pretty sure Chile did, and I know for a fact that Argentina did.
So I think your statement is quite incorrect, sorry.
Forsakia
20-01-2009, 14:55
Doesn't the American Revolution count as a coup?
Barringtonia
20-01-2009, 14:56
Nor has Australia or New Zealand, not sure about South Africa either.

Clearly the solution to solving violence is for the British to invade every other country, kill off the natives and populate the land with themselves.

Peace all round.
Forsakia
20-01-2009, 14:58
Nor has Australia or New Zealand, not sure about South Africa either.

Clearly the solution to solving violence is for the British to invade every other country, kill off the natives and populate the land with themselves.

Peace all round.

Is there a great nation in the world the UK didn't try and invade at some point? It's for your own good.:tongue:
The Blaatschapen
20-01-2009, 14:59
Wow... The civil war, the revolution... And how was the transition of JFK to Johnson peaceful?
Myrmidonisia
20-01-2009, 15:02
Hi, have we met? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis)

OK, sure, we've never had a "military coup". We did have, however, a full on, drag out, full blown civil fucking war. Not to mention our very existance as a nation was brought out by, essentially, a violent opposition to ruling power.
Transferring executive authority from one President to another 44 times in a row isn't a trivial feat. Not to mention all the orderly elections to national, state, and local office. Despite the war against the South, this nation has done pretty damn well in upholding this part of the Constitution.
Dumb Ideologies
20-01-2009, 15:04
Its because the American Constitution was created by angels sprinkling magic pixie dust on a blank sheet of paper. The document had divine inspiration, and created a perfect set of institutions so finely balanced that no group would ever have a grievance they felt they could not address democratically. Despite numerous tinkerings with the constitution by lesser beings, enough of the holy original document has been maintained to ensure that societal conflict has remained relatively low. God did it. Because he loves America.
Neo Art
20-01-2009, 15:06
Transferring executive authority from one President to another 44 times in a row isn't a trivial feat. Not to mention all the orderly elections to national, state, and local office. Despite the war against the South, this nation has done pretty damn well in upholding this part of the Constitution.

which is relevant...how?
Hobabwe
20-01-2009, 15:07
I don't know... Nicaragua had a military coup I thought? I'm pretty sure Chile did, and I know for a fact that Argentina did.
So I think your statement is quite incorrect, sorry.

As did Cuba, Mexico, The US, and probably several others.

Canada hasnt had one, as far as i know at least.

;)
Barringtonia
20-01-2009, 15:07
Is there a great nation in the world the UK didn't try and invade at some point? It's for your own good.:tongue:

Indeed, in fact the only problem we've had is when we didn't properly kill of the natives, that and America and I suspect we simply didn't manage to populate it with English only, I remember hitting the population button in Ellis Island and being surprised at how many people of German origin there were in America, there's your culprits for the War of Revolution. Another thing to remember is American sports, each so similar yet so different to those you should have adopted, rugby,football, cricket, hockey on grass, that it almost seems a calculated anti-English slap, only the Germans could devise games so obsessive over statistics.

Same for South Africa, too many Dutchies, trouble the lot of them.

Canada hasnt had one, as far as i know at least.

;)

Ooh, I forgot Canada, and where does the trouble there come from? The French, that's who.
Vespertilia
20-01-2009, 15:09
Is there a great nation in the world the UK didn't try and invade at some point? It's for your own good.:tongue:

Is "great nation" status achieved via territory, demography, or some other means? Also, which ones do count as such?
The Blaatschapen
20-01-2009, 15:14
Indeed, in fact the only problem we've had is when we didn't properly kill of the natives, that and America and I suspect we simply didn't manage to populate it with English only, I remember hitting the population button in Ellis Island and being surprised at how many people of German origin there were in America, there's your culprits for the War of Revolution. Another thing to remember is American sports, each so similar yet so different to those you should have adopted, rugby,football, cricket, hockey on grass, that it almost seems a calculated anti-English slap, only the Germans could devise games so obsessive over statistics.

Same for South Africa, too many Dutchies, trouble the lot of them.


Well, the difference between the US and South Africa is that SA was Dutch and then the British decided to conquer it. It's your own fault then, you should have left the Dutch there alone :p The US wasn't German when the British first conquered parts of it.
Risottia
20-01-2009, 15:15
Has never ever had a military coup. All transitions between our leaders have been peaceful.
There almost no other countries on the planet where the change in power has come without any sort of bloodshed or rioting. In particular this is true of all third world countries. Even the British have had military coups in their past history as have the French and the Germans. Not to mention the Chinese and the Japanese.

Your thoughts on this?


Well, the Civil War can be seen as a military attempt of sorts.

Also, why go for a coup when you can rig elections? 2000 and 2004 come to my mind.
Barringtonia
20-01-2009, 15:17
Well, the difference between the US and South Africa is that SA was Dutch and then the British decided to conquer it. It's your own fault then, you should have left the Dutch there alone :p The US wasn't German when the British first conquered parts of it.

We should have considered you natives, in fact I think we did but you happened to be natives with guns as opposed to spears, curse our fiendish luck

:headbang:
The Blaatschapen
20-01-2009, 15:21
We should have considered you natives, in fact I think we did but you happened to be natives with guns as opposed to spears, curse our fiendish luck

:headbang:

Well, yes, indeed, natives with guns, always a big pain in the * for the British. You could consider the Americans just like that as well ;)

And yes, Boeren Wars weren't nice :( Concentration camps, etc. :(
Barringtonia
20-01-2009, 15:25
Well, yes, indeed, natives with guns, always a big pain in the * for the British. You could consider the Americans just like that as well ;)

Quite, we had a poor record against guns.

And yes, Boeren Wars weren't nice :( Concentration camps, etc. :(

Indeed, I think if people considered the price paid for where we are in the world, there'd be less slapping ourselves on the back about having peaceful transitions as though that meant we were some form of superior being.

Prosperous stability often comes at a heavy price paid by others.
Eofaerwic
20-01-2009, 15:27
Well apart from the issue of the civil war, an of course the revolution to begin it all (as previous people have mentioned) there is the slight issue that the US is a LOT younger than, for example, most European nations. The UK (and it's precurssors) haven't had a revolution or coup since the Glorious Revolution (which was really parliament inviting in a new King more than anything) in 1688.

In contrast, when you're looking at nations of (more or less) the same age, well Canada, Australia and New Zealand haven't had coups either. Nor has Belgium since it's founding as an independent country in 1830 (though of course there was the issue of the world wars, those were outside invasions).
The Blaatschapen
20-01-2009, 15:28
Indeed, I think if people considered the price paid for where we are in the world, there'd be less slapping ourselves on the back about having peaceful transitions as though that meant we were some form of superior being.

Prosperous stability often comes at a heavy price paid by others.

Yup, wise words :) We got so far by blood, sweat and tears. But especially blood, lots of blood :(
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
20-01-2009, 15:30
Doesn't the American Revolution count as a coup?
There wasn't a US at the time of the American Revolution, sorry.
Cabra West
20-01-2009, 15:32
There wasn't a US at the time of the American Revolution, sorry.

Well, in that case, the Bundesrepublik Germany never had a coup either.
Neo Art
20-01-2009, 15:34
There wasn't a US at the time of the American Revolution, sorry.

that depends on who you ask though. Some would say the US existed the moment it declared itself independant.
The Blaatschapen
20-01-2009, 15:34
Does the Belgian revolution count as a coup in the Kingdom of the Netherlands? :p
Pure Metal
20-01-2009, 15:35
Has never ever had a military coup. All transitions between our leaders have been peaceful.

There almost no other countries on the planet where the change in power has come without any sort of bloodshed or rioting. In particular this is true of all third world countries. Even the British have had military coups in their past history as have the French and the Germans. Not to mention the Chinese and the Japanese.

Your thoughts on this?
us brits haven't had a military coup for longer than the USA has been a country.
Cabra West
20-01-2009, 15:36
us brits haven't had a military coup for longer than the USA has been a country.

Now that's just sheer laziness.
Eofaerwic
20-01-2009, 15:40
Well, in that case, the Bundesrepublik Germany never had a coup either.

Or technically the United Kingdom since prior to 1707 it was the seperate Kingdoms of England (which included Wales), Scotland and Ireland. It didn't become the United Kingdom of Great Britain till the act of the union (later Great Britian and Ireland then Great Britain and Northern Ireland).
Forsakia
20-01-2009, 15:40
There wasn't a US at the time of the American Revolution, sorry.

The OP just said America.
Pure Metal
20-01-2009, 15:41
Its because the American Constitution was created by angels sprinkling magic pixie dust on a blank sheet of paper. The document had divine inspiration, and created a perfect set of institutions so finely balanced that no group would ever have a grievance they felt they could not address democratically. Despite numerous tinkerings with the constitution by lesser beings, enough of the holy original document has been maintained to ensure that societal conflict has remained relatively low. God did it. Because he loves America.

awesome sarcastic post, my friend :hail:
sigged.

Now that's just sheer laziness.

we got tired out invading places ;)
Eofaerwic
20-01-2009, 16:12
we got tired out invading places ;)

That's hardly an excuse... France invaded places and still had time for a revolution. We obviously weren't trying hard enough.
Muravyets
20-01-2009, 16:19
Hi, have we met? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis)


OK, sure, we've never had a "military coup". We did have, however, a full on, drag out, full blown civil fucking war. Not to mention our very existance as a nation was brought out by, essentially, a violent opposition to ruling power.
This. ^

You have funded a few though
Also this. ^

Wow... The civil war, the revolution... And how was the transition of JFK to Johnson peaceful?
And this. ^ And he wasn't the only one.

Revolution, civil war, and multiple assassinations, plus instigating the same among our neighbors, yet we're getting bitched at because we haven't had a coup at home yet? Geez-gods, there's just no pleasing some people.
One-O-One
20-01-2009, 16:22
Is there a great nation in the world the UK didn't try and invade at some point? It's for your own good.:tongue:

What do you mean for our own good? I still consider myself English...and Irish...and Scottish. You insenstive clod!
Muravyets
20-01-2009, 16:23
We should have considered you natives, in fact I think we did but you happened to be natives with guns as opposed to spears, curse our fiendish luck

:headbang:

Well, yes, indeed, natives with guns, always a big pain in the * for the British. You could consider the Americans just like that as well ;)

I see a new meme abourning. :D
One-O-One
20-01-2009, 16:25
Well, yes, indeed, natives with guns, always a big pain in the * for the British. You could consider the Americans just like that as well ;)

And yes, Boeren Wars weren't nice :( Concentration camps, etc. :(

Psh! My great grandfather lived through the Boer wars! Sure, he was on the British side, but he also went to Galipoli, and the only reason he got sent home is because he was too old!
Ferrous Oxide
20-01-2009, 16:48
America

Is overrated.
East Canuck
20-01-2009, 16:56
Has never ever had a military coup. All transitions between our leaders have been peaceful.

There almost no other countries on the planet where the change in power has come without any sort of bloodshed or rioting. In particular this is true of all third world countries. Even the British have had military coups in their past history as have the French and the Germans. Not to mention the Chinese and the Japanese.

Your thoughts on this?

Who cares?
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
20-01-2009, 16:57
Well, in that case, the Bundesrepublik Germany never had a coup either.
Germany was already an independent, unified country when Hitler took over. America, on the other hand, was just a batch of rebellious colonies.
that depends on who you ask though. Some would say the US existed the moment it declared itself independant.
Those are the same jerks who think it is clever to say that George Washington wasn't the first president.
Until the American Revolution was complete and the Constitution was ratified, there was no US. Just a handful of colonies with pretensions of nationhood.
The OP just said America.
Well, then I've already lost the argument based on the 1 million+ South American coups.
Cabra West
20-01-2009, 16:59
Germany was already an independent, unified country when Hitler took over. America, on the other hand, was just a batch of rebellious colonies.


It was a country, but it wasn't the country that the Bundesrepublik is today. Neither in geology, nor politically.
The Blaatschapen
20-01-2009, 16:59
Psh! My great grandfather lived through the Boer wars! Sure, he was on the British side, but he also went to Galipoli, and the only reason he got sent home is because he was too old!

I'm currently living in a street named after a Boer, and all streets around my are named after Boeren :eek:

I don't know why I just told you that, but it's quite irrelevant as well :p
Cabra West
20-01-2009, 17:00
Well, then I've already lost the argument based on the 1 million+ South American coups.

I've pointed that out on page one, but it got ignored :(
Pure Metal
20-01-2009, 17:00
That's hardly an excuse... France invaded places and still had time for a revolution. We obviously weren't trying hard enough.

clearly not enough tea back then *nods*
Muravyets
20-01-2009, 17:03
Those are the same jerks who think it is clever to say that George Washington wasn't the first president.
Until the American Revolution was complete and the Constitution was ratified, there was no US. Just a handful of colonies with pretensions of nationhood.

Well, people can split that hair if that's what turns them on. I would argue that, if the colonies could be considered part of Britain (as in territories subject to British rule and largely populated by British citizens), then the revolution was a disruptive action against Great Britain. And as that act was committed for the express purpose of creating a new nation, and said new nation was created by the exact same people who committed the revolutionary action, then it is valid to include the revolution as part of US political history. If the revolutionaries had been superseded by other people who had not participated in the revolution, maybe it would be different, but they weren't, so it isn't.
Risottia
20-01-2009, 17:05
us brits haven't had a military coup for longer than the USA has been a country.

And, as usual, San Marino pwns all.
Ferrous Oxide
20-01-2009, 17:08
It was a country, but it wasn't the country that the Bundesrepublik is today. Neither in geology, nor politically.

There was no kryptonite in Germany before the FR.
Gift-of-god
20-01-2009, 17:11
Has any developed nation had a coup d'état since 1776?
Eofaerwic
20-01-2009, 17:12
And, as usual, San Marino pwns all.

Ssshhh, we don't like to talk about San Marino, it's like the really smart kid at the back of the class which always has the right answer but everyone tries to ignore because he makes them look bad :p

clearly not enough tea back then *nods*

Of course not... the Americans threw it all into the sea. :mad:
Eofaerwic
20-01-2009, 17:16
Has any developed nation had a coup d'état since 1776?

Psst, 1789 French Revolution, 1934 Germany with Hitler - not to mention Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy... pretty certain there was a dictator in Portugal for a while too, can't remember his name, all in the 20th Century and these were all, at the time, developed nations. So yes. There have been quite a few.
Ferrous Oxide
20-01-2009, 17:16
Has any developed nation had a coup d'état since 1776?

There have been several civil wars and revolutions. They're worse.
Cabra West
20-01-2009, 17:18
Psst, 1789 French Revolution, 1934 Germany with Hitler - not to mention Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy... pretty certain there was a dictator in Portugal for a while too, can't remember his name, all in the 20th Century and these were all, at the time, developed nations. So yes. There have been quite a few.

I'm sorry to say it, but Hitler was in fact democratically elected. Nothing he did to get to power and remain there went against German law at any point.
Ferrous Oxide
20-01-2009, 17:20
I'm sorry to say it, but Hitler was in fact democratically elected. Nothing he did to get to power and remain there went against German law at any point.

Actually, Hitler was appointed. And I'm almost positive there would have been some shady stuff in there. Didn't he burn down the Reichstag.
Muravyets
20-01-2009, 17:23
Psst, 1789 French Revolution, 1934 Germany with Hitler - not to mention Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy... pretty certain there was a dictator in Portugal for a while too, can't remember his name, all in the 20th Century and these were all, at the time, developed nations. So yes. There have been quite a few.
What about Russia 1917? They maybe were not developed the way North America and Europe are, but they were hardly a "banana republic" or a colony, either. As dysfunctional as czarist Russia was, it was still an imperial power on the world stage.
Cabra West
20-01-2009, 17:25
Actually, Hitler was appointed. And I'm almost positive there would have been some shady stuff in there. Didn't he burn down the Reichstag.

Well, his party got elected and German protocol then demanded that the president appoint the leader of the winning party as chancellor... a technicality that's still in effect, I believe.

As for the Reichstag, if you have any conclusive evidence either way, please do publicise it, historians would be forever grateful to have that case solved.
The Nazis accused the Communists, the Communists accused the Nazis, and all evidence got buried in polemics.

Besides, it's hardly a coup to burn down a parliament building after you've been elected, is it?
Cabra West
20-01-2009, 17:26
What about Russia 1917? They maybe were not developed the way North America and Europe are, but they were hardly a "banana republic" or a colony, either. As dysfunctional as czarist Russia was, it was still an imperial power on the world stage.

The Junta in Greece deserves mention as well, I would say.
Risottia
20-01-2009, 17:27
Has any developed nation had a coup d'état since 1776?

Czechoslovakia 1948. Greece 1967. Chile 1973. Argentina 1976. None of these countries was an underdeveloped nation when the coup happened.
The Blaatschapen
20-01-2009, 17:28
As for the Reichstag, if you have any conclusive evidence either way, please do publicise it, historians would be forever grateful to have that case solved.
The Nazis accused the Communists, the Communists accused the Nazis, and all evidence got buried in polemics.

Ah yes, a dutch communist was convicted for it, Marinus van der Lubbe. Quite recently he has been pardoned for it.
Ferrous Oxide
20-01-2009, 17:29
What about Russia 1917? They maybe were not developed the way North America and Europe are, but they were hardly a "banana republic" or a colony, either. As dysfunctional as czarist Russia was, it was still an imperial power on the world stage.

It was a feudal state! It was a power, but it definitely wasn't "developed".
Ferrous Oxide
20-01-2009, 17:30
Besides, it's hardly a coup to burn down a parliament building after you've been elected, is it?

It's still illegal.
Cabra West
20-01-2009, 17:31
Ah yes, a dutch communist was convicted for it, Marinus van der Lubbe. Quite recently he has been pardoned for it.

I don't assume he lived to see his pardon, did he? :(

People have been accusing the Nazis because they gained the most from the event politically. But to my eyes that's the same as blaming Bush for the planes hitting the WTC. It got him re-elected, after all.... that still doesn't mean he planned it.
Cabra West
20-01-2009, 17:31
It's still illegal.

So is stealing chewing gum. It's still not quite on the same level as violently overthrowing a government...
Risottia
20-01-2009, 17:31
Psst, 1789 French Revolution, 1934 Germany with Hitler - not to mention Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy... pretty certain there was a dictator in Portugal for a while too, can't remember his name, all in the 20th Century and these were all, at the time, developed nations. So yes. There have been quite a few.

The French Revolution wasn't technically a coup d'etat (it requires, generally, the involvement of a restricted group having control on part of the military).
Franco: the process was too long to call it a proper coup: civil war, instead.
As for Salazar's Portugal, I cannot remember.
Mussolini and Hitler became dictators through more or less legal methods (Hitler was given dictatorial powers by the parliament through the Enabling Act, and Mussolini was appointed PM by the King and won a parliamentary confidence vote).
South Lorenya
20-01-2009, 17:31
...you can also argue that Canada has a political civil war...
Trilateral Commission
20-01-2009, 17:32
It was a feudal state! It was a power, but it definitely wasn't "developed".

It was the world's fastest growing industrial economy at the time.
The Blaatschapen
20-01-2009, 17:33
I don't assume he lived to see his pardon, did he? :(


Not really, he got the death sentence and died in 1934. The pardon happened in 2008 :(
Risottia
20-01-2009, 17:34
It was a feudal state! It was a power, but it definitely wasn't "developed".

Wait: when the Bolshevik Party seized power, Russia wasn't a monarchy anymore. It was a republic.

wiki:Russia

The February Revolution overthrew the Russian monarchy, which was replaced by a shaky coalition of political parties that declared itself the Provisional Government. The abdication marked the end of imperial rule in Russia...
Ferrous Oxide
20-01-2009, 17:34
It was the world's fastest growing industrial economy at the time.

At the time of the revolution, 10% of the population were workers. Almost all the rest were peasants.
greed and death
20-01-2009, 17:35
Has any developed nation had a coup d'état since 1776?

depends on what you call developed.
The us in 1777 was a backwards country striving to survive British efforts to retake us. At the time the North American colonies were worth less then Caribbean colonies (we won only because the French threatened those colonies and the Brits decided to focus their effort where it was more important.)
Ferrous Oxide
20-01-2009, 17:35
Wait: when the Bolshevik Party seized power, Russia wasn't a monarchy anymore. It was a republic.

wiki:Russia

The February Revolution overthrew the Russian monarchy, which was replaced by a shaky coalition of political parties that declared itself the Provisional Government. The abdication marked the end of imperial rule in Russia...

Even so.
Eofaerwic
20-01-2009, 17:36
What about Russia 1917? They maybe were not developed the way North America and Europe are, but they were hardly a "banana republic" or a colony, either. As dysfunctional as czarist Russia was, it was still an imperial power on the world stage.

I wasn't trying to make an exhaustive list :P but yes, Russia too (even if it was an absolutist monarchy at the time, it was still developed)

I'm sorry to say it, but Hitler was in fact democratically elected. Nothing he did to get to power and remain there went against German law at any point.

Arguably banning other political parties could be taken as a coup, yes it was all done 'legally' but then a lot of coups are, using populist policies and legalistic loop-holes. I guess it depends on how you want to define a coup. But, agreed, it wasn't a military coup as such.
Trilateral Commission
20-01-2009, 17:36
At the time of the revolution, 10% of the population were workers. Almost all the rest were peasants.

How does that change the fact it was the world's fastest growing industrial economy at the time? For example Russia's steel production in 1914 equalled major Western European powers and was on a pace to overtake them.
Ferrous Oxide
20-01-2009, 17:38
How does that change the fact it was the world's fastest growing industrial economy at the time? For example Russia's steel production in 1914 equalled major Western European powers and was on a pace to overtake them.

That makes them a developing nation, not a developed nation.
Trilateral Commission
20-01-2009, 17:39
That makes them a developing nation, not a developed nation.

I never claimed it was a developed nation.
Gift-of-god
20-01-2009, 17:40
Psst, 1789 French Revolution, 1934 Germany with Hitler - not to mention Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy... pretty certain there was a dictator in Portugal for a while too, can't remember his name, all in the 20th Century and these were all, at the time, developed nations. So yes. There have been quite a few.

1967 Greece.
1981 Spain. Attempted.
1974 Portugal. Bloodless and installed a democracy.
1970 Italy. Attempted.
1958 France. Threat of violence only.
1923 Germany. attempted.
1926 Portugal
1910 Portugal.

Plus what you found.
Ferrous Oxide
20-01-2009, 17:42
I never claimed it was a developed nation.

Then what's the point of this argument?
Eofaerwic
20-01-2009, 17:42
The French Revolution wasn't technically a coup d'etat (it requires, generally, the involvement of a restricted group having control on part of the military).
Franco: the process was too long to call it a proper coup: civil war, instead.
As for Salazar's Portugal, I cannot remember.
Mussolini and Hitler became dictators through more or less legal methods (Hitler was given dictatorial powers by the parliament through the Enabling Act, and Mussolini was appointed PM by the King and won a parliamentary confidence vote).

Certainly the first two were violent transitions of power, if you start arguing about technicalities of coups aren't we going to effectively restrict coup so much as to be an effectively meaningless term.

The latter two were accompanied by bloodshed and rioting... which I believe is what the OP was talking about, though I will admit they did come to power legally.
Trilateral Commission
20-01-2009, 17:46
Then what's the point of this argument?

You claimed it was a feudal society which I disputed.
Ferrous Oxide
20-01-2009, 17:47
You claimed it was a feudal society which I disputed.

It was! What do you call the fricken serfs!?
Trilateral Commission
20-01-2009, 17:57
It was! What do you call the fricken serfs!?

Uh, serfdom was abolished in the mid 19th century because the government wanted to undertake free-market-oriented reforms allowing peasants to migrate to look for wage-paying jobs in industries. Peasants were no longer tied to the land, and freedom of migration is essential to any modern free market economy. The situation in 1914 Russia was analogous with the recent Chinese attempts at free market reform. There's no feudalism in it.
The blessed Chris
20-01-2009, 17:59
Uh, serfdom was abolished in the mid 19th century because the government wanted to undertake free-market-oriented reforms allowing peasants to migrate to look for wage-paying jobs in industries. Peasants were no longer tied to the land, and freedom of migration is essential to any modern free market economy. The situation in 1914 Russia was analogous with the recent Chinese attempts at free market reform. There's no feudalism in it.

1860's if memory serves. However, the peasantry were hardly free; whatever nominal liberties they were accorded, the interest rates, and rate of repayment, exacted by the national bank ensured that the peasantry were required to remain on their original lands for much of the following 50 years.
Ferrous Oxide
20-01-2009, 17:59
It's been too long since I did the Russian Rev. But then, what the hell were the peasants annoyed about?
Trilateral Commission
20-01-2009, 18:03
It's been too long since I did the Russian Rev. But then, what the hell were the peasants annoyed about?

The Russian Revolution would never have happened if the Tsarist government did not get involved in WWI.
Trilateral Commission
20-01-2009, 18:05
1860's if memory serves. However, the peasantry were hardly free; whatever nominal liberties they were accorded, the interest rates, and rate of repayment, exacted by the national bank ensured that the peasantry were required to remain on their original lands for much of the following 50 years.

That's why free market reforms were stepped up by the Stolypin administration in the early 1900s.
Myrmidonisia
20-01-2009, 18:31
which is relevant...how?
I just restated the OP's thesis. I'm sure you'd like to have a different nit to pick.
Ferrous Oxide
20-01-2009, 18:34
The Russian Revolution would never have happened if the Tsarist government did not get involved in WWI.

It might have. It was a long time coming.
Truly Blessed
20-01-2009, 18:41
As did Cuba, Mexico, The US, and probably several others.

Canada hasnt had one, as far as i know at least.

;)

Canada has also not had a Civil war.
Risottia
20-01-2009, 18:44
How does that change the fact it was the world's fastest growing industrial economy at the time? For example Russia's steel production in 1914 equalled major Western European powers and was on a pace to overtake them.

Also I wouldn't call "underdeveloped" Tsarist Russia. Think of the culture and of the science. Scientifical conquests we're living on still today: Mendeleev, Lobac'evskij, Tsjolkovskij...

Yes, they were the most socially backwards of the european powers, but the top fringes of society were on par with the rest of Europe.
Risottia
20-01-2009, 18:45
The Russian Revolution would never have happened if the Tsarist government did not get involved in WWI.

Dunno. What about 1905?
Yootopia
20-01-2009, 18:46
Is "great nation" status achieved via territory, demography, or some other means?
"Whether we have invaded, thus causing friendly rivalry / horrific bloodshed forevermore."
Also, which ones do count as such?
Most of Europe, the US, China sometimes, India I suppose. Not Canada, its accents are too whimsical for it to be a real world player, eh.
Trilateral Commission
20-01-2009, 18:49
Dunno. What about 1905?

1905 is a normal occurrence in an industrializing society, like the Pullman Strike in the US or Tiananmen Square in China. These disturbances don't inevitably lead to bolshevik revolution. Furthermore 1905 would have been a lot more manageable if if the Tsarist government hadn't just gone to, and lost, a war with Japan.
Dorksonian
20-01-2009, 18:50
It is truly interesting to me that threads like this turn into little more than America bashing. Call me an idiot and bash me about as you please, you will anyway; but I love this country, with ALL HER FAULTS. Your bashing won't change that.
Knights of Liberty
20-01-2009, 18:52
It is truly interesting to me that threads like this turn into little more than America bashing.

Since when are threads like this anything but? Some people cant help it.


Its sad, I know.
Yootopia
20-01-2009, 18:54
1905 is a normal occurrence in an industrializing society, like the Pullman Strike in the US or Tiananmen Square in China. These disturbances don't inevitably lead to bolshevik revolution. Furthermore 1905 would have been a lot more manageable if if the Tsarist government hadn't just gone to, and lost, a war with Japan.
Not really, no. It caused the extremely authoritarian Tsar at the time to slightly liberalise society, which basically paved the way for the Bolsheviks.
Dorksonian
20-01-2009, 18:55
Since when are threads like this anything but? Some people cant help it.


Its sad, I know.

Agreed.
Eofaerwic
20-01-2009, 19:04
It is truly interesting to me that threads like this turn into little more than America bashing. Call me an idiot and bash me about as you please, you will anyway; but I love this country, with ALL HER FAULTS. Your bashing won't change that.

How is this thread bashing America? Yes, a few posts (there always will be dicks) but mostly it appears to be refuting a false statement by indicating other circumstances which go against it. In fact currently we seem to be discussing modern coups and whether Tsarist Russia could be considered "developed".

Unless of course indicating that a statement about the awesomeness of the US is probably wrong or at least a false comparison is bashing it?
The Blaatschapen
20-01-2009, 19:06
It is truly interesting to me that threads like this turn into little more than America bashing. Call me an idiot and bash me about as you please, you will anyway; but I love this country, with ALL HER FAULTS. Your bashing won't change that.

I'm not bashing America, I (among some others) am merely pointing out the incorrect claims of the OP. If you call that bashing, go ahead, I call it discussion :)
Risottia
20-01-2009, 19:07
1905 is a normal occurrence in an industrializing society, like the Pullman Strike in the US or Tiananmen Square in China. These disturbances don't inevitably lead to bolshevik revolution. Furthermore 1905 would have been a lot more manageable if if the Tsarist government hadn't just gone to, and lost, a war with Japan.

Not to bolshevik revolution, but maybe to a republic. Like in March 1917.
DaWoad
20-01-2009, 19:13
Has never ever had a military coup. All transitions between our leaders have been peaceful.

There almost no other countries on the planet where the change in power has come without any sort of bloodshed or rioting. In particular this is true of all third world countries. Even the British have had military coups in their past history as have the French and the Germans. Not to mention the Chinese and the Japanese.

Your thoughts on this?
Canada
Dorksonian
20-01-2009, 19:24
Wow... The civil war, the revolution... And how was the transition of JFK to Johnson peaceful?

1. War Between The States - the Presidency never changed hands, in fact Mr. Lincoln was reelected in a free and democratic election.

2. American Revolution - No president to exchange leadership to.

3. Presidential succession from #35 to #36, all according to the constitution.
Neo Art
20-01-2009, 19:26
1. War Between The States - the Presidency never changed hands, in fact Mr. Lincoln was reelected in a free and democratic election.

Except for all those states that considered themselves under the leadership of Jefferson Davis....
Dorksonian
20-01-2009, 19:27
Except for all those states that considered themselves under the leadership of Jefferson Davis....

Davis was elected by representatives of the fledgling CSA.
Neo Art
20-01-2009, 19:30
Davis was elected by representatives of the fledgling CSA.

your point being? You argued that "the presidency never changed hands". The fact that there was quite strong disagreement over exactly who was president over those 11 states seemes to make some trouble for that point.
Dorksonian
20-01-2009, 19:32
your point being?

Refuting post #99
Neo Art
20-01-2009, 19:33
Refuting post #99

Post #99 stated:

Except for all those states that considered themselves under the leadership of Jefferson Davis....

Your statement of:

Davis was elected by representatives of the fledgling CSA.

Does nothing what so ever to refute that. I'm not sure you know what the word "refute" means.
Gravlen
20-01-2009, 19:39
Has never ever had a military coup. All transitions between our leaders have been peaceful.

There almost no other countries on the planet where the change in power has come without any sort of bloodshed or rioting. In particular this is true of all third world countries. Even the British have had military coups in their past history as have the French and the Germans. Not to mention the Chinese and the Japanese.

Your thoughts on this?
I'm not sure I understand what you want to debate...

It is truly interesting to me that threads like this turn into little more than America bashing. Call me an idiot and bash me about as you please, you will anyway; but I love this country, with ALL HER FAULTS. Your bashing won't change that.

- "America has never ever had a military coup. All transitions between our leaders have been peaceful."
- "Well, actually, that's debatable..."
- "STOP BASHING AMERICA!!!"

Huh? :confused:
Neo Art
20-01-2009, 19:40
I'm not sure I understand what you want to debate...



- "America has never ever had a military coup. All transitions between our leaders have been peaceful."
- "Well, actually, that's debatable..."
- "STOP BASHING AMERICA!!!"

Huh? :confused:

why do you hate freedom?
Behaved
20-01-2009, 19:46
erica rhymes with america. we are not a racist country. look at us BO is our president now and he is half-black. a minority race member as head of state. no more bush!:D that's the best part
Dyakovo
20-01-2009, 20:37
I don't know... Nicaragua had a military coup I thought? I'm pretty sure Chile did, and I know for a fact that Argentina did.
So I think your statement is quite incorrect, sorry.

You are being intentionally dense I think...

He was listing countries and you decide that when he says America he is referring to 2 continents? :rolleyes:
Dyakovo
20-01-2009, 20:38
Well, the Civil War can be seen as a military attempt of sorts.

Also, why go for a coup when you can rig elections? 2000 and 2004 come to my mind.

Care to provide proof of those elections being rigged?
East Canuck
20-01-2009, 20:45
You are being intentionally dense I think...

He was listing countries and you decide that when he says America he is referring to 2 continents? :rolleyes:

Serves him right for not being clear, ain't it? America is not a nation, as far as I know. But then I'm amazed that a decent discussion emerged from that particular OP.
East Canuck
20-01-2009, 20:48
It is truly interesting to me that threads like this turn into little more than America bashing. Call me an idiot and bash me about as you please, you will anyway; but I love this country, with ALL HER FAULTS. Your bashing won't change that.

I fail to see the "America bashing". Care to point it out.

Also, kindly refrain from starting threads saying that America is great and we'll refrain from starting threads saying America sucks.
Dyakovo
20-01-2009, 20:56
Serves him right for not being clear, ain't it? America is not a nation, as far as I know. But then I'm amazed that a decent discussion emerged from that particular OP.

Try again...
United States of America, commonly referred to in English as America rather like the United Mexican States is commonly referred to as Mexico.
East Canuck
20-01-2009, 20:58
Try again...
United States of America, commonly referred to in English as America rather like the United Mexican States is commonly referred to as Mexico.

United States of America is a nation.
America is a continent.

Always had, always will.
Yootopia
20-01-2009, 21:02
erica rhymes with america. we are not a racist country. look at us BO is our president now and he is half-black. a minority race member as head of state. no more bush!:D that's the best part
He barely passes the paper bag test.
Neo Art
20-01-2009, 21:04
United States of America is a nation.
America is a continent.

Always had, always will.

No. North America is a continent. South America is a continent. The Americas is the geographic region comprised of the lands of the western hemisphere, which includes North America, South America, and the Caribbean.
Dyakovo
20-01-2009, 21:05
United States of America is a nation.
America is a continent.

Always had, always will.

Not if you base what the continents are based on continental plates, it is North America and South America (two separate continental plates)
East Canuck
20-01-2009, 21:13
No. North America is a continent. South America is a continent. The Americas is the geographic region comprised of the lands of the western hemisphere, which includes North America, South America, and the Caribbean.

Not if you base what the continents are based on continental plates, it is North America and South America (two separate continental plates)

Before it goes farther, let me just say that there's no consensus on continents as America is seen as one or two continents depending on where you live. The number of continents is also up for some debate and I don't feel like going toe to toe with y'all about it. Check wiki, you'll be surprised. I always learned it as ONE continent so I'm not convinced.

Let's just say that the OP was vague, poorly worded and go on with whether Russia was actually developped in 1905.
Gift-of-god
20-01-2009, 21:14
Not if you base what the continents are based on continental plates, it is North America and South America (two separate continental plates)

Which is why parts of California are not considered part of the NA continent, but large parts of Russia are.

Oh, wait...
Dyakovo
20-01-2009, 21:17
The number of continents is also up for some debate

I am well aware of that...

The seven-continent model is usually taught in Western Europe, Northern Europe, Central Europe, Southeastern Europe, China and most English-speaking countries. The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is preferred by the geographic community, Russia, Eastern Europe, and Japan. The six-continent combined-America model is taught in Latin America, Iran and some parts of Europe including Iberian Peninsula and Greece. This model may be taught to include only the five inhabited continents (excluding Antarctica)[20][21] — as depicted in the Olympic logo.
Dyakovo
20-01-2009, 21:24
Which is why parts of California are not considered part of the NA continent, but large parts of Russia are.

Oh, wait...

Take a gander...

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Plate_tectonics_map.gif

Nice try though
Gift-of-god
20-01-2009, 21:27
Take a gander...

...snipped image...

Nice try though

And that image confirms that parts of Russia are on the NA plate, while those portions of California west of the San Andreas fault line are not.

Yes, it was a nice try on my part. And a successful one!
Varagian Mercenaries
20-01-2009, 21:32
Before it goes farther, let me just say that there's no consensus on continents as America is seen as one or two continents depending on where you live. The number of continents is also up for some debate and I don't feel like going toe to toe with y'all about it. Check wiki, you'll be surprised. I always learned it as ONE continent so I'm not convinced.

Let's just say that the OP was vague, poorly worded and go on with whether Russia was actually developped in 1905.
As in a developed country or as in created as a nation in 1905?
Dyakovo
20-01-2009, 21:41
Let's just say that the OP was vague, poorly worded and go on with whether Russia was actually developed in 1905.

I'd have to say that no it wasn't... It at the least was not an industrialized nation at that point.
Gravlen
20-01-2009, 21:46
why do you hate freedom?

Because it violates the first principle. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the amusing writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher and "Playboy of the year 1979" Ayn Rand. :wink:
Tmutarakhan
20-01-2009, 21:51
Care to provide proof of those elections being rigged?
You could dredge in the graveyard for threads about the topic if you are really interested, which I doubt you are. I am one of those who is convinced that Bush was never the rightful President in the first place, but there never seems to be enough common ground even on basic facts let alone principles for discussions about it to get anywhere.
Dyakovo
20-01-2009, 21:54
You could dredge in the graveyard for threads about the topic if you are really interested, which I doubt you are. I am one of those who is convinced that Bush was never the rightful President in the first place, but there never seems to be enough common ground even on basic facts let alone principles for discussions about it to get anywhere.

So I should have to search for proof of someone else's claim?
UnitedStatesOfAmerica-
24-01-2009, 02:43
Try again...
United States of America, commonly referred to in English as America rather like the United Mexican States is commonly referred to as Mexico.

It's United States of Mexico. Just like it's United States of America. For short hand, most people call USA "America" and most people call USM "Mexico".

There will always be people out there who claim that America is not a legit nation just like there will always be people who claim that Israel has no right to exist.

Still, using the word "America" to infer the continents, rather than the country was clever. Then again, Latin America, except for the canal, was never part of the US, even though we illegally intefered there a few times. Past is prologue????

There was no one bashing America in this thread.

I posted this topic because I wanted to know what people thought.
UnitedStatesOfAmerica-
24-01-2009, 02:45
Not if you base what the continents are based on continental plates, it is North America and South America (two separate continental plates)

What were they considered before continental plates were discovered? South America does connect to North America via Panama. Or it did until we Americans dug a nice little ditch there and filled it with water whereby seperating the two.
UnitedStatesOfAmerica-
24-01-2009, 02:49
I am well aware of that...

Actually then it would be 5 continents because Europe connects to asia and NA is connected to SA. But then again you have to bear in mind that Africa is connect, by land, to Asia also. So we actually have only 4 continents.
Australia
Antartica
America
Eurasia/Africa Supercontinent.

However, that does not seem to be how people are taught anywhere.
Xocotl Constellation
24-01-2009, 05:12
Hi, have we met? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis)

OK, sure, we've never had a "military coup". We did have, however, a full on, drag out, full blown civil fucking war. Not to mention our very existance as a nation was brought out by, essentially, a violent opposition to ruling power.

Good one, but I was thinking of Aaron Burr's Conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr_conspiracy)
Miami Shores
24-01-2009, 07:04
Has never ever had a military coup. All transitions between our leaders have been peaceful.

There almost no other countries on the planet where the change in power has come without any sort of bloodshed or rioting. In particular this is true of all third world countries. Even the British have had military coups in their past history as have the French and the Germans. Not to mention the Chinese and the Japanese.

Your thoughts on this?

I once saw the last few minutes of a serious movie not a comedy movie where America had been taken over by a fascist military dictatorship. I dont know the name of the movie as I have never been able to find the movie.
Forsakia
24-01-2009, 11:31
Still, using the word "America" to infer the continents, rather than the country was clever. Then again, Latin America, except for the canal, was never part of the US, even though we illegally intefered there a few times. Past is prologue????.

Actually I think this argument started off from me using the word, and I was referring to the area historically, including when they were the colonies etc.