based

Based mod

👍

Yes, democrazy is better than all other political structures except:
-Monarchism
-Feudalism
-Republicanism
-Fascism
-Anarchy
-Literally any other political ethos other than communism (which is way worse)

You returned, you elaborated 👎

Imagine thinking nazism is the only form of fascism. (Nazism is f**king cringe racist bille)

...Or perhaps you confuse logistical superiority with ideological superiority in battle which makes no sense? (i.e. WW2 being won through superiority the available of resources of logistics)

And if ideology was so superior that it alone was solely responsible for your 21st century victory, then why was Caesar and Octavian able to defeat the armies of democracy, plutocracy and corruption?

Note I referenced the “Axis.” Not only Nazi Germany, but the various fascist states aligned with it, as well as occupied collaborator states like Vichy France.

Sure, you can try to blame logistics (though Germany’s logistics and organization were quite good), as well as strategic and tactical errors. Yes, Germany made mistakes, but so did the allies.

But WWII was a very ideological war. Ideas of democracy, fascism/Nazism, and communism all motivated their respective sides. You can’t write it out of the equation.

Hitler made the same blunder that Putin’s making now, and that China may make at some point — namely, that democracies are weak and effeminate, will keel over at the first engagement, and will surrender or sue for peace rather than fight.

How’d that work out?

Rome was a very long time ago — the domination it achieved over a long period of time will probably never be replicated. I would suggest that any “democracies” that existed at that time were archaic and had features, like slavery, that don’t satisfy a modern definition of a democracy. It’s hard to map ancient political systems onto today.

>Note I referenced the “Axis.” Not only Nazi Germany, but the various fascist states aligned with it, as well as occupied collaborator states like Vichy France.

Yes, that's what 'the axis forces' mean lol

>Sure, you can try to blame logistics (though Germany’s logistics and organization were quite good), as well as strategic and tactical errors. Yes, Germany made mistakes, but so did the allies.

Bad logistics did lead to Germany's defeat. Ask any historian worth their salt and they'll tell you Germany and the axis couldn't win the war no matter how good their forces or 'wonder weapons' were. The allies had far worse troops by quality and skill in battle on average and the Germans destroyed them in combat (Look at fatality rates per battle) but the allies had overwhelming logistical capabilities that wore down the axis.
It helped that we armed the Soviets with a constant weapons resupply and vital materials for their incredibly big military.

>Hitler made the same blunder that Putin’s making now, and that China may make at some point — namely, that democracies are weak and effeminate, will keel over at the first engagement, and will surrender or sue for peace rather than fight.

That wasn't Hitler's mistake. Hitler lost when he fooled himself into believing that no matter the odds the German soldier faced he could win any fight, even with no weapons, ammo or food against armoured units in open field and dug in the mud. Hitler's flaw was his own faith in his 'superior' forces and not logistics of fighting.
Putin may believe that democracy will cave in the end, and he may be correct in this instance but we've yet to see whether or not he was right on that calculation. We'll see...

>How’d that work out?

Hitler inevitably lost. Putin and Xi may win the next war of attrition though. We'll see...

>Rome was a very long time ago — the domination it achieved over a long period of time will probably never be replicated. I would suggest that any “democracies” that existed at that time were archaic and had features, like slavery, that don’t satisfy a modern definition of a democracy. It’s hard to map ancient political systems onto today.

It makes no difference to the point I was making. You made the immature assumption that ideology is what won the war and not logistics and manpower. I used an instance from history where your claim was disproved (I haven't mentioned Franco won or that the democrats in China were beaten by the Chinese communists) for instance.

Hitler’s insane and self-defeating ideas about Aryan superiority may have been esoteric, but they underscore the error of concentrating state power in one man — be that in a dictatorship or a monarchy. If it’s not Aryan superiority, then inevitably, it’s some other personal fixation of the Dear Leader that undoes the nation. Like Putin’s overriding belief in a greater “Russian world” where he ought to be allowed to stomp his troops about as he pleases, and Xi Jinping’s personal fixation on Taiwanese unification.

Even authoritarian systems are capable of distributing power more broadly, to a council or a Politburo for instance, but power in both Russia and China increasingly appears to be dangerously concentrated at the very top — as it was in Hitler’s Germany.

Spanish Civil War: Franco’s nationalists won and established a fascist state — he wisely stayed out of WWII (which, it’s fair to speculate, would have destroyed him), and clung to power a few more decades, but in the end, democracy prevailed in Spain. The Latin America region tells a similar story — democracy and dictatorship vying for control, but with an overall trend toward democracy.

Chinese Civil War: The Nationalists were not democrats, exactly. They were more similar to the anti-communist authoritarians found in other countries around the world whom the West backed during the Cold War because of the overriding objective of stopping the spread of communism. The brutality of the Nationalists is one reason they didn’t win hearts and minds in the contest with the Communists. The Nationalists lost the mainland and retreated to Taiwan, but Taiwan continued as a dictatorship under martial law and it would be several decades before Taiwan evolved into the modern democracy it is today. You could say similar things about South Korea’s political trajectory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Taiwan)

>Hitler’s insane and self-defeating ideas about Aryan superiority may have been esoteric, but they underscore the error of concentrating state power in one man — be that in a dictatorship or a monarchy. If it’s not Aryan superiority, then inevitably, it’s some other personal fixation of the Dear Leader that undoes the nation. Like Putin’s overriding belief in a greater “Russian world” where he ought to be allowed to stomp his troops about as he pleases, and Xi Jinping’s personal fixation on Taiwanese unification.

Agreed. My only nitpick is that true Fascist states (Caesarist) are not meant to have sole absolute rulers, only royalty or deserving individuals should be given authority and even they are not in complete control. That's the ideal anyway, like 1st century Rome.

>Even authoritarian systems are capable of distributing power more broadly, to a council or a Politburo for instance, but power in both Russia and China increasingly appears to be dangerously concentrated at the very top — as it was in Hitler’s Germany.

And that's where the military flaw lies, Especially with Russia. Bad leadership and corruption stemming from a lack of oversight bred a poorly maintained military.

>Spanish Civil War: Franco’s nationalists won and established a fascist state — he wisely stayed out of WWII (which, it’s fair to speculate, would have destroyed him), and clung to power a few more decades, but in the end, democracy prevailed in Spain. The Latin America region tells a similar story — democracy and dictatorship vying for control, but with an overall trend toward democracy.

Nobody could have defeated the US in that time period. No one. If America was Fascist then Fascism would have won, but they were a republic and democratic forces prevailed. It's not fair but it's the harsh truth about war.

>Chinese Civil War: The Nationalists were not democrats, exactly. They were more similar to the anti-communist authoritarians found in other countries around the world whom the West backed during the Cold War because of the overriding objective of stopping the spread of communism. The brutality of the Nationalists is one reason they didn’t win hearts and minds in the contest with the Communists. The Nationalists lost the mainland and retreated to Taiwan, but Taiwan continued as a dictatorship under martial law and it would be several decades before Taiwan evolved into the modern democracy it is today. You could say similar things about South Korea’s political trajectory.

Fair point. But it all stems back to the horrendous military doctrine and lack of cohesion amongst the nationalists. The nationalists could have theoretically won but the sheer might of the communist forces and their influence was a wave the nationalists simply couldn't surf head on. The communist forces were simply in so great a number on the battlefield that it would take the most determined and cohesive force in history to have brought them down. Like we're talking the rebels in Star Wars fighting the Empire level of outgunned and overwhelmed logistically. Though unlike the rebels in Star Wars the nationalists didn't have plot armour and got brutally beaten. Much like how the rebels didn't in reality stand a chance in hell, but it was fantasy after all. Still a valid point of caparison.