You must log in or # to comment.
It’s interesting that by not punishing the Confederacy hard enough we ended up with racism and the rise of facism.
By punishing Germany too hard (post WW1)…we ended up with racism and the rise of facism.
Of course I would argue that there is a vast middle ground, but still interesting.
But by punishing Germany right after WWII, we got a good result. Take notes.
Also, the treaty of Versailles was in no way unusual for the time. Fellow Central Powers Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire lost far more than Germany did. Hell, the Germans imposed a harsher treaty on Russia in very same war
I had a history teacher who argued that the real problem of the treaty of Versailles was that neither the US nor the UK were willing to actually back it. The US wanted nothing to do with European politics and even refused to join the League of Nations, while the UK was afraid of France taking too much of a lead as a European power. The result was France feeling isolated and wanting to crush Germany’s spirit to protect itself rather than striving for compromise.
All of this, of course, should be taken with a big grain of salt since the teacher in question was French right-winger who had every reason to find excuses for France
“If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.”
It’s almost like, no matter what we do, they’re gonna say “Look what you made me do!”
How many lynchings would have been prevented if they’d used those ropes on confederate leaders?
There were no allied boots on the ground in Berlin after the war in WW1. Physiologically, the Germans didn’t feel that they lost, but were somehow betrayed.
That didn’t happen in WW2. A brutal occupation happened, particularly the East. They saw their war leaders hung and they were dependant on the victors for bread. They were left in no doubt that they lost the war.
Consequences.
No more half measures, Walter.
Deserved…
To be lynched for treason
In Victoria 3, after the civil war you get a reconstruction journal entry. At the beginning of the game the US has 2 primary cultures. Dixie and Yankee. Winning as the north removes Dixie. If you want Dixie back, you have to do the normal entry and appease them historically. If you don’t, you lose them forever. This is meaningless. The US’s discrimination is on racial segregation. Since Yankee is of European origin, it means you won’t discriminate against them, they are too similar. You need to backtrack to supremacy or go to ethnostate. Having Dixie means nothing if you have Yankee.
On the other hand if you always give them the finger and maximize “failing” something else happens. Half failing gives you nothing, but if you give the south the absolute finger, you get Afro American as a primary. This means that under racial segregation, you don’t discriminate against people of European or African descent. This is crazy better. Later in the game you still want to lessen discrimination, but in the mid game, you will be vacuuming up both European and African population. Not hating black people is a huge advantage.
What even is the benefit of racial segregation at all (in the game; IRL there is literally none)?
Basically the game simulates social groups and their dynamics of power. If the most influential groups of your society are in favor of segregation, you might not be able to pass a law to ban it and, even if you do, you risk serious consequences up to straight-up civil war. So segregation has no benefits in the game and even hurts your economy since discriminated groups contribute less, but the social dynamics can make it hard to end it
The benefit could be argued it’s not as bad as “ethnostate”. Really the default is between ethnostate and racial segregation. So it’s “beneficial” compared to being German and punching Frenchmen. Or being north German and punching south Germans. (Being more honest. If there is a benefit in game, it gives you a little more authority in the government to pass decrees as well. The more racist your (accepted) people the more they accept what you tell them. That’s not worth it though. There are better ways to increase government authority too. Also America kind of sucks for this more than small nations anyway.)
You want to get to multiculturalism, which eliminates most discrimination effects. It’s only the mid game ,where it’s very hard to get to multiculturalism, where you benefit from having 2 accepted cultures. If the accepted cultures are both European it makes no difference and there isn’t a benefit to having 2 cultures. It would be pretty white washy if they removed racism from a game in the 1800s. One of your goals should be to reduce it as much as possible.
Didn’t they just want to separate from the Union? Isn’t that something they’re allowed to do? I know nothing of US history, so forgive my lack of knowledge
The civil war confirmed it is not a right of the states to secede. We’re the united states, not the loosely affiliated states. Joining is optional, but leaving is impossible.
what about schmeceding? has any state tried that?
They wanted to secede from the union to preserve their rights to enslave people. I’m from South Carolina, my ancestors fought for the South, and I say the bastards got off far too easily.
Alabama born and bred, should have hung every land holding slaver along the through fares as a fucking warning to future generations even if that means I wouldn’t have existed.
I hope that my people would have been on the learning side and not the example side (if not somehow pro-Union), but I would tend to agree if it weren’t for my son. Of course, the fact that I married an African-American and have a biracial son is a nice middle finger to any racist ancestors.
Sure, but regardless of their reason for wanting to secede, it was within their rights to do so, right? Like the whole reason for the union was that it was a union of the willing, right? So was the secession actually legal or illegal, given the law at the time?
Someone further down mentioned that the war made it illegal, but the short version is that the south started the war by attacking a federally held fort that was in their territory. If they had never attacked the Union itself, who knows what could have happened. Once the war was on, there was no turning back.
Ok but I wasn’t asking about a war. I was asking if they had the legal right to secede at the time. Correct me if I’m wrong, but your war happened after those states seceded, right? So, forgive my ignorance of the space-time continuum, but that makes the results of the war completely irrelevant to my question, wouldn’t it?
At the time that they seceded, there were no explicit provisions against secession (although it was against convention, the spirit of the law, etc.). The reason I mentioned the war is because they started the war and lost it, which resulted in those legal provisions banning secession being passed. The legal change was the result of the war, after the fact.
Like the whole reason for the union was that it was a union of the willing, right?
Not really, no. That was more the idea of the Articles of Confederation, which the Constitution (and thus the Union) replaced.
So was the secession actually legal or illegal, given the law at the time?
There was no provision for secession in US law, and while the legality of secession had not formally been decided on by the Supreme Court at the time, neither was there a serious attempt to go through legal channels - most likely because even the extremely Southern-biased Supreme Court of 1860 still would not have recognized any right to secession.
Thank you for the serious answer.
