Possibility for Second American Civil War

[Telconi]

Actually republican in the rural areas of the northeast really aren’t that different from their southern counterparts

The thing is, Vermont is heavily Democrat with few cities of significant size for some unknown reason.

Shoot, even Vermont Democrats have significant differences with a Democrat in say, Brooklyn.

[The Serbian Empire]

The thing is, Vermont is heavily Democrat with few cities of significant size for some unknown reason.

Shoot, even Vermont Democrats have significant differences with a Democrat in say, Brooklyn.

Indeed, but Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy are more likely to advocate socialist policies that would trouble NYC voters of the Wall Street kind or workers for Fortune 500 companies.

[Thermodolia]

The thing is, Vermont is heavily Democrat with few cities of significant size for some unknown reason.

Shoot, even Vermont Democrats have significant differences with a Democrat in say, Brooklyn.

Like people have said there’s a more rural/urban divide than a regional one.

But hey that’s what Europeans do, they completely ignore everything about the actual culture of the land and just draw arbitrary lines through groups that don’t want to be split up

[Benuty]

Maybe, but if the post-civil war interim government doesn't survive the critical thirty year period afterward it will most likely see mass secessionism happen anyway.

Not on my watch. I’ll install a military dictatorship and go Stalin on those traitors

A military dictatorship will most likely reinforce the truth that the union is most certainly dead.

[Khataiy]

Considering most liberals are anti-gun how would they expect to fight and win? I know ANTIFA members own guns but how about the part of the left that opposes owning guns? Would they buy guns simply for the sake of war then disown them, this is a genuine question.

Anyone?

[Thermodolia]

Shoot, even Vermont Democrats have significant differences with a Democrat in say, Brooklyn.

Indeed, but Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy are more likely to advocate socialist policies that would trouble NYC voters of the Wall Street kind or workers for Fortune 500 companies.

And most NYC democrats don’t want those policies

[The Serbian Empire]

Indeed, but Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy are more likely to advocate socialist policies that would trouble NYC voters of the Wall Street kind or workers for Fortune 500 companies.

And most NYC democrats don’t want those policies

For the fact it'd bite the hand that feeds their campaign coffers. The politicians may not differ as much as the campaign contributors who give money.

[Benuty]

If D.C cannot afford to keep the union together post civil war then all the millions who died will have died for nothing.

D.C seems to age done at least a decent enough job of that since the 1860’s.

A post second civil war America might not fare as well.

[Thermodolia]

Not on my watch. I’ll install a military dictatorship and go Stalin on those traitors

A military dictatorship will most likely reinforce the truth that the union is most certainly dead.

That’s treasonous talk there citizen. You better watch where you step citizen. You don’t want to anger Supreme General Therm, Protector and Liberator of America now do you?

[Olerand]

Well, that division simply doesn't work. And you cannot deny that there are differences. A New England Republican is no Dixie Republican, no?

Actually republican in the rural areas of the northeast really aren’t that different from their southern counterparts

Oh I know. I don't recall if it was in this thread that I said that the abundance of Confederate flags in rural New York is... a part of their heritage.

But still, their politicians, state-level, are not southerners.

Well yes, that is why they are still Republicans. But the divisions are significant enough that one can legitimately say that regions do make serious differences.

From a foreign perspective, I agree, I want America to continue to be able to project its military power abroad (though I would severely curb its cultural clout). From an American perspective, I genuinely think Americans, and their psychiatric wards, would be better off more coherently divided.

Fuck that

Well... The psychiatric wards, in as much as America still has them, will continue to suffer.

[The Serbian Empire]

D.C seems to age done at least a decent enough job of that since the 1860’s.

A post second civil war America might not fare as well.

Especially given the Russians and Chinese were backwaters in the 1860s and have weaponry capable of smiting the US off the map.

[Benuty]

A military dictatorship will most likely reinforce the truth that the union is most certainly dead.

That’s treasonous talk there citizen. You better watch where you step citizen. You don’t want to anger Supreme General Therm, Protector and Liberator of America now do you?

You know what happened to the last Caesar don't you?

[Thermodolia]

That’s treasonous talk there citizen. You better watch where you step citizen. You don’t want to anger Supreme General Therm, Protector and Liberator of America now do you?

You know what happened to the last Caesar don't you?

Augustus Caesar? Died of an illness

[Benuty]

You know what happened to the last Caesar don't you?

Augustus Caesar? Died of an illness

You are being obtuse, and an American Caesar wouldn't fare so well.

[Thermodolia]

Augustus Caesar? Died of an illness

You are being obtuse, and an American Caesar wouldn't fare so well.

I’m being an ass. Don’t worry citizen my handpicked successor will keep the nation in line

[Valrifell]

Shoot, even Vermont Democrats have significant differences with a Democrat in say, Brooklyn.

Like people have said there’s a more rural/urban divide than a regional one.

But hey that’s what Europeans do, they completely ignore everything about the actual culture of the land and just draw arbitrary lines through groups that don’t want to be split up

Who could forget good ol' Sykes Picot? Or the Scramble for Africa?

Good times, good times.

[Luminumbra]

Note: Everything I say is based on my own observations.

If It happened. The results would depend on who the US Military sided with. The conservatives likely wouldn't have the manpower to win a pro-longed civil war, the left would face the dangers of disunity and infighting. On top of that, if the US military decides to side with either side, suddenly the balance gets seriously tipped in one direction or the other. If the US military decided to attack both sides in an attempt to keep the status quo. The conservatives would essentially resort to guerilla warfare. Their militiamen could maybe put up a fight in the beginning. But let's face it. They'd run scared or get crushed by the military. The left would be crushed through tough urban battles. They'd likely be the first to fall as rural armies are harder to root out.

However, if the military got split in the chaos and the war becomes protracted. The conservatives would eventually lack the manpower to continue fighting, and be forced into guerilla warfare and possibly get wiped out altogether. Extreme right-wing armies in major conflicts tend to have problems replenishing their forces, as we saw in both the first civil war and world war two. The left would have an army of quantity over quality. I also think the right underestimates the left on its potential for violence. Yes a violent left is part of their rhetoric, but if you talk to them they consistently think the average left-winger is a pussy who can't fight. This couldn't be further from the truth. When the left gets violent, it does crazy, unconventional shit. And they become that much more dangerous if they have strong leaders. Just read about the details of how china entered the Korean war. They were so disciplined that they could be fired upon and not respond. They went straight for their objective without giving a f*ck about incoming fire and surrounded their enemies, all while creating smoke so that the UN forces couldn't bring in air support. They were a relatively poorly equipped army, coming from a country that had just emerged from its own civil war, and they were able to drive the US forces along with forces from many different industrialized developed countries back to the 38th parallel. The left seems always starts its wars weak, and then gradually it finds itself, gets up on its feet, gets more organized and then becomes nearly impossible to defeat. The North Vietnamese ended the war well equipped, well trained and well disciplined. They even managed to get their hands on American planes and bomb Saigon's Airport.

From what I've observed.

Left - Wing Tactics

-Use of people power.
-Cause defections from enemy side.
-Tactics tactics tactics, they did not rely on firepower like right-wing armies have in the past.


Now. This kind of thing can only happen if the left has very strong leadership. Far-Leftists are scatterbrained folk. They can be very disorganized and without good leadership, it will bite them badly in the event of civil war. Their leadership would likely come from more center-minded folks, but this could also fuel infighting. So more problems abound. There are many factions on the left and they need to find common ground and find something to fight for, uniting behind strong leaders if they ever want to stand a chance against the right-wing. But if they can do this, then as time goes on, the right would have more and more trouble replenishing its forces, thanks to their non-inclusive ideology.

(Hey, hitler could have drafted hundreds of thousands of able-bodied Jews into his army instead of sending them to camps and the south could have had millions of black soldiers fighting for them. But their treatment of these people because of ideals and traditions got in the way of this. But because Hitler saw extermination as part of the victory itself, and didn't make a break for Moscow, of course he lost the war. He killed off potentially millions of able-bodied men living in occupied territories. His ideals would also mean low morale for any jews he did conscript. Had the south seen blacks as equals. They could have mobilized hundreds of thousands more men to fight the north. The left has no problems with this.)

So, the longer the war, the better the chance for the left to win. The right wing would either need a US military to side with them (which I think is likely, though only to a certain extent), and/or crush the left asap. All they would need to do is rush the cities after starving them of food. (Though California's central valley would be taken over by the left pretty quickly and a west coast left army would have no trouble getting fed.) If the right fails to do that, they'd see their chances at victory wither away as time went on.

But I don't think a war will happen. I think what is more likely is that Trump will not want to leave after his term is up, and then people vote left for the next few cycles until they want change once more, and vote right. It's a pendulum.

[Olerand]

Like people have said there’s a more rural/urban divide than a regional one.

But hey that’s what Europeans do, they completely ignore everything about the actual culture of the land and just draw arbitrary lines through groups that don’t want to be split up

Who could forget good ol' Sykes Picot? Or the Scramble for Africa?

Good times, good times.

Sykes-Picot was as good as any possible division of the area, and if every ethnicity in Africa had its own State... Well, you think Africa is struggling now...

[Valrifell]

Who could forget good ol' Sykes Picot? Or the Scramble for Africa?

Good times, good times.

Sykes-Picot was as good as any possible division of the area, and if every ethnicity in Africa had its own State... Well, you think Africa is struggling now...

There was the possibility of the British adhering to their promises and giving it to a united Arab State.

[Farnhamia]

Sykes-Picot was as good as any possible division of the area, and if every ethnicity in Africa had its own State... Well, you think Africa is struggling now...

There was the possibility of the British adhering to their promises and giving it to a united Arab State.

Right, as if.

[The East Marches II]

Sykes-Picot was as good as any possible division of the area, and if every ethnicity in Africa had its own State... Well, you think Africa is struggling now...

There was the possibility of the British adhering to their promises and giving it to a united Arab State.

After recent history you believe they could have governed themselves intact and without strife? Please spare us. They took part in treachery and were repaid for it.

[Olerand]

Sykes-Picot was as good as any possible division of the area, and if every ethnicity in Africa had its own State... Well, you think Africa is struggling now...

There was the possibility of the British adhering to their promises and giving it to a united Arab State.

What is a united Arab State? Nothing. This land had no national allegiance to speak of, for millennia it had been governed by religious empires and mini-fiefdoms. A united Arab State in the area would be meaningless, what interest have the Lebanese and the Iraqis together in one nation?

Even the pipe-dream of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's Greater Syria was just that; and even Nasser's United Arab Republic didn't work.

You can barely hold the disparate communities that make up Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon together in their current countries; hell, it's a constant quadrille to keep the peace between the different clans that make up Jordan, let alone the ethno-religious communities to its north and east.

[United Muscovite Nations]

There was the possibility of the British adhering to their promises and giving it to a united Arab State.

What is a united Arab State? Nothing. This land had no national allegiance to speak of, for millennia it had been governed by religious empires and mini-fiefdoms. A united Arab State in the area would be meaningless, what interest have the Lebanese and the Iraqis together in one nation?

Even the pipe-dream of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's Greater Syria was just that; and even Nasser's United Arab Republic didn't work.

You can barely hold the disparate communities that make up Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon together in their current countries; hell, it's a constant quadrille to keep the peace between the different clans that make up Jordan, let alone the ethno-religious communities to its north and east.

What do you mean "what interest have they together as one nation"? The preservation of their culture and a stronger state. You may as well ask what interest the Americans have in being one nation.

[Olerand]

What is a united Arab State? Nothing. This land had no national allegiance to speak of, for millennia it had been governed by religious empires and mini-fiefdoms. A united Arab State in the area would be meaningless, what interest have the Lebanese and the Iraqis together in one nation?

Even the pipe-dream of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's Greater Syria was just that; and even Nasser's United Arab Republic didn't work.

You can barely hold the disparate communities that make up Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon together in their current countries; hell, it's a constant quadrille to keep the peace between the different clans that make up Jordan, let alone the ethno-religious communities to its north and east.

What do you mean "what interest have they together as one nation"? The preservation of their culture and a stronger state. You may as well ask what interest the Americans have in being one nation.

What culture? Lebanon's? Iraq's? And if they want a stronger State... Why have they consistently foiled every Arab attempt at creating that?

And uhm... Well... This is a thread just for that. And my answers on this topic clearly show what my thoughts are on the matter.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Considering most liberals are anti-gun how would they expect to fight and win?

Most liberals? You assume much.