Jeremy Corbyn: Britain’s new leader of the Labour Party

This is false. It is quite common for democratic governments to be fitted with limits on their rule - since the temporary majority (or not even that, sometimes a temporary plurality) of people who vote them into office don't want to be ruled by tyranny.

Regardless of what anyone names a democracy, within reason, the transformation toward one in Britain has not been peaceful.

Not with the same Indians. You do know that the various Reds of the North American continent were not one and the same ethnicity, right? At any rate, what is your point? My point was that the US was formed as a democracy from multiple ethnicities, each a significant fraction of the population, none of them "cleansed". The plurality ethnicity (English) was not the most significant (Scotch-Irish). And this democracy was a significant one, long lasting and influential in many ways. Your presumptions of the necessary measures for the establishment of a unified democracy, as posted above before you amended them to "anything", are in error.

Nobody is defending the ethnic cleansing of any of the Red ethnicities. But the ethnic cleansing of the Plains tribes was not militarily significant (note that even overwhelming victory or defeat on the battlefield made no difference in the outcome) and not a relevant factor in the establishment of US democracy (c'mon - this was after the Civil War, after the Transcontinental Railroad, the millions of citizens living in the major US cities did not regard the Plains tribes as a significant enemy of the country).

That's not fact, that's you parading your ignorance again.

The various Red wars did not at any time unify the citizens of the United States (all the Red wars were opposed by significant fractions of the US citizenry, none of them after 1814 threatened the US as a whole or any significant part of it) - they did not even unify the Reds. One of the biggest military weaknesses the various ethnicities of Reds had, as a group and eventual "race", was the importance they attached to tribal - ethnic - conflicts, while facing the expansion of a coherent political entity that incorporated several ethnicities already in cooperation. With each Red war the Americans were unified in advance, the various Red ethnicities faced the task of unifying on the fly, so to speak - they never managed it. The closest any of the Red wars came to presenting the Reds in common as the common enemy of the United States was the Red contribution to the War of 1812 - this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecumseh. But even in that one the foe of the US was Britain, and the establishment of US democracy was a standing goal independent of the particulars of the current theater of war.

There is also unification based on a common goal, with no enemy in particular specified. There will be enemies, of course, but the only factor that would make them "common" is the unification itself.

But if we have agreed that ethnic cleansing and a majority imposition of tyranny are not necessary for the establishment of a democracy, then the issue is settled as far as I am concerned: brought around to Corbyn, then, neither of those factors is relevant to the implications of his election.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You clearly have no clue what do political boundaries mean. No university would grant you a PhD in history of the Caucasus because you make wild assumptions instead of consulting reliable sources.

No Russia did not take provinces, Russia annexed independent countries of the South Caucasus and peoples of the North Caucasus.

If political boundaries don't mean nothing, then why did the Russian empire fight wars to conquer the Caucasus and expand the Russian boundaries?

You cite a Russian wikipedia article, that has a part named "South Ossetia in the 19th century", which in turn cites Ossetian blog as source.

But there is no map from the 19th century that would show historical boundaries of South Ossetia.
Here's why.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South..._Caucasian_Provinces_Of_Russia._1856_(BB).jpg
http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/Alania/Tskhinvali_Soss_maps_E.htm

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/История_Южной_Осетии
The very article you have linked, has this section, "Заселение территории" ("Settlement in territory"), which describes Ossetian migration to the Kingdom of Kartli and how the Georgian aristocrats allowed them to settle in their lands. The section begins with this: "В поисках лучших условий жизни осетины прокладывали пути в горные грузинские села, часто селились на землях тамошних феодалов как «хизаны» (крестьяне, селившиеся на чужой земле и иногда добровольно шедшие в крепостное услужение)."

Read this too, "Из этого же документа видно, что в середине XVII в. осетины заселяют истоки Большой Лиахви, к северу от Джавы, и происходит это с позволения царя Картли". The King of Kartli allowed Ossetian migration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingd...r_dissolution_as_a_unified_state,_1490_AD.svg

But this does not say that Ossetians did form their own principality, kingdom or republic in the South Caucasus.

The Muslims in Europe have their own weapons and can defend their houses, but this does not mean that Muslims have their own political entities instead of being residents of European countries and that current political map of Europe is inaccurate.

Those state boundaries and administrative regions were already in place before both the Ossetian migration and the arrival of the Russian Empire took place.

Do you only read Ossetian sources instead of reading actual academic sources?

I did read Ossetian sources too, but did not outright accept them. I've found the videos demonstrating the reliability of Ossetian claims about conflicts involving Ossetians.


http://gameruns.ru/?c=ZgU-TnrKNSA

One Russian researcher believes that Ossetian historians pursue their own political agenda to justify Ossetian irredentism/expansionism, instead of writing actual history.
"Превратив историю в куртизанку для обслуживания своих
бредовых идей, ограбив территориально соседние народы,
осетинские националисты мечтают создать Великую Аланию"
http://www.darial-online.ru/2007_2/gutnov.shtml

In August 2008, Ossetians claimed that the civilian casualties were 2000 dead people, however even the Russian investigators could not find such number of dead people, only 162. But then Ossetians claimed that the number of civilian casualties were over 360.

That may be true for the North Caucasus, but the South Caucasus nations have quite a history of statehood with established boundaries.

Muslim Khanates in the South Caucass also had their own established boundaries. Will you argue that the Muslim Khanates did not have established boundaries before Russian annexation, simply because some ethnic Armenians inhabited them?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Güney_Kafkasya_1801-1878.svg

I was under the impression that you supported Ossetian claim to the territory.

Before 2014, the Russian population in Crimea did support the Ukrainian state, but probably the Kremlin's propaganda quickly made them support Russia. Before you argue that Nazis took power in Kiev, Nazis are present in Russia too and some political circles support them, but the Kremlin does not allow secession of some regions in Russia.


By nationalism in Kazakhstan, do you mean anti-Russian policy which would provoke Russia to destabilise Kazakhstan? The Kremlin can easily manipulate the Russian nationalism in Kazakhstan, which would create the movement for secession from Kazakhstan.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article.php?id=506178

Stalin began to deny his origin and identify himself as Russian.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PY2RAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA320

I remember that Merkel was somehow associated with the East German communists.
http://www.thejournal.ie/angela-merkel-east-germany-propaganda-906733-May2013/

Shes has quite an interesting biography.
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/article...rs-in-east-germany-shaped-her-crisis-politics

There were rumours that she even collaborated with the Stasi.
http://www.shoah.org.uk/2011/11/29/is-german-chancellor-angela-merkel-a-former-communist-spy/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The typical limit is defined by a constitution, and this constitution can be usually changed by a majority. Even if this majority is usually a little bit greater, say, 2/3. So, if the majority is large enough, it can do what it likes. The democratic Weimar constitution was formally in force up to 1945, with Hitler regularly prolonging his exceptional powers. I'm not impressed by this high level of protection.

Which wars do you have in mind here?

My point is that what is required for democratic nazion-building one needs unification of a sufficiently strong majority. To obtain such a unification, one needs unification against an enemy. For this, it does not matter how you define the enemy - by ethnicity, race, language, religion, whatever else - but that the unified majority is emotional enough to kill and expel the enemies. In the US, this unifying idea was the white race against the Indians. In Northern Ireland it is religion. In Abchasia it is religion and ethnicity, in South Ossetia ethnicity and a little bit religion, in Serbia/Croatia it is mainly religion, in Kosovo ethnicity, in Germany it was some mixture of ethnicity and language. What is common is violence based on the property which defines the nation.

So that you subdivide this nation along lines which are, in this case, not those used to unify this nation does not matter.

If the other side is unified or not does not matter at all. What matters is that the nation is unified. Which you admit:

Of course, the general scheme I have proposed would not have to be modified if the enemy that unified and created the nation was Britain, and the decisive war the independence war.

The interesting question would be if such a common goal unification has been sufficient to create a nation. Examples would be useful.[/QUOTE]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The claim is not that they mean nothing. The claim is that they did not reflect the real power relations on the ground in the particular case of higher parts of mountain valleys. Because at that time an accurate description of the real political boundaries - the regions where the given state has the real monopoly of force - would have to descibe different political units for almost every valley.

Nice map of the administrative subdivision which was chosen by the Russians. Think about how you would subdivide such a territory if you would be the tsar. Would you care about what ethnicities live there, or would you care about how your troops, localized in the center of the administrative units, are able to control their unit? I think, this question makes it quite clear that it would be stupid for the tsar not to use the main ridge of the Caucasus as the border for its administrative subdivisions.

I have. So, not everything was violent, sometimes migration was peaceful too.

No. They simply build their houses like small fortresses, and cared about their weapons.

No, they don't have their own weapons. Except a few terrorists, and if the European police forces identify such guys with weapons, they call SWAT teams to catch and imprison them. Except you name a knife a weapon. And the muslims do not have territories where they have de facto the monopoly of power. Ok, some suburbs in France move into this direction. But if this state is reached, France as we know it today is history.

I read what I find. Without caring much about the sources. Regarding the reliability of Ossetin and Georgian sources I have been unable to identify systematic differences, but this is more because I have not tried much. (The situation is different in the Ukrainian conflict, where the Novorussian sources are much more reliable than the Ukrainian ones. This was easy to see during the active phase of the war, where I have after some time no longer cared to check if some success claims from Ukrainian side are correct).

Again a "Russian researcher" with the name Sultan Chamchijew, an activist of the movement for the revival of Ingushian statehood, thus, not a Russian researcher but an Ingush politician. Who is, by the way, criticized in this link as the first example of non-professional "history".

I do not argue that they have not had established boundaries. I argue that the valleys in the mountains were de facto small independent political units. Also with their own local boundaries.

First of all, the statement was about Kasachstan, which has nothing to do with Ossetia. Then, I do not care much at all about most nationalist justifications. But I accept that if a state is based on some common national identity of most of its citizens, this state is less evil than a state which suppresses such national minorities in favor of one leading nationality. Therefore I support separatist movements.

They did never support the Ukrainian state. There was already from the start of Ukrainian statehood the conflict about the status of Crimea. Before 2014 they would have preferred independence, but there ready to accept some confederation. The rejection of their first constitution they have never accepted. If the Nazis would have behaved in a reasonable way (ok, that's close to impossible), Crimea would be today simply an independent state, instead of being part of Russia.

The Russian nazis are an irrelevant minority. They are anti-Putin and the actual government is fighting them. A small part of them has supported Novorussia, but their majority is supporting the Ukrainian Nazis and cooperating with them.

There is no reason for doing such things. Of course, the opposition would like to see conflicts between Russia and Kasachstan, creating problems out of nothing.

That's popular among those who don't like her, compare it with claims Obama is Muslim, but not really relevant. Being a member of FDJ was nothing, not to be was already a political position. Many suspect that there was something Stasi-related, and that the documents about this are in the hands of the US. Their biography is IMHO not really interesting, a quite typical one I would say.

 

Perhaps in theory a tyranny of a majority can always form in a democracy, but in fact they often don't - the prevention measures do work. You might not be impressed, but democracies in the real world have formed and established themselves and operated for a long, long time without the tyranny of the majority you say is necessary to even begin.

In the US, the original common enemies - first France, then Great Britain - were not killed and expelled.

No. Lord no. As noted so often in the past, you have no clue about race issues in America.

The "white race" as we know it today did not exist at the time (it did not include the Irish, for example). And it was formed, over time, primarily in separation from the equally fictional Black race, not the Red (the Red race, especially, took a while to form - the Reds were a bunch of different peoples then, and there are still significant aboriginal ethnicities not included for various reasons). You have to keep in mind, always, the role of plantation slavery in the early history of the US. Never forget that. It's central, dominant.

The Indians were not one entity, but existed in separate and completely distinct ethnicities and groups, often at war with each other. The Reds of one Tribe were not the same enemy as another - the ones allied with the French, and then the British, were enemies according to their alliances and according to which of the several White ethnicities at hand were involved (the southern slaveowners had no particular quarrel with the, Seneca, the Mic-Mac, the Cree, etc in the north - Their quarrel was with the Spanish, Cherokee, etc, in the south).

At no time in US history was the country unified against the "Indians" as a significant common enemy. In each Red war fought by the United States in turn (most were fought by specific ethnicities, European entities, etc, not the US) the country was unified first, and then - afterwards - fought whichever Red ethnicities were on the other side of the border dispute at issue - along with fighting the Mexicans (who were significantly Red, btw), the Spanish, the Brits, the French, the Canadians, and most significantly each other.

The US did not unify in response to facing conflict with one or the other of the Red ethnicities, or all of them together (an entity that never existed). No Red ethnicity was ever a common and significant enemy of all the various ethnicities that unified to form the US.

According to you, the American Civil War was the actual creation event of the modern US. That would be a fairly dramatic example. Canada and Australia would also come in here. And Mexico, probably. I imagine a fair proportion of the South and Central American democracies formed in that way, not knowing and not caring enough to look them up.

And of course we have Britain, the thread topic, which seems to have undergone several such common goal unifications in the process of transforming itself into a more democratic State.

 

In some sense, I have to agree with you - because there is an efficient "prevention measure", namely managed or controlled democracy. An oligarchy, which controls the mass media, has the real control, with the politicians being more their puppets and the political differences between the leading parties more or less faked, and not about the questions relevant for the oligarchs. This prevents takeovers of the power by irrational switches of public opinion - if some new player, not supported by the oligarchs, tries to win elections, the power of a smear campaign to discredit this guy is big enough to prevent success.

Their colonial administration was killed or expelled from the territory of the United States, not?

Yes, and this is the point why I participated in a discussion about this war. I wanted to understand what was the real issue behind this example of nation building. If the South would have won, everything would be clear, the white race as the unifying idea. But what was the nation-building idea behind the North? The one which motivated the Northern soldiers to fight hard, but not preventing them after a victory to humilate the whites and rape their "freed" slaves? It seems, simply the idea of becoming a big empire, the "indispensible nation"?

 

That can happen. But it doesn't always - in the US there has always been clear and significant differences between the leading politicians and parties, with real consequences for electing one over the other.

Nope. No doubt some were killed in the war. The French had none, of the Brits some of the foreign ones were called back by their home office, others staying on as agents and commercial liaisons and so forth. The military was expelled - but a lot of that was mercenary anyway, and little of it resident.

A fair proportion of the colonial administration were locals, and became citizens of the new country. Others fled. But that wasn't very many people - the resident loyalists were far more numerous, and many fled back over the North Atlantic in winter in fear. And some who remained were killed or otherwise roughly treated. But the majority simply became citizens of the new country.

If the South had won there would have been no unity of the US. You would still have the North to explain.

Your fixation on the atrocities of war exaggerates their role here. But keep thinking - unification based on a common goal, with no particular enemy, was the claim. It's looking pretty good, eh? I'm sure you can find some disparaging goal, that suits your presumptions better than what the people said and acted according to at the time, but there's no common enemy explanation possible. And no tyranny of an ethnic majority, either.

Likewise in Britain.

 

The common goal of power, of creating an empire?

Sorry for not seeing "what the people said and acted according to at the time" in the North. For all what I have seen it was not freeing poor slaves. I have also been unable to identify a good economic common cause. Except taxing the South and building on taxpayer's money infrastructure in the North, and banning imports from England of what is produced in the North by tariffs.

You have claimed preservation of slavery as the common cause of the South, which has some plausibility, in particular because it was a clear economic interest of the Southern 1%, and that a fear of economic change is rational interest even for the southern non-slaveholders. Every other economic interest of the South you have vehemently rejected, IMHO not plausible, but be it. But what was this common interest in the North?

What comes to mind would be some sort of imperialistic idea. The leading nation of an empire cannot use the aggressive nationalist scheme used by the Nazis, it has to be able to integrate the colonialized people in a way which is not too humilating for the colonialized. Here, Americans, Russians, Englishmen and Frenchmen have been better (at least in the past) than Germans.

The difference between two variants of nationalism, imperialism on the one hand, fascism on the other hand. This is something one can distinguish even on a smaller scale. While the Kazach leader Nazarbajew seems able to integrate the Russian population of Kazachstan, Georgians have miserable failed to integrate their Abchasian and Ossetian parts.

 

Maybe - I don't think that explains it, but it's one possibility or significant factor - it doesn't explain freeing the slaves and all that, but maybe that was some other factor operating.

How about "creating a well governed and powerful country of free and prosperous people"?

So you deny the motives as expressed by the people who went to war.

Destroying the tax base and creating a sinkhole of expense for the taxpayer is a strange way of setting oneself up to benefit by taxation. And of course taxing imports from one's former predatory colonial overlords is not the same as banning them, and is a standard way of protecting domestic industry (the target of the former predation) until it can become established (in the South or anywhere), which any sane economic management would want to do regardless.

 

Implausible. This is what may be preached at Sunday, ok. But this is not enough for going to war.

I don't know what have been their motives. And I see no reason to believe your claims about their motives.

But it looks like american tradition. The principle if I cannot get it, nobody should get it. Iraq destroyed, Libya destroyed, Afghanistan destroyed, Syria in process of destruction, whenever America seems unable to control it, it prefers destruction.
From point of view of power, it is not that unreasonable as a strategy. Because it is a powerful deterrent. If you don't submit, you will be destroyed. This is the actual strategy of the empire. The challenges by Ghaddafi and Hussein have been answered. Actually we see the reaction of the US against the challenge made by Putin. Let's hope that the reaction will not be the same, because this would be WW III.

 

It is in fact why many said they went to war, and it matches the actual prosecution of the war as well as the management of the aftermath. It explains a good many aspects of the war and its aftermath that you have been unable to account for in any reasonable way - the immediate freeing of all slaves, the immediate return to full citizenship of all Confederacy residents and restoration of Union Statehood of all Confederate States without penalty or reparations, and so forth.

So why would you reject it as a motive? It is the stated motive of many, and it fits the facts of their behavior.

Your ignorance makes a very poor argument for your claims, no matter how frequently you invoke it.

But we are talking about the American Civil War, where the entire point and actual result was to keep control of "it". The entire Confederacy was part of the American tax base before and after the War, and the entire goal of the Union was to keep it.

But in the Civil War it was the opposite: the tax base of the Confederacy was threatened - and eventually destroyed -as a consequence of submission, not of defiance.

Meanwhile, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan were destroyed by the Soviets/Russians, as much or more than by the Americans. Neither were those countries candidates for inclusion in an American empire - Afghanistan was to be part of the Soviet empire.

 

First of all, because of a general doubt about the "science" named history. We all know that the winner writes history. The winner is the North. So, the motives of the North will be presented as heroic, good, and so on.

Then, of course, also because of doubt about the actual motives of the 99%. There has always been propaganda, and even if TV propaganda is much more powerful that the propaganda tools of that time, there was enough control to obtain submission of the majority to the propaganda controlled by the 1%. This is something which usually increases in war time. So, even if there really would have been (as you suggest, but have never supported by links, BTW) real popular support for such a position, this would not prove that this is more than a propaganda effect.

The wish to create an empire explains also what you have mentioned: One destroys the economical power of the former southern 1% by freeing their slaves, but gives gives the Southern people equal citizen rights - this is what is necessary for an empire. You cannot dream for ruling the whole world if you have half of the controlled population as inner enemies.

What is the point? One could have released the South. One preferred a war. Leaving the taxbase to other, the Southerners? No. Let's start a war, which will probably destroy a lot of this taxbase, but so what.

Sorry, unable to give this a meaningful interpretation.

????? Complete nonsense. Syria and Libya were stable states, the Soviets have somehow supported them, not destroyed. In Afghanistan were was already civil war when the Soviets came, and Russia has done nothing there.

 

The tax base would have been preserved by maintaining the slave plantations as they were, merely transferring ownership to the wealthy and victorious Northerners. This was not done.

Now you are claiming that granting the conquered and dominated and subjugated people equal rights as citizens is necessary for empire.

But they do, the imperial powers.

Except it was victory, not the war itself, which allowed the destruction of the tax base. And the South started the War.

Really.

You presented submission vs destruction as alternatives. In the case of the Confederacy, they were the same choice rather than being alternatives - submission meant destruction of the tax base.

You claimed the Civil War was an example of the US destroying whatever it could not control. But in fact the North regained control of the Confederacy in order to destroy its economic base.

Sure.
You denigrate Americans for not seeing what their government is doing, but when it's your empire doing the bad stuff you believe all the standard bs excuses.

 

You are arguing apples and oranges. I presented the map depicting the South Caucasus nations before being conquered by the Russian Empire and you claim the map shows the Russian administrative divisions. Next thing you know, you will comment on the map showing the modern independent nations of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, that it shows the subjects of the Russian Federation.

The map clearly shows the boundaries of Ossetia as part of the Russian Empire and the boundaries of the Georgian kingdoms and Muslim Khanates before being annexed by the Russian Empire.
http://krotov.info/pictures/maps/19/1801kavk.jpg

Note the date of establishment - 1762.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Картли-Кахетинское_царство

The Russian administrative divisions were created after the conquest of the Caucasus had been completed. After annexation in 1801, the territory of Kartli-Kakheti was finally transformed into Tiflis Governorate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiflis_Governorate
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tiflis_Governorate_Goriysky_uezd.svg

You can concoct nice theories but real historians only care about facts.

That may be true for the North Caucasus, but that still does not explain why there was no separate Ossetian political entity in the South Caucasus before 1922. Please do remember that ethnic boundaries don't always coincide with political boundaries.

Even if the people are not indigenous and don't have any historical right to the land? Self-determination can only be invoked by the colonised or indigenous peoples.

My point was that there was no visible or strong secessionist movement among Russians in Crimea. Crimean Tatars did certainly support the Ukrainian state.

This is something new. Do you have a reliable source for this?

Beside Abkhazs and Ossetians there are other ethnic minorities living in Georgia, namely Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Russians, Kurds and Greeks, but there never had been any trouble. Curiously enough, the conflicts arose only in those regions which were bordering Russia.

 

This is what has made a small Italian city named Rome an empire. And America too. If it would have handled the Southerners as slaves, they would have become a big state, but not more. They would have remained something comparable to, say, Brazilia - powerful in North America, irrelevant for the rest of the world.

To become an empire, one needs a large enough base (the ruling nation), and one needs a sufficiently fair treatment of those controlled. If you behave like the Nazis, you will be destroyed after a sufficiently short time, because it is simply too painful to be ruled by the Nazis. To be ruled by America was, in comparison, nice.

The destruction during the war is what leads to a destruction of the tax base. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have read (long time ago) that the American civil war was a quite modern total one, from point of view of destruction, in comparison with classical wars between various kings, who have usually cared not to destroy what they wanted to tax after the victory.
Illustrated with some pictures looking similar to Stalingrad.

You misunderstood. Not the war itself, but the decision to start it. They have preferred to start a war instead of allowing the South to secede.

First, never believe claims about who started the war. Especially if (as always) the winner claims the loser has started it. Then, the point which matters is, if the North would have accepted secession, there would have been no war. If the North did not accept it, it means war. So, the North had the choice - war, with a lot of destruction, or leaving the tax base to the South. This is the classical pattern - they have chosen war.

I have no empire.

 

May be I have confused a date, but this does not matter, because my refusal to accept your maps as relevant is based on completely different arguments. Namely, that at that time those living in the mountains were independent people. They had weapons sufficient to defend themself, and homes build like little fortresses. And they were not rich enough to make a robbery a profitable idea.

Feel free to consider such maps as really describing facts. I care about what I consider as facts.

Of course, nobody cared about diplomatically recognizing an independent valley as a separate political entity. Nor in the North, nor in the South.

Here we, of course, disagree, because I'm an anarchist, and do not care at all about those cases where some states have, somehow, acknowledged that some successful separatists movements have had the right to do such things. Every group of people has the moral right to self-determination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea writes

So, the secessionist movement was there, from the start. A compromise was found, without bloodshed, at that time. But the initial version of the 2014 referendum was simply a referendum about recovering the 1992 constitution of the Crimea.

About my claim the majority of the Nazis supporting Ukraine:

I have got this information from a source I consider as reliable. But I doubt you would accept it as reliable. Anyway, I have not saved the link.

What I have found now is an article http://www.gazeta.ru/social/2015/03/25/6614029.shtml which describes a splitting in the nationalist movement over the ukrainian question, in particular mentions that this conflict has lead to a split of a traditional nationalist demonstration into two almost equal parts. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the nationalists are also a mixture of quite different parts. What is claimed about the Nationalsozialist part of this conglomerat fits with my claim:

Krylow claims that the majority of those who support Ukraine have not nationalists, but national-socialist positions.

Of course, minorities which do not have enough people, or are not concentrated enough, have no chance even to try to create independent states, so they will not make any trouble, completely independent of the behaviour of the majority nation. If the situation becomes too horrible, they will emigrate. So, this is not a criterion.

Then, nor Transnistria, nor Nagorny Karabach have a border with Russia. Moreover, there was a lot of other trouble in Georgia, in particular a civil war between different Georgian forces (Gamsachurdia vs. Schewarnadse), the Adjara crisis 2004. And the Swany also had some independent troops in the Kodor valley. Which was occupied 2006 by Georgia.

 

Our information about the motives of the North comes from the writings and accounts of the time, before the North won, and from the actions of the North (not the words, the deeds) after victory.

So? Other empires behaved differently, proving that is not necessary. (And the Roman empire did not grant citizenship etc to its conquered peoples - only some who qualified, say by joining the army. )

Not in the American Civil War. The abolition of slavery is what destroyed the tax base of the South - and the largest single fraction of the tax base of the entire United States.

Which is why one cannot claim that the American Civil War was fought by the North to keep control of the tax base of the South. The North waged total war on the South, without regard to maintaining the tax base. And the North voluntarily destroyed slavery by political edict, not as a consequence of battle.

The North did not start the war. The South made no attempt to secede peacefully. The South started the American Civil War.

 

So we see two contradicting things. On the one hand, total war with untypically horrible at that time destruction. On the other hand, the policy after the war. The motivation for this is unclear.

On the other hand, we see a similar policy in Germany and Japan - a horrible war against civilian populations, with the destruction of cities and nuclear weapons. But after the war a quite civilized behavior. And with success - as Germany, as Japan remain submissive vassals of the US. Similarly, after the civil war there was no other attempt of secession.

On the other hand, it may be a quite reasonable strategy for an empire: Doing horrible destruction in a war, without caring about civilian population or so, as deterrence, and a civilized policy after the submission, to decrease the motivation for secession.

Your maybe. My comes from your claim and wikipedia articles, above sources are far from reliable.

The point is not about the details, but about a civilized behavior in the occupied territory.

I repeat myself: First, never believe the claim of the winning side who has started the war. It is almost always the losing side who has started it, so, this claim contains 0 information.

And, then, look at the motives. If the North would have accepted the secession, there would have been no reason at all to start a war for the South. Not allowing secession makes the North an occupying force and legitimates resistance.

 

There is no contradiction visible. And at least one major clear motive is obvious: victory, followed by achievement of the goals of the victorious side.

Neither one pays taxes to the US government, as a population or a State. Neither one contributes soldiers or logistics to the US military except by individual and specific agreement, or any other tribute to the United States. Both have borders from which they can exclude US citizens at will. In neither one are crimes committed by citizens tried under US law. Do you know what the word "vassal" means?

Neither was there any new Federal government established, etc. The States involved returned to their former status as States of the Union, in exactly the same status as every other State of the Union.

As would be abolishing slavery, etc. Are we now referring to the United States themselves as the empire, or are we going to continue to follow the usual practice of referring to the United States as possessing or attempting to possess an empire? Because it makes no sense to refer to Germany as a submissive vassal of Rhode Island, for example. Or Texas. (It doesn't make much sense to refer to each State of the US as a vassal State of the others collectively, either, but I doubt that would stop you from doing so).

No, that's actually where the claim comes from. There's no "maybe" - the people of the North left written assertions of their motives, and the actions of the North after victory are matters of physical record.

You can't claim anything from "unreliability" - you can criticize other claims for unreliability alone, but you still need actual evidence and argument for your own claims. You don't have any.

Your assertion was that empires have to behave in that civilized manner toward people they have conquered, in order to be successful empires. It is false. Historically, such treatment of conquered people is rare. Machiavelli recommended it, or what passed for it in his day, but he did so against the common practice of his day or any other day.

In your eagerness to avoid being taken in by winner's claims you throw out all the evidence and the reasoning from it, and engage in speculation unsupported by anything except your personal beliefs about how the world and other people must have behaved in the situations you require to have existed.

In this case, both the losing and winning sides agreed on the sequence of events, and on each other's motives. At the time. You don't have to take the winner's word for their motives - you can take the loser's word. You can also take the physical evidence, etc., as agreed to by both sides of that War then and by historians ever since. Both sides agreed that the South started the War, for example, and that the source of conflict was plantation slavery.

The South started the American Civil War. Its motive was the preservation of plantation slavery, upon which its entire economy and society was built. It started the War by forming an army and a navy and a government, claiming territory it had not before possessed, threatening and then even opening fire on people it - and nobody else - had designated as enemy military forces inside territory it - and nobody else - had identified as belonging to itself now.

It's worse than that: the acts of secession themselves were acts of war - each one. All any State had to do was accept the lawful, peaceful, and uncoerced election of Lincoln to the Presidency of their own Nation, a free election they themselves had fully participated in, according to agreements and promises they themselves had made and taken an oath to defend. Instead, they declared themselves oathbreakers, and raised an army against their own nation's army, and prepared full scale war in defense of their slaveholdings.

In your attempts to defend the moral right of people to revoke their allegiance to a State, you have ended up defending their right to do so as any entity of their own, at any time, for any reason, and by any means. Because wholesale killing of the fellow citizens of one's own democratic Nation to maintain one's capitalistic profit and personal enjoyment from the enslavement of millions of human beings is not high ground in any other moral landscape.

Which brings us around to the thread topic: because the moral high ground is not enjoyed equally by all the political factions in England either - and it is a factor, in this recent election.

 

About Germany and Japan as US vasalls:

You want yet another discussion about words? Ok, let's have a look at wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassal

Fits nicely, at least I cannot see any indication of foreign-policy independence, nor in Germany, nor in Japan. The US has large bases in Germany as well as Japan, and the modern replacement of a formal tribute is to be part of the Dollar empire. You should not forget that the German gold reserves are mainly hold in the US, and requests to return them are essentially ignored. (Only a little bit is returned, slowly, to avoid an open conflict, but it seems clear that Germany has no chance to get its gold back completely. Nobody has been surprised that the Ukrainian gold reserves have now been transported to the US too.)

And you also completely ignore the point that what matters is not the formal legal status, but the real power relations. This is something I have understood already as a child. Just to explain you: Formally, the communist states were independent states, as independent as Germany and Japan, (a, sorry, even much more, there have been no peace treaties, only capitulations, after WW II). And the Soviet Union itself was ruled not by the communist party, but by democratically elected Soviets. (I liked very much a exchange of diplomatic notes between Churchill and Stalin, with Churchill asking Stalin not to recognize diplomatically the communist Polish Lublin government, and Stalin answering that he would like to follow this request, but, unfortunately, he is unable to do this, because the Supreme Soviet has already unanimously made the decision. He should have had a lot of fun writing this answer.

Of course, nobody takes the formal administrative subdivision of the US into states seriously.

Ok, you may have spend a lot of time in libraries where such written assertion have been left, and read them. I haven't, so for me these are simply your bold claims, nothing more. In fact, I have criticized your claims, with arguments that they are implausible. This is different from making own claims. The main problem with motives of the people is that it is very difficult to find them out. First of all, because they are not as homogeneous as presented. Second, because historians like to choose from the heterogeneous evidence those peaces which fit their own theories. Third, because the people themself like to present their own motives in a more favourable way. So that even their original presentations tell us more about the official moral values of that time than about the real motives.

And, as a consequence, the common practice of his day was not a successful empire, but a lot of quite small states.

I would have accepted this before reading that the first casualties have been in the Baltimore riots.

Here we can also find agreement. Secession means breaking the formal laws of the state. BTW, why do you thing the seceding politicians were oathbreakers? I would guessed they have made some oaths toward their states, not the Union, not?

What do you expect from an anarchist? Defending the laws of the state?

Of course, I do not defend a "by any means", but defend restrictions of these means imposed by the Golden Rule. And it follows, of course, I do not support slavery, which was legal in Northern states during the war too. And, of course, it also follows that seceding states are also only a mafia gang - so that they are, at best, only less evil than the greater mafia gang.

For me, the Civil War was a fight between two evil forces. One of them especially evil because it was based on slavery, the other especially evil because it created an empire which tried later to enslave the whole world. Of course, it is a little unjust to blame the guys of that time for what the empire they have created has done later. But this war was an essential step away from the original ideas of the founding fathers in favor of a minimal state. It transformed this minimal state into a dangerous empire.