A question I've had on my mind of a while...

[Tab]

What are more successfull? Violent or non-violent revolutions...
Do we have any history majors on ATPN?....

 

[Steeplerot]

on what scale? and what type?
Societial I would say non-violent. Kinda like the 60's here civil rights gay right womens lib etc.

But when you have a country with a military that will not help

get rid of the corrupt administration it is a diffrent story.

I like the idea of societial better though, this way in the best circumstances you can just arrest the leaders and be done with it as long as the armed forces are on the coup's side -or engaged elsewhere.

Anyone care to share some observations on revolutions? *loves this subject -pulls up a chair*

How about revolutions started from the military itself becasue they realize there is no point in being at war elsewhere? white russia maybe?

 

[gallivanter]

It is difficult to answer because the world is such a different place now than it was even fifty years ago, let alone two-hundred years ago. The concept of a non-violent revolution is a distinctly modern, later half twentieth-century one. The idea was not a possibility previously, and as such, violent revolutons have been far more successful throughout history.

However, in recent times, it can be very easily argued that the non-violent type have been as successful, if not more so. Sell all of the 'color' revolutions as evidence.

 

[1EZduzit]

If we truly live in a democracy, then we shouldn't have to have a revolution. WIth that said, I obviously would favor a non-violent revolution. Things would have to get extremely bad before I would even consider a violent revolution. ?? That the way I see it.