Thread replies: 16
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4
File: download.jpg (12KB, 299x168px) Image search:
[Google]
12KB, 299x168px
The last time this happened, the cry from the South was "One Southern patriot is worth ten Yankee hirelings."
Was wishful thinking in part, but in many ways they were right. The South was better led, better motivated and had a higher average quality of soldier, even in the theaters they lost from the beginning.
You all tell yourselves, "We have the guns, we have better motivation, we can score a kill in less than 50 shots."
When the next one happens, how is the mostly rural small-state conservative cause not going to be crushed by the liberal urban coastal elites by sheer weight of numbers and material?
>>
>>129951457
they didn't have internet back then. they didn't know they were fighting for the whole white world.
>>
>>129951457
This isn't how the civil war was fought
>>
>>129951457
The north had manpower and industry on their side. The south only had the cash crop of cotton and skilled generals.
This time though, the conservatives have industry, guns, food, the military, and the police on their side. The liberals have numbers, but they'd have to resort to literal human wave tactics if they want to use them properly.
>>
>>129951457
Maybe you say to yourself, "They don't outnumber us right now, the silent majority will be forced to take our side."
Are you confident that will actually be true in 10 years, given demographic trends? How about 20?
>>
>>129951457
>Confederates were all Southern farmer good ol' boys and Union was all liberal hippies
You're a fucking moron if you believe this stupid fucking 150 year old propaganda.
>>
>civil war happening in any western country
nah
things would have to get really, really drastic
>>
>>129951457
They dont even have guns. Ppl in rural areas are always loaded.
>>
Civil wars dispersed over a nation divide it in a dispersed way, and most of combat arms and the police are white.
The US couldn't smother Iraq and A-stan despite the goatfuckers having pathetic armament compared to the American public, whose weapons LITERALLY (in the correct use of the the word) outweigh the human population of some countries. The stupid will die early, but the US military is small and focused on winning nation-state wars. Then there's Viet Nam...
Noobs don't get that a supersized US version of the IRA could flourish under the right conditions. Of course tens or hundreds of thousands or millions would die, but everyone dies anyway! There's no way out of death but your life can count for something.
Blue on blue would be huge. Smart revolutionaries would make their playbook from successful precedent. One infiltrator with a security clearance in the right place could wreak havoc. Modern industrial society is remarkably delicate. Technically and militarily inclined people can do ferocious damage.
Bonus, the larpers would die early so we wouldn't have to listen to them.
The right isn't strong enough to eradicate the Jew, but it could be strong enough to trade permission to kill the left in return for power. Real wars are won by ruthless, pragmatic mean who know ideals are not better than
victory.
Idealism is fine for rousing the public, and so is Communist violence. I sincerely hope for a lot more while White men still control most of the government. When capitalism fails the masses they move Right or Left and eliminate the middle road. We need this to happen ASAP while the US military is effectively unchallenged globally. (Constabulary actions are much more difficult than nation-state wars. Study both!)
>>
File: chin-cw.gif (16KB, 600x371px) Image search:
[Google]
16KB, 600x371px
>>129951457
>The last time this happened, the cry from the Maoists was "One Maoist patriot is worth ten Nationalist hirelings."
>Was wishful thinking in part, but in many ways they were right. The Maoists were better led, better motivated and had a higher average quality of soldier, even in the theaters they lost from the beginning.
>You all tell yourselves, "We have the guns, we have better motivation, we can score a kill in less than 50 shots."
>When the next one happens, how is the mostly rural small-state Maoist cause not going to be crushed by the liberal urban coastal elites by sheer weight of numbers and material?
>>
>>129953375
>talks about larpers
>whole post is a larp fantasy
>>
>>129953843
Only won because of Japan.
Who can you see invading the US, even in 50 years?
Agree generally that a guerilla conflict is more likely.
>>
>>129952728
Jesus fucking Christ, what part of "wishful thinking" made you jump to the extreme?
>>
File: 1493330392225.png (203KB, 1802x905px) Image search:
[Google]
203KB, 1802x905px
>>129955513
Fails to prove your point, though. Despite having all of the advantages you have stated, the Nationalists still lost, and it wasn't because of a lack of numbers or resources.
If the Left triggers a Civil War, it will lose. If the Right triggers a Civil War, the Left will also lose. If the Left manages to govern without triggering a Civil War, then it will win.
We have nothing in common with the ACW, and everything in common with the Spanish Civil War. Any potential conflict will play out the same way.
>>
>>129951457
>liberals will have the guns necessary to fight the war they instigate
brb, retrieving my sides from orbit
>>
>>129956581
Fair points on any future conflict being closer to the Spanish Civil War.
Fair point on Mao.
What makes you think the Left would inevitably lose if it gets triggered though? I don't buy the "we have the cops and military" thing. That's making way too many assumptions.
Thread posts: 16
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4