• therealdries@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    A war of succession, or rather a civil war,

    So you haven’t actually read any of those history books, have you?

    There is no war of succession that involved the destruction of a state in history, genius - that would defeat the whole point of succession, wouldn’t it?

    And nearly every civil war in the history of humanity was fought either over the control of the state or independence from it, nutburger - not the state’s destruction.

    So again… do you have any proof of your claims that doesn’t involve Mad Max movies?

    • chaogomu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      24 hours ago

      A war of succession is a civil war.

      Go read the war of the roses. Hell, read up on the Russian Civil War that Lenin started.

      Or the Chinese Civil war.

      Or read up on what’s happened in any country that’s had its government couped or toppled.

      As I said, a history book, any one of them will do if they don’t gloss over shit that the Party doesn’t like.

      As for destroying the State, every civil war does that, it’s the first thing to happen, the war is what happens next.

      • therealdries@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Hell, read up on the Russian Civil War

        Guess what, Clyde? No states were harmed during the Russian Civil War!

        The Bolsheviks, quite literally, seized the state! History is amazing, isn’t it?

        As I said, a history book,

        You have, so far, not managed to prove that you’ve read any, bright spark.

        it’s the first thing to happen,

        Lol! Do you even have the foggiest idea what it is you are talking about?

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Minor correction, the Soviet State destroyed the Provisional Government, which was the successor state to the Tsarist state. By technicality, 2 states were destroyed while one was solidified.

        • chaogomu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          23 hours ago

          No states were harmed during the Russian Civil War!

          The State, the organization and apparatus of control.

          In a civil war, you must either A, seize control of the State, or B, build your own State and push the old one out.

          You obviously don’t know that the Russian Civil War was more of a situation B kind of thing, so by definition a State was destroyed.

          And yeah, you can have multiple would be States competing for control, because control is all that matters.

          You can either gain control via violence, which can and will fail against a modern State, or via the will of the governed. That second one is only possible via processes seen as legitimate by those governed.

          Once one has control of the State, it can be reshaped to suit one’s desires. We’ve all watched it happen half a dozen times over the last decade alone.