The definition when a regional gov is occupying that region is a very dubious line.
If a war-time president extends their term twice (without elections) & starts building concentration camps for his own citizens - is that “an occupation”?
(I’m talking about Roosevelt.)
And to get back To the discussion and reply to ya question.
Well maybe “occupation” is maybe not the right word for the Nazi problem back in the Day, but Germans tried to fight against their own regime even with weapons… Isn’t that kind a occupation?
Ad yeah people be like “they voted him, so they wanted him” feels also kinda shady when you see the historical records and compare them to todays US problems… Where a president tryies everything to stop their citizens to vote somebody he doesnt like…
Are there elections? Yes.
Do people in position of power try to manipulate the elections? Also yes!
I mean back in Nazi Germany you COULD vote, but took your right to vote without somebody seeing you who you are voting you were instanr suspicious…
Hope ya get what I am trying to say. I am not used to discuss such topics in English…
Yeah, I didn’t/don’t disagree with the word, it’s just that it entirely depends on the point of view (as opposed to more technical terms).
All regimes, “good” or “bad” have oppositions, folk were warning about Hitler way before rising to power, and indeed there were always fighters against him. But same as with “occupation” determining if those are “domestic terrorists” or “freedom fighters” (also dubious terms in their own) depends on your side/your views.
Hippies pretesting war (an actual occupation) in Vietnam got so demonized that there are still official (bs) policies in place in USA from that era.
USA citizens had nothing to benefit from all the anti-hippie propaganda, it was all for war profiteering, so in a sense that the gov wasn’t working for the people, they were occupied.
Native Americans fighting against occupation & genocide are still branded as savages that attacked unprovoked. But had they won (somehow), that wouldn’t be the case. Much like German “terrorists” that fought the regime aren’t seen as that anyone (or even peaceful activists aren’t seen as traitors anymore, eg the famous wiki/Sophie_Scholl).
A lot of demonstrations get branded that way too (eg against big oil). And get met with force.
That def feels like a justification that someone occupied the country/government.
A sort of occupation is also when politicians of a nation are hijacked by interests groups (megacorps, powerful geopolitical players, some cabal).
And you get situations where citizens overwhelmingly support an issue (75+%) but no politicians won’ impellent it.
Self censorship is so cringe. Capitulating to the advertising overlords for nothing.
I dont think that this is self censoring… Honestly I first thought it was a shitpost…
I mean Nazi Germany was Germany occupied by Nazis not Germany…
Why is “terrorist” crossed out?
The definition when a regional gov is occupying that region is a very dubious line.
If a war-time president extends their term twice
(without elections)& starts building concentration camps for his own citizens - is that “an occupation”?(I’m talking about Roosevelt.)
First of all… TIL ! Interesting!
And to get back To the discussion and reply to ya question.
Well maybe “occupation” is maybe not the right word for the Nazi problem back in the Day, but Germans tried to fight against their own regime even with weapons… Isn’t that kind a occupation?
Ad yeah people be like “they voted him, so they wanted him” feels also kinda shady when you see the historical records and compare them to todays US problems… Where a president tryies everything to stop their citizens to vote somebody he doesnt like…
Are there elections? Yes.
Do people in position of power try to manipulate the elections? Also yes!
I mean back in Nazi Germany you COULD vote, but took your right to vote without somebody seeing you who you are voting you were instanr suspicious…
Hope ya get what I am trying to say. I am not used to discuss such topics in English…
Yeah, I didn’t/don’t disagree with the word, it’s just that it entirely depends on the point of view (as opposed to more technical terms).
All regimes, “good” or “bad” have oppositions, folk were warning about Hitler way before rising to power, and indeed there were always fighters against him. But same as with “occupation” determining if those are “domestic terrorists” or “freedom fighters” (also dubious terms in their own) depends on your side/your views.
Hippies pretesting war (an actual occupation) in Vietnam got so demonized that there are still official (bs) policies in place in USA from that era.
USA citizens had nothing to benefit from all the anti-hippie propaganda, it was all for war profiteering, so in a sense that the gov wasn’t working for the people, they were occupied.
Native Americans fighting against occupation & genocide are still branded as savages that attacked unprovoked. But had they won (somehow), that wouldn’t be the case. Much like German “terrorists” that fought the regime aren’t seen as that anyone (or even peaceful activists aren’t seen as traitors anymore, eg the famous wiki/Sophie_Scholl).
A lot of demonstrations get branded that way too (eg against big oil). And get met with force.
That def feels like a justification that someone occupied the country/government.
A sort of occupation is also when politicians of a nation are hijacked by interests groups (megacorps, powerful geopolitical players, some cabal).
And you get situations where citizens overwhelmingly support an issue (75+%) but no politicians won’ impellent it.
Uhh what?
Sorry, my bad, there were four elections!!
(Edited the previous comment accordingly.)