What conflict had the most feels per-capita? Civil War gets to me sometimes. Also general history feels thread

>if it's a choice between right-wing authoritarianism and left-wing authoritarianism, I'll take the right-wing version.
I'll take immigration.

>if it's a choice between right-wing authoritarianism and left-wing authoritarianism, I'll take the right-wing version.
>The commies in Spain were anarcho-commies
>Franco wasn't fascist
>Franco was literally became a dictator

>implying all dictatorships are fascists
>implying the anarcho-communists wouldn't have ended up installing a dictatorship anyways

The Spanish Civil War

-Brutality on cruelty on both sides
-Families spliting up and fighting each other
-Foreign countries exploiting it to test weapons , profit and push ideology
-Hypocrisy everywhere.
-Radical ideologies (Falange on the Nationalists and the CNT-FAI on the Republicans) getting cucked hard by their Machiavellian allies.

>Standing up and fighting valiantly for tradition and liberty against Communism means indescriminate slaugher and mass rape.

>Near Seville, Nationalist soldiers raped a truckload of female prisoners, threw their bodies down a well, and paraded around town with their rifles draped with their victim's underwear. These rapes were not the result of soldiers disobeying orders, but official Nationalist policies, with officers specifically choosing Moors to be the primary perpetrators. Advancing nationalist troops scrawled "Your children will give birth to fascists" on the walls of captured buildings, and many women taken prisoner were force fed castor oil, then paraded in public naked, while the powerful laxative did its work.[122]

>Implying that Franco's dictatorship wasn't facist
>Literally banning a language isn't facist
Also, ANARCHO-commies installing a dictatorship wouldn't work because an anarchist society wouldnt have a state for a dictator to control. Communists having a dictator is a marxist meme, not an ancom one

t.marrano

>Literally wanting to be under any form of authoritarianism.
t. cuckold.

Did I say the Nationalists were any better?

>implying that fascism is defined by whether you ban a language or not
>implying an anarchist society is possible

You were implying. Also "rather be cucked by authoritarian right than left"

>"facism is characterized by [...] total suppression of opposition."
The catalons were the opposition since they didn't speak spanish like the nationalists wanted
>Implying an anarchist society wouldn't work and if it didn't they could just reinstore a state.

When you make a one sided and flippant post like that its implied

I am not the same guy who said that.
That was my only post before
I was just saying that
The Spanish Civil War in general. It always gets to me how the people stood up and fought valiantly for their ideals and liberty against facism. It gets me every time knowing that facism won once
Is either ignoring how horrible the Republicans were or bait. Does not mean the Nationalists were any better

>fascism is characterized by [...] total suppression of opposition
That covers so many different regimes and governments over the course of human history that it's a useless definition.

>Implying an anarchist society wouldn't work and if it didn't they could just reinstore a state
Exactly. We've yet to see an anarchist society come about that hasn't been force to install some kind of state.

*I was just saying that posting
>The Spanish Civil War in general. It always gets to me how the people stood up and fought valiantly for their ideals and liberty against facism. It gets me every time knowing that facism won once
Is either ignoring how horrible the Republicans were or bait. Does not mean the Nationalists were any better

What anarchist society have we seen ever without it being bigger than like a small village?

Exactly.

Because as soon as its made a state annexes it because an anarchist society wouldn't have an organized militia since it isn't a top priority

Exactly.

So for an anarchist society to work it would need
A) a big enough organized militia to defend itself
Or
B) no other states to oppose or annex it

Eh, all these arab spring "revolutions" are characterized by the media as being liberal, pro western revolts against oppression but in reality those revolting are radical islamic fundamentalists who are pissed that the government is secular and not suitably inclusive of their particular breed of lunatic fundamentalism.

Yes, although militias as a whole are largely ineffective so it would likely need to be a really large militia, probably from some place with a dense population like China.

Maybe not exactly a militia but a sort of unofficial army with training and stuff but that would only protect the borders as there wouldn't be any police

>when the Republic was immediately taken over by CNT/FAI and Stalin's goons