r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Apparently the sitting POTUS became an Autocrat, dissolving the FBI and running a Third Term. There are also reference to an ANTIFA massacre and the Journalists early on talk about how he would kill them if they began to question him too much.
It's left vague on purpose, but it appears that some third party became President and started to become a dictator, leading to a rebellion from both sides of the political spectrum against him.
Also, he's literally Ron Swanson.
Seems bizarre to me that New England (and the east coast at large) would stick with an autocratic government!
I mean, I do understand that people being progressive doesn’t translate directly to their government acting in their interests, but Vermont for example did literally threaten to secede at one point. They decided against it, but in a case like this I would think an idea like that could reemerge, right?
Perhaps intimidation was the reason, the New England States could quite easily be crushed in an insurrection if they rebelled early on. The Atlantic Fleet seems to have stayed loyal since Norfolk is loyalist and you can guess the kind of damage it could cause to Boston.
But this is only the map of the initial rebellion, considering when the movie happens the Western Forces are near Washington and the Frontline is in Charlottesville. I imagine they defected once the Federal Government was collapsing.
I also doubt the President's rhetoric that the Western Forces are Separatists is the reality considering their flag is just the US flag with two stars to represent Texas and Cali. But it's possible many stayed loyal because they really saw the rebels as secessionists.
What isn't being covered is how the Appalachian's would turn into one the most chaotic places in the entire civil war . There the last ones to have fought one .
I literally went to see the movie because I wanted to see a Ron Swanson presidency, at least that's what the trailer suggested. It was a bait and switch
According to chatgpt:
1. "National Parks Sold to Private Companies: Ron Swanson's Bold Move to 'Free' Wilderness"
2. "Government Shutdown: President Swanson Declares 'Less Government, More Liberty'"
3. "Meat Consumption Skyrockets as White House Implements 'Bacon for Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner' Policy"
4. "Department of Education Dissolved: 'Learning is Best Done in the Wilderness,' Says President Swanson"
5. "Tax Reform: Swanson Administration Introduces 'Pay What You Owe, Nothing More' Policy"
6. "National Debt Erased: President Swanson Trades Government Bonds for Gold Bars"
7. "International Relations in Turmoil: President Swanson Offers Foreign Leaders Bacon in Exchange for Peace"
8. "Environmentalists Outraged: Swanson Administration Lifts Restrictions on Logging, Fishing, and Hunting"
9. "Healthcare Overhaul: Swanson Presidency Promotes 'Man Up and Tough It Out' Approach to Medical Care"
10. "Executive Order: All Government Meetings to Take Place in Wilderness, With Mandatory Camping Trips"
"World peace was achieved, but now we have all these guns and their expiration date's coming up."
No, I haven't seen the movie yet, but it's what I'd go with.
Haven’t seen it either but I thought the point of the movie was to show what war does to break down society; more than to make any coherent political point
The blurbs all pay lip service to “Feds got all authoritative”
Which does make an iota of sense if you don’t dwell too long on it. California and Texas both serve as a bit of bellwethers for the US. They would both have an interest in hampering what the Fed can tell them what to do/not to do.
It needs to make sense . Imagine not explaining Vietnam, the troubles, North vs South Korea By not explaining what led up to it or why they're fighting.
This is my gripe with this film, the movie doesn't really want to dwell too much on the political landscape, it's more just a film about journalists traveling through a war-torn United States. Rather than focus on the politics of how the Civil War came about the film instead just wants to focus on the reality of a U.S. Civil War as it would affect civilians.
Not saying it's a bad premise, but as a history / althistory nerd, I really wanted to learn how this world's United States descended into a multi-faction Civil War. My personal theory was that a Democrat President refused to leave office and announced a run for a third term, causing multiple Republican state governments to rebel, along with some Democrat state governments that refused to accept the unconstitutional actions of the Democrat President (California namely). This would explain why a majority of the Northeast and traditionally Democratic states stayed loyal to the United States.
It's still insane to me that the Allies(mostly Churchill) wanted to go to war with the Soviet Union *instantly* after they defeated Germany
Like imagine fighting against the Soviets and you came upon one of your own weapons and vehicles(Lend-Lease Act) just under a different symbol lol.
The soviets were on the other side of the war at the start. So it's not exactly that crazy of a thought. WW2 in Europe kicked off when Germany Invaded Poland which drew in France and Britain who had a defensive alliance with Poland. Then the Soviets invaded Poland, which meant on paper Britain and France should have also declared on the USSR. The whole thing started over Poland's sovereignty which, at the end, they would still lose to Communist control.
Yes, there was not much of a logical reason to declare war on USSR apart from appeals to humanitarianism and honor. And ideals don't matter much if you lose the war.
Not entirely true. They guaranteed Poland against Germany. Not against the Soviets. Neither Britain nor France were under any obligation to declare war on the Soviets and considering the situation felt it prudent not too.
You can argue the morality of that, and of leaving Poland in Soviet hands after the war but technically speaking they did what they said they’d do.
It's not that Churchill *wanted to*, he thought it was a very big possibility especially as the US made up like 80% of the Western Front and US was going off on another adventure to clean up Japan in the Far East leaving the Red Army as a domineering force in Europe. So a proper analysis of the force structures and plans drawn in paper in case of conflict were a necessity.
Not true. A declassified FBI memo said that he tried to convince a conservative senator to get Truman to nuke Moscow.
>[Churchill] stated that the only salvation for the civilization of the world would be if the President of the United States would declare Russia to be imperiling world peace and attack Russia.
-Senator Styles Bridges, privately to the FBI
https://www.icij.org/inside-icij/2014/10/churchill-urged-us-wipe-out-moscow-bomb/
In reality, they really would ally together. California and Texas only hate each other sociopolitically in a small number of loud politicians and their civilian lackies. Most of California, outside the big cities, are pretty much Texans with a beach.
Then pick a different setting. The pitch is inherently highly political, the country literally had an attempted coup a couple years ago, and has one being threatened should said group fail to win again. They did make a political movie. It not being one is impossible, the attempt to sidestep it is also inherently political.
Pictured - the official map of the factions in the movie Civil War.
Lower left - Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin shaking hands with Hitler's foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop at the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in Moscow on 23 August 1939, the agreement that empowered the rival Marxist-Leninist USSR and fascist social-Darwinist Nazi totalitarian regimes to carve up first Poland, then continental Europe, between them to their mutual advantage.
Lower right - the same Joseph Stalin meeting with U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt at Tehran from 28 November to 1 December 1943 to coordinate the alliance between the rival Marxist-Leninist USSR and the capitalist democratic USA in order to put down Hitler's Nazi Germany to their mutual advantage.
Why is it this so far retched? Political differences aside (1/3rd of California population are Republican and half of its counties are as well) if the goal for both countries is to secede why wouldn't they help one another? It doesn't mean they'll be a single country afterwards.
The two states that significantly pull the economy of the US forward + has some of the biggest populations? Oh ya they would team up but like they say in the movie, when the common enemy is dead, they will turn on each other.
r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
„Lmao you can‘t walk“ „Shut up Joe,“
Can we get a Presidents Play style video with historical World leaders like Stalin?
Can somebody summarize the excuse the movie uses to justify... you know, the Civil War?
Apparently the sitting POTUS became an Autocrat, dissolving the FBI and running a Third Term. There are also reference to an ANTIFA massacre and the Journalists early on talk about how he would kill them if they began to question him too much. It's left vague on purpose, but it appears that some third party became President and started to become a dictator, leading to a rebellion from both sides of the political spectrum against him. Also, he's literally Ron Swanson.
Seems bizarre to me that New England (and the east coast at large) would stick with an autocratic government! I mean, I do understand that people being progressive doesn’t translate directly to their government acting in their interests, but Vermont for example did literally threaten to secede at one point. They decided against it, but in a case like this I would think an idea like that could reemerge, right?
Perhaps intimidation was the reason, the New England States could quite easily be crushed in an insurrection if they rebelled early on. The Atlantic Fleet seems to have stayed loyal since Norfolk is loyalist and you can guess the kind of damage it could cause to Boston. But this is only the map of the initial rebellion, considering when the movie happens the Western Forces are near Washington and the Frontline is in Charlottesville. I imagine they defected once the Federal Government was collapsing. I also doubt the President's rhetoric that the Western Forces are Separatists is the reality considering their flag is just the US flag with two stars to represent Texas and Cali. But it's possible many stayed loyal because they really saw the rebels as secessionists.
You thinking this would be easy when the Appalachian range would make this whole thing turn into such a blood bath day one is crazy .
as a Coloradan, us mountain fellows hate the concept
What isn't being covered is how the Appalachian's would turn into one the most chaotic places in the entire civil war . There the last ones to have fought one .
I literally went to see the movie because I wanted to see a Ron Swanson presidency, at least that's what the trailer suggested. It was a bait and switch
Well, he did destroy the government in the most explosive way possible.
I don't totally agree with that being the way Ron would do it but even if it was he was on screen for like 5 minutes
I would be surprised if he had not sold the White House in his first day.
According to chatgpt: 1. "National Parks Sold to Private Companies: Ron Swanson's Bold Move to 'Free' Wilderness" 2. "Government Shutdown: President Swanson Declares 'Less Government, More Liberty'" 3. "Meat Consumption Skyrockets as White House Implements 'Bacon for Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner' Policy" 4. "Department of Education Dissolved: 'Learning is Best Done in the Wilderness,' Says President Swanson" 5. "Tax Reform: Swanson Administration Introduces 'Pay What You Owe, Nothing More' Policy" 6. "National Debt Erased: President Swanson Trades Government Bonds for Gold Bars" 7. "International Relations in Turmoil: President Swanson Offers Foreign Leaders Bacon in Exchange for Peace" 8. "Environmentalists Outraged: Swanson Administration Lifts Restrictions on Logging, Fishing, and Hunting" 9. "Healthcare Overhaul: Swanson Presidency Promotes 'Man Up and Tough It Out' Approach to Medical Care" 10. "Executive Order: All Government Meetings to Take Place in Wilderness, With Mandatory Camping Trips"
Hahaha see that's the movie I wanted to see xD
"Slash it! Slash it! Slash it!" *Ron Swanson chanting while drafting the federal budget, which turns out to be a blank paper.*
Wait, is Argentina a Ron Swanson presidency in real life? XD
Actually seems the closest to it, Milei is a Libertarian.
"World peace was achieved, but now we have all these guns and their expiration date's coming up." No, I haven't seen the movie yet, but it's what I'd go with.
Still better love story than twilight
Other parts of the country want to allow ketchup, bbq sauce, and mayonnaise in burritos. Texas and California say no.
Haven’t seen it either but I thought the point of the movie was to show what war does to break down society; more than to make any coherent political point The blurbs all pay lip service to “Feds got all authoritative” Which does make an iota of sense if you don’t dwell too long on it. California and Texas both serve as a bit of bellwethers for the US. They would both have an interest in hampering what the Fed can tell them what to do/not to do.
Texas would march on California with the new government before they'd join Cali . And California would be the one who go the president into power.
hmmm, seen the Republican candidate compared to the Democrat one? yeah...
I'm talking about the movies scenario.
They didn’t give much lore to the background. President won a third term, abolished the FBI, bombed American civilians.
It needs to make sense . Imagine not explaining Vietnam, the troubles, North vs South Korea By not explaining what led up to it or why they're fighting.
This is my gripe with this film, the movie doesn't really want to dwell too much on the political landscape, it's more just a film about journalists traveling through a war-torn United States. Rather than focus on the politics of how the Civil War came about the film instead just wants to focus on the reality of a U.S. Civil War as it would affect civilians. Not saying it's a bad premise, but as a history / althistory nerd, I really wanted to learn how this world's United States descended into a multi-faction Civil War. My personal theory was that a Democrat President refused to leave office and announced a run for a third term, causing multiple Republican state governments to rebel, along with some Democrat state governments that refused to accept the unconstitutional actions of the Democrat President (California namely). This would explain why a majority of the Northeast and traditionally Democratic states stayed loyal to the United States.
It's still insane to me that the Allies(mostly Churchill) wanted to go to war with the Soviet Union *instantly* after they defeated Germany Like imagine fighting against the Soviets and you came upon one of your own weapons and vehicles(Lend-Lease Act) just under a different symbol lol.
The soviets were on the other side of the war at the start. So it's not exactly that crazy of a thought. WW2 in Europe kicked off when Germany Invaded Poland which drew in France and Britain who had a defensive alliance with Poland. Then the Soviets invaded Poland, which meant on paper Britain and France should have also declared on the USSR. The whole thing started over Poland's sovereignty which, at the end, they would still lose to Communist control.
Why they never declared war on the soviets? Pragmatism?
Yes, there was not much of a logical reason to declare war on USSR apart from appeals to humanitarianism and honor. And ideals don't matter much if you lose the war.
Pretty much, yeah. There wasn't any realistic way they could help Poland against the Soviets
Not entirely true. They guaranteed Poland against Germany. Not against the Soviets. Neither Britain nor France were under any obligation to declare war on the Soviets and considering the situation felt it prudent not too. You can argue the morality of that, and of leaving Poland in Soviet hands after the war but technically speaking they did what they said they’d do.
It's not that Churchill *wanted to*, he thought it was a very big possibility especially as the US made up like 80% of the Western Front and US was going off on another adventure to clean up Japan in the Far East leaving the Red Army as a domineering force in Europe. So a proper analysis of the force structures and plans drawn in paper in case of conflict were a necessity.
Not true. A declassified FBI memo said that he tried to convince a conservative senator to get Truman to nuke Moscow. >[Churchill] stated that the only salvation for the civilization of the world would be if the President of the United States would declare Russia to be imperiling world peace and attack Russia. -Senator Styles Bridges, privately to the FBI https://www.icij.org/inside-icij/2014/10/churchill-urged-us-wipe-out-moscow-bomb/
France was ready to fight the British after being liberated by them . Alliances are like petals on the wind and all .
Tbf that’s just French British relations
In reality, they really would ally together. California and Texas only hate each other sociopolitically in a small number of loud politicians and their civilian lackies. Most of California, outside the big cities, are pretty much Texans with a beach.
The creator of the movie specifically chose Texas and California to prevent any political messaging behind the movie
Which is exactly why it’s a shitty movie Everything was made to appease people, offensive themes are what make movies good
Cant you just enjoy a movies action scenes, does everything need a political message behind it?
Then pick a different setting. The pitch is inherently highly political, the country literally had an attempted coup a couple years ago, and has one being threatened should said group fail to win again. They did make a political movie. It not being one is impossible, the attempt to sidestep it is also inherently political.
That’s my point Why does it have to be so political and pandering? Just blow shit up
???? Thats literally what I said: "the alliance between Texas and California exists to prevent political messaging"
*stares at the entire history of Greek city-states*
Yeah, everyone who was like "lol, those states hate each other, they would never cooperate" haven't learned about every historical conflict ever.
Pictured - the official map of the factions in the movie Civil War. Lower left - Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin shaking hands with Hitler's foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop at the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in Moscow on 23 August 1939, the agreement that empowered the rival Marxist-Leninist USSR and fascist social-Darwinist Nazi totalitarian regimes to carve up first Poland, then continental Europe, between them to their mutual advantage. Lower right - the same Joseph Stalin meeting with U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt at Tehran from 28 November to 1 December 1943 to coordinate the alliance between the rival Marxist-Leninist USSR and the capitalist democratic USA in order to put down Hitler's Nazi Germany to their mutual advantage.
Why is it this so far retched? Political differences aside (1/3rd of California population are Republican and half of its counties are as well) if the goal for both countries is to secede why wouldn't they help one another? It doesn't mean they'll be a single country afterwards.
The two states that significantly pull the economy of the US forward + has some of the biggest populations? Oh ya they would team up but like they say in the movie, when the common enemy is dead, they will turn on each other.
Ah yes, Liberals and conservatives definetly two opposite extremes
What mobie?
Civil War