Can people learn about dictators that aren’t Adolf Hitler? Please?
Where does the meme reference hitler?
You mean like the father of fascism, Mussolini?
Or Franco or Pinochet or Marcos or Saddam. Hell, put Tito on that list. Or any number of countries that had been subjugated by colonial empires, like India or the Philippines.
There are so many ways that oppressive governments work and ways that protest movements can work effectively against them. Germany 1933 has parallels to today, but it’s by no means an exact match, or even a very good match.
So…the republicans were right all this time?
About what?
They actually are.
Non-violent resistances have historically had double the effectiveness of violent resistance movements. Violent resistances generally just get a bunch of people killed and only makes things worse.
The reason is simple. It’s a numbers game. Only a few psychopaths want violence and those few are easily dealt with by police. Sometimes they can especially troublesome and need to be dealt with by the military (LA isn’t one of those cases, Trump is just an idiot). It’s only the very rare case that a violent resistance topples a government and in those cases it’s just replacing one group of authoritarian psychos replacing another group. The French revolution ended up with a King being replaced by an Emperor after a whole lot of people died.
Meanwhile a non-violent movement can attract more numbers. You only need single digit percentages of the population to participate in things like general strikes to make an authoritarian regime collapse. But you aren’t getting those numbers with a violent resistance, people have families to think about and violent resistances are easily vilified. An authoritarian regime can exercise violence against a violent resistance and kill it. If an authoritarian regime uses violence against a non-violent resistance it’s clear to everyone who the villains are and an every broader number of people will participate and subtle and secretive ways.
History bears this out, a violent resistances don’t work unless there’s foreign backing and even then it’s unlikely to succeed. Non-violent resistances have double the probability of success. Non-violent resistances are just about psychopaths that want to burn things down coming up with bullshit rationalizations for it.
They work when the dictator knows the alternative is violence and they are outnumbered. Fun fact, MLK’s peaceful protests had armed security provided by an all black militia. They don’t teach that in schools because no government wants their people to think that the threat of violence works on government. That being said, it’s almost always best to try the peaceful options first.
Which ones, name them.
Have a gander if you wish so:.
I was looking at the list by era. First one, 1918, Egyptian Revolution.
clicks link
The revolution was successfully countered by British forces… Victims 800-1600.
That was very insightful! Thanks, I did not know this list existed. May need it for future reference.
What did you think the word “attempt” was pointing to here?
Since you somehow forgot how to scroll down:
4 revolutions in total were unsuccessfull
20 have lead to some kind of success (although not all lead to a “perfect” outcome, but they did topple the ruling regimes)
2 have no link and I am to lazy to google them
Nice, tagged you as cherrypicker
If not for Napoleon we’d still be all ruled by kings in Europe. You can argue the cost wasn’t worth it, but given you didn’t even give a famous textbook example of “peaceful protests work”, it’s safe to say your point is mostly BS.
After what happened in the 40s it’s fucking insulting to say that holding hands can save the world.
First thing coming to mind? East Germany 1989.
But see, that happened after fascism had already been fought off — so it doesn’t count.
/s , since many people here think of moving goalposts as a legitimate tactic for debate.
A bit beside the point, but might I add, that, looking at Eastern Germany today, fashism hadn’t and hasn’t been fought off.
Well, technically, the Germans could have voted in a majority party on the left in the early 1930s and when that did fail they still could have just not voted for literal nazis.
So, Yeah. That was an option.
The vote was taken under gunpoint, quite famously, actually. Even then, the leaders of two of the leftmost political parties made a point of voting against it, making the rather valid point that the nazis were going to kill them anyway.
Okay but before the nazis won the left failed to form a government on three separate elections. Because the left was splintered between the Communists, Social Dems, and Centrists while the Nazi Party swept the entire right.
Proof?
This reminds me of a discussion I was having with Hexbear members on Lemmy recently.
I was suggesting that perhaps it makes sense for the UK to have nukes, for self-defence against other nuclear countries like Russia, China, and potentially even the US, given their unpredictable behaviour. People from Hexbear got angry at this suggestion. One of them suggested that it’s immoral to have nukes because nukes are “threatening civilians”.
Maybe the OP image of this thread is right though: megalomaniacs are not deterred by words, but they are deterred by weapons (such as nukes). Ukraine was invaded because they didn’t have enough deterrents. Iran is currently being bombed because I suppose they also didn’t have enough deterrents.
Bet they also think Russia should have nukes to stave off western imperialism
All weapons of war threaten civilians.
Potentially. I think it depends on how they’re used. If a country decides to completely disarm itself though, then it’s entirely possible that other countries will seek to invade and subjugate.
Ukraine actually gave their nukes on the promise of future safety. We all saw how that worked out.
Exactly. If Ukraine had their own nukes by the time of 2014, or if they had been part of NATO, then maybe Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine.
“More nukes” is never a good solution to any problem
You’d think so, but it worked out surprisingly well during the cold war.
I think ideally there would be no nukes in the world, because they are dangerous. But nukes do exist. If western countries got rid of their nukes, then the remaining nuclear countries would be able to do what they like. “Surrender to our demands or we will nuke your cities.”
what if your nuclear weapon collection is looking too small? How, other than getting more nukes, does on remedy this problem?
Perhaps not a good one, but still a solution, when a bear gets overly familiar.
Bear
Beets
Battlestar Galactica
Fighting back is often the only choice you’re left with when Nazis gain power, but I do wish people would keep in mind there’s a difference between strategizing and being smart about how and when you fight back vs encouraging individuals to run full speed at the entire U.S. military with a bullseye on their forehead.
Also, if you’re bringing fascists and rule of law into this, hopefully you’re not wilfully ignoring how they gain power in the first place, or the fact that the Nazis literally used a legal expert that provided them with the legal shield they needed to carry out a genocide without ever breaking the law.
Or that one of Trump’s biggest defenders against the “crooked courts” that keep getting in his way, and leaving him with no choice but to act like a dictator, is a Harvard Constitutional Law professor who also just happens to be a Carl Schmitt fanboy.
Adrian Vermeule-OUR SCHMITTIAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Common-Good Constitutionalism Is an Idea as Dangerous as They Come
Why, yes. Setting the precedent that taking power by force is acceptable has never led to anything bad.
The only problem happens if you let go of it, so clearly you need to keep it for life!
NGL with this thread comments as precedent, whatever Trump is doing makes TOTAL FUCKING SENSE
Little known fact that the Nazis were at last turned back at Stalingrad by the wittiest picket sign made in the Soviet Union. The sign, which used a mock spelling of Hitler’s name, simply read “A doof, Hitler”. Many historians believe that the German military never fully recovered from this humiliation.
Was that in world revolution II? Or was that a different name? Can’t quite remember…
World day of protest II
Head cocked to the left.
Partial verbal wit in battle.
First point of attack.
Two. Eyes. Paralyse vocal cords with astute observation. Stop the speech centers.
Three. Got to be partially deaf. Shrewd retort to the ears.
Four. Finally, draw a facetious sign. Make it sharp.
Summary prognosis: Consciousness lost in 90 seconds
Martial efficacy: quarter of an hour at best.
Full faculty of recovery from psychological damage, unlikely.
Discombobulate
We will see in four years (or less depending if anything horrifically dramatic happens). But when violence has to happen, get ready to exercise your second amendment rights.
Good luck using your hunting rifle against cluster bombs.
I suppose the hope is that the military will fracture because a lot of soldiers won’t be happy to shoot at the civilians they’re supposedly sworn to protect. But that’s entirely dependent on how brainwashed they are, and how much information they’re able to get.
Why wait? Fascism is here, now! Punch a Nazi today!!
How is people being disappeared to concentration camp not already horrifically dramatic?
How is elected officials being arrested for asking for a warrant, or asking questions not already horrifically dramatic?
How is sending our own military and arresting civilians in L.A. not already horrifically dramatic?
Where the fuck is your line?
Unfortunately, there is plausible deniability that allow the US government to do what they’re doing. In spite of some rulings which tell Trump administration that they are wrong, there are still some actions where they have legal backing, moral or not.
Legal =/= moral.
That’s just how the world works I’m afraid.
I’m sorry, I guess my initial reply was too many words to be understood fully. So I’ll be more succinct.
**Something horrifically dramatic has already happened, it’s already time for us to use our 2A rights for communal self defense. **
Otherwise I agree with what you just said, but I felt like you missed my point, so I wanted to say it in no uncertain terms.
I understand what you mean. What I am saying is that people are overlooking because any perceived red lines haven’t been crossed yet.
The fuck do you mean no perceived red lines have been crossed?
Ask the Americans what they perceive to be red lines.
Actual lines that they have codified into law have been crossed. Your statement is pointless.
And if you see someone being taken away by fascists, make sure you and everyone else watching dont do anything except film it to post on social media. Maybe if you’re feeling adventurous you can tell the brown shirts what theyre doing is bad, just make sure you dont do anything to actually stop them.
Ah yes war mobilized state of Germany with the support of majority of Germans behind it famously known to be stopped by violent protests.
Exactly, it was the peaceful protests that did it. 🙄
Bro thinks it’s a gun fight against the US military 💀
It is though. The rich don’t want their livestock exterminated but brought to heel. Occupation happens with boots on the ground, infantry. That means small arms, drones, and ground vehicles. Not nukes, missiles, or bombs.
Also the populace out numbers the military by HUGE margin. No force is strong enough in manpower to overcome a civilian population in a state of resistance. The US military also sucks at asynchronous warfare. Or have we already forgotten our last 20year war in the Middle East?
Why yes keep suggesting domestic terrorism as an acceptable alternative to voting
worked out for this guy:
although to be fair he did get shot to death right before.
There are more guns than people in the US. Guns don’t stop fascism, if they did we would not be here now. Furthermore, the majority of 2nd amendment gunholes are ready to support ICE not fight them.
This meme is stupid on so many levels.
I’m not sure the meme is the stupid one here, you’ve just completely misunderstood the entire thing.
“One side has a lot of guns and supports fascism, therefore the other side should disarm, I am very smart.”
Fascism can’t continue if the fascists are dead. You gotta fight smart.
An interesting take on warlordism
