4 ms·

>such as the United Kingdom, continue to exist They were really close to not existing. France stopped existing, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norwa

>such as the United Kingdom, continue to exist They were really close to not existing. France stopped existing, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, all stopped existing. China, Thailand, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Myanmar, New Guinea, Guam, East Timor, and Nauru all stopped existing.

ta1243 1y ago
That was in a pre-nuclear weapon world.
- Clubber 1y ago
  It certainly was. You think nuclear weapons are less or more likely to have countries not exist anymore? If you believe MAD works, then countries can easily not exist the conventional warfare way. If you think MAD won't work, countries can easily not exist the nuclear war way. The only difference is speed.
seanhunter 1y ago
Of your list I've been to France, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, France (you seem to have it twice for some reason), Hong Kong, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore. They all most definitely did not stop existing. Also I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when you say the United Kingdom came really close to not existing.
- Clubber 1y ago
  >I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when you say the United Kingdom came really close to not existing. Battle of Britain, Battle of France? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France >They all most definitely did not stop existing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-occupied_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-occupied_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territories_acquired_by_the_Empire_of_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territories_acquired_b... You didn't study WW2 in high school? It monumentally shaped the current world order.
  - seanhunter 1y ago
    I did. Austria, Belgium, France etc all existed during WW2. They were occupied, but they existed. Also lots of countries you listed definitely don't meet any sort of reasonable definition of "hegemon". To pick another example, Singapore was a crown colony before the war, then they were occupied by Japan during WW2, then they were a single nation with what is now Malaysia, then in the 1960s they two countries became independent from each other. They didn't under any reasonable reading of the situation cease to exist and they also have never been a hegemon of any kind.
    - Clubber 1y ago
      >They were occupied, but they existed. So what's your criteria for existing, dirt in the same place? Their governments were dissolved. That means they don't exist anymore. Does the confederacy exist since the boarders are the same and the dirt is in the same place? I would argue not. >Also lots of countries you listed definitely don't meet any sort of reasonable definition of "hegemon". I agree, just pointing out countries that no longer existed.

ta1243 1y ago

That was in a pre-nuclear weapon world.

Clubber 1y ago
It certainly was. You think nuclear weapons are less or more likely to have countries not exist anymore? If you believe MAD works, then countries can easily not exist the conventional warfare way. If you think MAD won't work, countries can easily not exist the nuclear war way. The only difference is speed.

seanhunter 1y ago

Of your list I've been to France, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, France (you seem to have it twice for some reason), Hong Kong, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore. They all most definitely did not stop existing. Also I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when you say the United Kingdom came really close to not existing.

Clubber 1y ago
>I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when you say the United Kingdom came really close to not existing. Battle of Britain, Battle of France? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France >They all most definitely did not stop existing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-occupied_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-occupied_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territories_acquired_by_the_Empire_of_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territories_acquired_b... You didn't study WW2 in high school? It monumentally shaped the current world order.
- seanhunter 1y ago
  I did. Austria, Belgium, France etc all existed during WW2. They were occupied, but they existed. Also lots of countries you listed definitely don't meet any sort of reasonable definition of "hegemon". To pick another example, Singapore was a crown colony before the war, then they were occupied by Japan during WW2, then they were a single nation with what is now Malaysia, then in the 1960s they two countries became independent from each other. They didn't under any reasonable reading of the situation cease to exist and they also have never been a hegemon of any kind.
  - Clubber 1y ago
    >They were occupied, but they existed. So what's your criteria for existing, dirt in the same place? Their governments were dissolved. That means they don't exist anymore. Does the confederacy exist since the boarders are the same and the dirt is in the same place? I would argue not. >Also lots of countries you listed definitely don't meet any sort of reasonable definition of "hegemon". I agree, just pointing out countries that no longer existed.