Smitty-48 wrote:This fellow doesn't even know his history, whether it was Bourbon France, Imperial Russia, or Weimar Germany, in none of those cases was "inequality" actaully the catalyst for revolution, in all three cases, the catalyst was that the state first suffered a catastrophic loss in a world war, and then went flat broke as a result, so call me when America loses a war for all the marbles catastrophically, and then goes flat broke, otherwise, I wouldn't hold your breath, Bolshies.
Well yes, the French King hadn't called the national Parlement in over a century with the tax collection system becoming evermore dysfunctional (it didn't help that everyone everywhere wanted to hold onto all their financial privaledges.) Their financing the Americans in their revolution didn't help. Similar problems with the Russians. A country full of poor people with a corruption dysfunctional government that also lost not one but two wars, including most of the navy. It was primed to fall. Losing a war, or two, does not cause a healthy government to collapse. And yes, an impoverishment population, with both the Nazi and the Communists Parties actively trying to disrupt an already creaky government in Germany.
In all three cases the general population was already poor, or being made poor, well the French were having crop failures, along with non functioning governments right after losing wars. In all cases the appeals for patriotism, or loyalty to the Church, or the established social order failed.
If the countries had had a government effectively dealing with its problems, or the population not dealing with proverty, and hunger, especially in France and Russia, or perhaps the elites not so effectively rewarded themselves.
Claiming it was war that caused the collapse is mistaken.
My country is starting to match that template. Feh.
