Do you agree with Democracy?

[Immoren]

Which raises the important question, how do you raise a politically intelligent population?

Force mandatory nine year comprehensive education starting when they are 7+/-1years old. *nods*

[Dalcaria]

You could just as easily say the same thing for dictatorship. I mean, even Nazi Germany benefited from their dictator, unfortunately he was insane and did bad things, but then again, so did the US (to the natives). And frankly, genocide aside, people lived better lives in Nazi Germany than any American did in the US, because Fascism was actually working.



Which natives did the UK massacre exactly? And also, how does the US killing people it doesn't consider citizens justify it? At least the UK left most of the people they conquered alive. Tell me how many natives are still alive in America, hmm?

Well many Zulus, Mau Mau and Ashanti to name three.

The Zulus also essentially declared war on the British, plus they were (I believe I recall reading) going to declare war on other tribes and try and build an Empire. Also worthy of note though, I have nothing but the highest respect for how the Zulus fought against the British, truly a warrior people. Now politically and socially, I have some skepticism. As for the Mau Mau and Ashanti, I'm not too familiar with what happened there, so I'll check it out some time. Also, so you're aware, I don't deny that the British killed many native people, but I certainly can't stand the idea that they've somehow done worse than the US did. As I said, at least we left some alive to rebuild, as is evident by the 10-11 million Zulus still alive, and I believe the 10 million Ashanti as well. Not sure what happened with the Mau Mau rebels, but that happened in the 50's-60's, a time when Britain was very evidently established as a democracy, so it's rather hard to blame this one on "The Empire", especially seeing as it basically no longer existed.

[Arcov]

You could just as easily say the same thing for dictatorship. I mean, even Nazi Germany benefited from their dictator, unfortunately he was insane and did bad things, but then again, so did the US (to the natives). And frankly, genocide aside, people lived better lives in Nazi Germany than any American did in the US, because Fascism was actually working.

Are you...you serious? The Nazis murdered Jewish German citizens, as well as homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other German citizens. Life in Nazi Germany wa sonly better if you were a powerful white, Christian male.

Which natives did the UK massacre exactly? And also, how does the US killing people it doesn't consider citizens justify it? At least the UK left most of the people they conquered alive. Tell me how many natives are still alive in America, hmm?

I'm not justifying it, I'm saying the UK did no better. Your one of the many European colonial apologists who believed in the white man's burden mantra. They killed tens of thousands, roughly equitable to how much the US killed in the West. Most Native American deaths were either from outright genocide like in Spanish colonies, or through disease. Africans did not get some new disease, because they were familiar with the diseases from Europe.

Yes, but we're not talking about Hitler or Stalin exclusively are we? led millions more, which is criminal to no end, but it doesn't justify what the US did, or what Britain did, or what France did, or what anyone did frankly. But I'm going to make a point again of drawing a comparison with the goods and the bads of both. Germany was the strongest nation probably to have ever existed, economically speaking for sure. If Tito had had that but stuck to his social principles, Yugoslavia may have been a lot stronger. But then again, he had to deal with ethnic tensions in the region too. So perhaps Tito in charge of Nazi Germany would have been better. But I'm struggling to imagine the US or any democratic nation becoming economically stable for all people within it any time soon. The system of economics just isn't working, and no matter how you change it to make it better, some genius can always come along and ruin everything. One of the "virtues" of democracy.

So you honestly believe that handling authoritarian power is only useful to salvage the economy? The German Empire had a parliament, they weren't absolutist at the height of their power. Tito was a one in a million, and his death meant no one could really take his place. I'm assuming you believe in a planned economy, then? The ones proven to fail? Hitler's Germany was based on constant war-time production and genocidal exploitation, it wasn't sustainable. Stalin's reforms killed millions. Tito actually liberalized his economy! You can be a socialist and believe in a free market.

There isn't a "democratic" economy, unless you are talking about socialism. You can have a democratic planned economy and fascist free market.

And so that justifies murdering innocent people too? It's an argument I've heard Pro-Russian activists make a few times in regards to Crimea. "The Tartars had been slavers, so we were justified in taking their land". So all Tartars are slavers, even if they haven't been actively slaving for a few decades or more? Likewise, I'm sure much of the aristocracy of France deserved punishment, but whom was the judge? A man who cared not for their guilt or innocence, but for their blood. What's a crime is thinking an act is justified when justice was never involved.

No, it's a quote saying the French revolution was far better than what was before. What did you expect, when you had an underclass so entirely dominated? The deaths that were involved would not have gone away unless you made the revolution not happen, and that is obscene. The aristocrats were all complicit in the French feudal system, they had all willingly and knowingly persecuted peasants and the middle classes without a second thought. Ii find it very hard to sympathize with them when the majority were guilty of tyranny.

[Dalcaria]

Which raises the important question, how do you raise a politically intelligent population?

Force mandatory nine year comprehensive education starting when they are 7+/-1years old. *nods*

The "forced" bit seems a little contradictory to democracy, which is why I figure you may as well have a Non-Sovereign monarchy.

[Arcov]

What's important is that Democracy agrees with me.

No offense intended, but I find it often doesn't agree with me, otherwise my country would have started investing in itself, rather then selling off our resources. Unfortunately, democracy seems to agree with whoever votes, and unfortunately whoever votes tends to be low information voters that don't understand that when you lower taxes, it makes it difficult to fund the free things you like so much (like health care for us, speaking from Canada so you know).

Monarchs don't care about what is best for their country anymore than democratically elected governments. It has been proven, throughout history, that they will ally with segments of society so long as their power is secured.

[Arcov]

Force mandatory nine year comprehensive education starting when they are 7+/-1years old. *nods*

The "forced" bit seems a little contradictory to democracy, which is why I figure you may as well have a Non-Sovereign monarchy.

Simply having a state is "forcing" something. It is no more forceful than rule of law.

[Leritorius]

Wrong.
The right answer was the monarch who looks after his people and not their own place on the polls.

Except for those monarchs that didn't give a shit about a great number of their people, like Ivan the Terrible and Louis the 14th.

Louis the XIV (and trust me when I say I studied him) was the one of those who cared the most. He successfully did what no english monarch since Richard III, and no single republican president has ever succeded : hold the lobbies at bay.
And I'm quite sure you had the building of the Palace of Versailles in mind when you quoted him, to which I'll tell you that NOW, today, year 2014, we still reap the fruit of this labour : millions of people from across the world come every day to visit it. There's litterally a car full of tourists crossing the city towards the palace every 10 minutes.
He had his model of court which was the most efficient : since nobles were around him 50 weeks per year, they had absolutely no time to plot before getting discovered and having their guts shown to the people. Today, one of our ministers has been found guilty of giving AIDS to thousands of people twenty years ago. And they all are obedient to lobbies !

To be honest, I know which one of the two, between Louis XIV and françois hollande, cares the most about the french people...

[The Flood]

Only if the majority agrees with me >:)

[New Socialist South Africa]

Well many Zulus, Mau Mau and Ashanti to name three.

The Zulus also essentially declared war on the British, plus they were (I believe I recall reading) going to declare war on other tribes and try and build an Empire. Also worthy of note though, I have nothing but the highest respect for how the Zulus fought against the British, truly a warrior people. Now politically and socially, I have some skepticism. As for the Mau Mau and Ashanti, I'm not too familiar with what happened there, so I'll check it out some time. Also, so you're aware, I don't deny that the British killed many native people, but I certainly can't stand the idea that they've somehow done worse than the US did. As I said, at least we left some alive to rebuild, as is evident by the 10-11 million Zulus still alive, and I believe the 10 million Ashanti as well. Not sure what happened with the Mau Mau rebels, but that happened in the 50's-60's, a time when Britain was very evidently established as a democracy, so it's rather hard to blame this one on "The Empire", especially seeing as it basically no longer existed.

No actually. The British declared war on the Zulus after issuing them with an ultimatum. It wasn't approved by the British parliament though, it was organised by the local British administrator Sir Bartle Frere to increase his own power, so that can be put down to a downside within the British Empire rather than of it I guess.

I'm not denying that the USA and many other democracies haven't done messed up things, they just haven't done as many bad things as absolute monarchies and dictatorships however.

Furthermore, the USA during the 'Indian' (Native American) Wars cannot be called a democracy. Any nation that does not allow black people or women to vote isn't a democracy no matter how you try to spin it. The USA did do terrible things while it was a democracy however (Vietnam War, Iraqi War, etc).

[Arcov]

Louis the XIV (and trust me when I say I studied him) was the one of those who cared the most. He successfully did what no english monarch since Richard III, and no single republican president has ever succeded : hold the lobbies at bay.

And replaced those aristocratic lobbies with that of a new bureaucracy and military.

And I'm quite sure you had the building of the Palace of Versailles in mind when you quoted him, to which I'll tell you that NOW, today, year 2014, we still reap the fruit of this labour : millions of people from across the world come every day to visit it. There's litterally a car full of tourists crossing the city towards the palace every 10 minutes.

By this logic the Soviets were all fine and dandy because they built popular monuments.

He had his model of court which was the most efficient : since nobles were around him 50 weeks per year, they had absolutely no time to plot before getting discovered and having their guts shown to the people. Today, one of our ministers has been found guilty of giving AIDS to thousands of people twenty years ago. And they all are obedient to lobbies !

As was Louis. Without his attendants and military he wouldn't have gotten anything done.

To be honest, I know which one of the two, between Louis XIV and françois hollande, cares the most about the french people...

[/quote]
The biggest difference is Hollande can't execute people at will.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Except for those monarchs that didn't give a shit about a great number of their people, like Ivan the Terrible and Louis the 14th.

Louis the XIV (and trust me when I say I studied him) was the one of those who cared the most. He successfully did what no english monarch since Richard III, and no single republican president has ever succeded : hold the lobbies at bay.
And I'm quite sure you had the building of the Palace of Versailles in mind when you quoted him, to which I'll tell you that NOW, today, year 2014, we still reap the fruit of this labour : millions of people from across the world come every day to visit it. There's litterally a car full of tourists crossing the city towards the palace every 10 minutes.
He had his model of court which was the most efficient : since nobles were around him 50 weeks per year, they had absolutely no time to plot before getting discovered and having their guts shown to the people. Today, one of our ministers has been found guilty of giving AIDS to thousands of people twenty years ago. And they all are obedient to lobbies !

To be honest, I know which one of the two, between Louis XIV and françois hollande, cares the most about the french people...

He didn't build the Palace of Versailles as a tourist attraction though, he built it as his own personal summer palace. And, while he may have cared for the common more than other monarchs (I'm dubious about that however) many of his people still starved and lived in poverty while he lived in opulence. Louis the 16th is particularly well known for his excessive meals in time of famine, although granted he is another monarch.

[Leritorius]

And so that justifies murdering innocent people too? It's an argument I've heard Pro-Russian activists make a few times in regards to Crimea. "The Tartars had been slavers, so we were justified in taking their land". So all Tartars are slavers, even if they haven't been actively slaving for a few decades or more? Likewise, I'm sure much of the aristocracy of France deserved punishment, but whom was the judge? A man who cared not for their guilt or innocence, but for their blood. What's a crime is thinking an act is justified when justice was never involved.

No, it's a quote saying the French revolution was far better than what was before. What did you expect, when you had an underclass so entirely dominated? The deaths that were involved would not have gone away unless you made the revolution not happen, and that is obscene. The aristocrats were all complicit in the French feudal system, they had all willingly and knowingly persecuted peasants and the middle classes without a second thought. Ii find it very hard to sympathize with them when the majority were guilty of tyranny.

Nope, the French revolution killed a nation and turned in 2 centuries, the single most powerful country in the world into the random third-world nation it is today.
It included mass slaughters, church destructions, priests murders, sackings, nobles slaughters in absolutely horrific ways (think about the Princess of Lamballe) and instated the pro-masonic state we live in today. This revolution was created by people with absolutely no honor, able to throw babies up pits and homes rooves... and it led to the state of terror and diktat led by the absolute worst son of a b*tch (and the word is mild) France has ever witnessed : this guy...
You can't tell the Ancien Régime was worst than this. You just can't.

[Arcov]

Nope, the French revolution killed a nation and turned in 2 centuries, the single most powerful country in the world into the random third-world nation it is today.

"random third world"? Boy this will be a hoot.

It included mass slaughters, church destructions, priests murders, sackings, nobles slaughters in absolutely horrific ways (think about the Princess of Lamballe) and instated the pro-masonic state we live in today.

The nobles killed peasants for centuries, the churches condoned this, the money the nobles had were brutally forced from the peasants, all nobles officially executed were killed by the guillotine(much better than the "noble" way of killing a peasant, which often included torture) and the masons were not even an influence, never really have been, and aren't now.

This revolution was created by people with absolutely no honor, able to throw babies up pits and homes rooves... and it led to the state of terror and diktat led by the absolute worst son of a b*tch (and the word is mild) France has ever witnessed : this guy...

<sigh>

Do you know how many people the nobles killed during their centuries of dominance? Do you know how they killed peasants?

You can't tell the Ancien Régime was worst than this. You just can't.

The Ancien Regime was far worse. In that, the majority suffered, while in France, the minority suffered.

[The Zionist Nation]

Yes.

[Dalcaria]

Are you...you serious? The Nazis murdered Jewish German citizens, as well as homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other German citizens. Life in Nazi Germany wa sonly better if you were a powerful white, Christian male.

Hitler cared little about Christianity frankly (ever heard his speeches in support of Islam? The man played religion to get more support, not because he cared), but as for the rest, I think you missed my point. My point is Germany was an extremely good place to live economically speaking, though I guess you missed the part where I said that. Homosexuals are STILL abused in America, as are Muslims in some cases, as well as other "American citizens", like black people in the South who still seem to be suffering from police brutality. Life in America is only better if you're a white, middle class or higher male. In fact, at this point you pretty much have to be a rich white male to live good.

I'm not justifying it, I'm saying the UK did no better. Your one of the many European colonial apologists who believed in the white man's burden mantra.

If you think that's what I believe than leave now, because your best understanding of me is a strawman.

They killed tens of thousands, roughly equitable to how much the US killed in the West. Most Native American deaths were either from outright genocide like in Spanish colonies, or through disease. Africans did not get some new disease, because they were familiar with the diseases from Europe.

The point isn't just how many people you killed, it's the fact that you killed anyone for COLONIAL EXPANSION and you claimed to be a "democracy". And although you didn't kill as many people in this as you did with Manifest Destiny, what was up with you guys trying to take over the Philippines after you "freed" them from the Spanish?

So you honestly believe that handling authoritarian power is only useful to salvage the economy?

No, I believe controlled economies can be used for that.

The German Empire had a parliament, they weren't absolutist at the height of their power.

How is this relevant again?

Tito was a one in a million, and his death meant no one could really take his place.

Unfortunately, because he had the best thing going in my opinion.

I'm assuming you believe in a planned economy, then? The ones proven to fail? Hitler's Germany was based on constant war-time production and genocidal exploitation, it wasn't sustainable.

So explain to me again how an unsustainable system was sustained? Also, proven to fail? The whole REASON we had a depression is because the US DIDN'T have any planning or control in their economy! You guys needed planned economics PLUS a world war to dig yourselves out of the depression! And to say planned economics aren't sustainable is to say that something that has never been properly initiated for any long period of time isn't sustainable, which makes no sense to say because you've got all of two examples to go off of! And look at a country like Norway! They don't have the same control of the economy as Hitler did, but they don't let capitalism run free, and they have a FAR higher standard of living than the US!

Stalin's reforms killed millions. Tito actually liberalized his economy! You can be a socialist and believe in a free market.

Stalin's reforms also damaged the economy. He had no idea what he was doing. I've never liked or supported Stalin for the sole reason that he was an murderous imbecile. And I'm not against Tito's economics, but he probably also took the time to invest in his nation's infrastructure and industry, which is one of the core things I can appreciate about planned economics. Create the resources you need to bring in money.

There isn't a "democratic" economy, unless you are talking about socialism. You can have a democratic planned economy and fascist free market.

I'm speaking more in contrast to the capitalism the US has, which has very little government intervention and frankly is leaving the country weak and vulnerable.

No, it's a quote saying the French revolution was far better than what was before. What did you expect, when you had an underclass so entirely dominated? The deaths that were involved would not have gone away unless you made the revolution not happen, and that is obscene. The aristocrats were all complicit in the French feudal system, they had all willingly and knowingly persecuted peasants and the middle classes without a second thought. Ii find it very hard to sympathize with them when the majority were guilty of tyranny.

Those deaths probably could have been avoided if the revolutionaries had had level headed leaders to remind them that not every person who was an aristocrat was guilty of tyranny. Also, might be worth noting, but I do find it strange irony that the French got both Napoleon, plus (I believe) another monarch at some point who ruled as a Non-Sovereign monarch, or something along those lines, and he was apparently quite popular. I just mention this because if they were willing to accept to monarchs they thought were good, why couldn't they accept cooling down for a bit and punishing the nobles in some non-violent way? As I said, the army no longer supported the nobles, so they posed pretty much no threat to the people any more.

[CTALNH]

The correct question is: does democracy agree with me?

[Merent]

Nope, the French revolution killed a nation and turned in 2 centuries, the single most powerful country in the world into the random third-world nation it is today.

"random third world"? Boy this will be a hoot.

It included mass slaughters, church destructions, priests murders, sackings, nobles slaughters in absolutely horrific ways (think about the Princess of Lamballe) and instated the pro-masonic state we live in today.

The nobles killed peasants for centuries, the churches condoned this, the money the nobles had were brutally forced from the peasants, all nobles officially executed were killed by the guillotine(much better than the "noble" way of killing a peasant, which often included torture) and the masons were not even an influence, never really have been, and aren't now.

This revolution was created by people with absolutely no honor, able to throw babies up pits and homes rooves... and it led to the state of terror and diktat led by the absolute worst son of a b*tch (and the word is mild) France has ever witnessed : this guy...

<sigh>

Do you know how many people the nobles killed during their centuries of dominance? Do you know how they killed peasants?

You can't tell the Ancien Régime was worst than this. You just can't.

The Ancien Regime was far worse. In that, the majority suffered, while in France, the minority suffered.

Nobles that randomly killed peasants were themselves executed, a few peasants were executed for committing crimes. The revolutionaries on the other were cold blooded murderers. And there is no proof that the common man benefited from the war, misery caused by the revolutionaries. The common man suffered so wealthy non aristocrats and lawyers could rule the country instead of the aristocracy and king.

[New Socialist South Africa]

"random third world"? Boy this will be a hoot.

The nobles killed peasants for centuries, the churches condoned this, the money the nobles had were brutally forced from the peasants, all nobles officially executed were killed by the guillotine(much better than the "noble" way of killing a peasant, which often included torture) and the masons were not even an influence, never really have been, and aren't now.

<sigh>

Do you know how many people the nobles killed during their centuries of dominance? Do you know how they killed peasants?

The Ancien Regime was far worse. In that, the majority suffered, while in France, the minority suffered.

Nobles that randomly killed peasants were themselves executed, a few peasants were executed for committing crimes. The revolutionaries on the other were cold blooded murderers. And there is no proof that the common man benefited from the war, misery caused by the revolutionaries. The common man suffered so wealthy non aristocrats and lawyers could rule the country instead of the aristocracy and king.

The revolution was pretty terrible, but France as a monarchy was also frequented by unnecessary wars, famines and heavy taxation for the poor with tax rebates for the rich and the clergy. France today as a democracy has numerous problems, but it is far better off than it would be as an absolute monarchy.

[Dalcaria]

No actually. The British declared war on the Zulus after issuing them with an ultimatum. It wasn't approved by the British parliament though, it was organised by the local British administrator Sir Bartle Frere to increase his own power, so that can be put down to a downside within the British Empire rather than of it I guess.

Hmm, does make me question how parliament would have responded then, had it been handed to them first. They dealt relatively better with the Natives in North America than the US did, so maybe they would have gone to negotiations over whatever it was Mr. Frere felt he needed to demand from them.

I'm not denying that the USA and many other democracies haven't done messed up things, they just haven't done as many bad things as absolute monarchies and dictatorships however.

That's very debatable I'm sorry to say. I'm not a huge fan of absolute monarchy (non-sovereign monarchy is different), but at least in Arabia they give women paid maternity leave. Of course, in other ways the Saudis are HORRIDLY behind the rest of the world, at least in social terms, but seriously, how can it be that the US is one of the only countries on Earth to not have paid maternity leave? Anyways, one other thing the US did was the Tuskegee experiments, which they did in around the 60's-70's I think.

Furthermore, the USA during the 'Indian' (Native American) Wars cannot be called a democracy. Any nation that does not allow black people or women to vote isn't a democracy no matter how you try to spin it. The USA did do terrible things while it was a democracy however (Vietnam War, Iraqi War, etc).

And Tuskegee, as a democracy. However, I'm sorry to say, but this is sort of a "No True Scotsman" argument. A democracy is, at the end of the day, a system where the leadership is put in power by people whom vote them in. Women and black persons were, at the time, not considered "persons", so I was told in History class. The US was, undeniably, a democracy, whether they acted like what we want to pretend democracy should be, or not. One more reason I don't like democracy, we pretend it should be one thing or another, but democracy is just a system of selecting leadership, nothing more. It's just as capable of evil as Fascism and Communism are, maybe even more so because we like to pretend it isn't.

[Leritorius]

Louis the XIV (and trust me when I say I studied him) was the one of those who cared the most. He successfully did what no english monarch since Richard III, and no single republican president has ever succeded : hold the lobbies at bay.

And replaced those aristocratic lobbies with that of a new bureaucracy and military.

wut ?

And I'm quite sure you had the building of the Palace of Versailles in mind when you quoted him, to which I'll tell you that NOW, today, year 2014, we still reap the fruit of this labour : millions of people from across the world come every day to visit it. There's litterally a car full of tourists crossing the city towards the palace every 10 minutes.

By this logic the Soviets were all fine and dandy because they built popular monuments.

which one, may I ask ? which bolshevik building beats Versailles in terms of tourist attendance today ?
The oly russian building which might draw as many people as Versailles would be the Imperial Palace at Saint-Petersburg. and it's not bolshoï.

He had his model of court which was the most efficient : since nobles were around him 50 weeks per year, they had absolutely no time to plot before getting discovered and having their guts shown to the people. Today, one of our ministers has been found guilty of giving AIDS to thousands of people twenty years ago. And they all are obedient to lobbies !

As was Louis. Without his attendants and military he wouldn't have gotten anything done.
The Royal army answered to him, nobody else. The FM only succeeded entering in France's affairs after hm, during Louis XV's reign, to sow the seeds of their oncoming slaughters...

The biggest difference is Hollande can't execute people at will.

He, as the president of the french republic, is immunized against justice. He therefore can. It's obviously to be done in secret, but if the news erupt while he's president he risks absolutely nothing.

He didn't build the Palace of Versailles as a tourist attraction though, he built it as his own personal summer palace. And, while he may have cared for the common more than other monarchs (I'm dubious about that however) many of his people still starved and lived in poverty while he lived in opulence. Louis the 16th is particularly well known for his excessive meals in time of famine, although granted he is another monarch.

He lived in Versailles Full-time. And, as true as are the cases of famine, they were due to the wars and poor climatic conditions much more than to Louis' personal will.
AS for Louis XVI, it's also obvious that he would be particularly known for this, knowing that history classes today do only say this. This, and the infamous sentence "Let them eat cake" which was falsely given to Marie-Antoinette (while it's known today that this sentence came from a republican writer called Jean-Jacques Rousseau...)
But to get back to Louis XVI, I suggest you get your hands on his testament, which got released & published. You would then see if you read the mind of a careless tyrant...

[Dalcaria]

The correct question is: does democracy agree with me?

As I said earlier, if it agreed with me we'd probably have found a way of lowering the child poverty rates here (Canada). Also, we probably wouldn't have a nut like Christy Clark in charge of British Columbia. Did you know kids here still aren't in school because our government won't sit down, shut up, and negotiate with the teachers union? Depressing.

[Arcov]

Hitler cared little about Christianity frankly (ever heard his speeches in support of Islam? The man played religion to get more support, not because he cared), but as for the rest, I think you missed my point. My point is Germany was an extremely good place to live economically speaking, though I guess you missed the part where I said that. Homosexuals are STILL abused in America, as are Muslims in some cases, as well as other "American citizens", like black people in the South who still seem to be suffering from police brutality. Life in America is only better if you're a white, middle class or higher male. In fact, at this point you pretty much have to be a rich white male to live good.

My goodness, you are comparing Nazi Germany to modern America! How can you not see how ridiculous you are!

The discrimination, is no where near the same, and while it exists, one cn succeed despite. It is against the law, you can sue people because of it, and is not institutionalized. You are justifying genocide in the name of a good economy.

If you think that's what I believe than leave now, because your best understanding of me is a strawman.

You've been doing nothing but justifying European colonialism the whole time.

The point isn't just how many people you killed, it's the fact that you killed anyone for COLONIAL EXPANSION and you claimed to be a "democracy". And although you didn't kill as many people in this as you did with Manifest Destiny, what was up with you guys trying to take over the Philippines after you "freed" them from the Spanish?

They weren't given representation, and weren't considered citizens. I've told you time and time again democracies do not make you better internationally, they make you better domestically, to your own citizens. You keep pulling this up, and saying how awful the US was, and then go on pretending how a monarchy will do better.

No, I believe controlled economies can be used for that.

Where have those succeeded, long term?

How is this relevant again?

Refuting any opinion you might have about German authoritarianism.

Unfortunately, because he had the best thing going in my opinion.

Irnoic that he was the one who started the democratization process.

So explain to me again how an unsustainable system was sustained? Also, proven to fail? The whole REASON we had a depression is because the US DIDN'T have any planning or control in their economy! You guys needed planned economics PLUS a world war to dig yourselves out of the depression! And to say planned economics aren't sustainable is to say that something that has never been properly initiated for any long period of time isn't sustainable, which makes no sense to say because you've got all of two examples to go off of! And look at a country like Norway! They don't have the same control of the economy as Hitler did, but they don't let capitalism run free, and they have a FAR higher standard of living than the US!

Simple regulations /=/ planned economics. For God's sake, Hitler's economy was built solely for war. It could only be sustained with more war. If Nazi Germany had stopped needing to produce military equipment, it's economy would have collapsed. It was conquered before this had a chance to happen.

Stalin's reforms also damaged the economy. He had no idea what he was doing. I've never liked or supported Stalin for the sole reason that he was an murderous imbecile.

He was the only one who really built a planned economy that stood the test of time.

And I'm not against Tito's economics, but he probably also took the time to invest in his nation's infrastructure and industry, which is one of the core things I can appreciate about planned economics. Create the resources you need to bring in money.

Which you can do without planning the entire economy.

I'm speaking more in contrast to the capitalism the US has, which has very little government intervention and frankly is leaving the country weak and vulnerable.

It needs more regulation, but it is not anywhere close lassiez-faire.

Those deaths probably could have been avoided if the revolutionaries had had level headed leaders to remind them that not every person who was an aristocrat was guilty of tyranny.

Those people were killed by the aristocrats.

Also, might be worth noting, but I do find it strange irony that the French got both Napoleon, plus (I believe) another monarch at some point who ruled as a Non-Sovereign monarch, or something along those lines, and he was apparently quite popular. I just mention this because if they were willing to accept to monarchs they thought were good, why couldn't they accept cooling down for a bit and punishing the nobles in some non-violent way? As I said, the army no longer supported the nobles, so they posed pretty much no threat to the people any more.

The nobles were calling international favors and fleeing the country. Royalist revolts were breaking out across the country. The nobles were bribing their way out of prison. Every day they weren't tried was a day they risked fleeing. The nobles dug their own grave with how violently they repressed the peasants.

Napoleon, despite being a monarch, liberalized the social structure and instituted a meritocracy. So did the other popular monarch(who had to win an election first).

[Immoren]

Revolution was same way terrible as being roasted to death in spectaclar fashion in 10 seconds was more terrible than being roasted to death in 100 years in mundane fashion.

[Leritorius]

The revolution was pretty terrible, but France as a monarchy was also frequented by unnecessary wars, famines and heavy taxation for the poor with tax rebates for the rich and the clergy. France today as a democracy has numerous problems, but it is far better off than it would be as an absolute monarchy.

Louis XVI had signed a constitution before getting deposed. Therefore, even if the revolution failed (or got thwarted by Louis XVIII), France would no longer be an absolute monarchy.
And no, France would have much, MUCH LESS problems if the revolution failed. MUCH less.

[Arcov]

]
wut ?

If either of those disagreed with Louis, he couldn't get anything done, or rely on the nobles again.

which one, may I ask ? which bolshevik building beats Versailles in terms of tourist attendance today ?
The oly russian building which might draw as many people as Versailles would be the Imperial Palace at Saint-Petersburg. and it's not bolshoï.

The many statues, the many remnants of Soviet scientific engineering. Getting "lots of tourists" is a mild plus in Louis's decision.

The Royal army answered to him, nobody else. The FM only succeeded entering in France's affairs after hm, during Louis XV's reign, to sow the seeds of their oncoming slaughters...

The Royal Army was loyal to themselves, not Louis, but they happened to grow in strength under Louis, hence why they obeyed him.

He, as the president of the french republic, is immunized against justice. He therefore can. It's obviously to be done in secret, but if the news erupt while he's president he risks absolutely nothing.

If the news erupted he would be thrown in jail by the legislature, and the opposition parties would skyrocket in popularity.