POTF 4 - Nominations

[Aexodus]

POTF is about recognising the very best posts, the best arguments and discourse in the D&D, and appropriately rewarding it.
You shall progressively earn these medals once you achieve enough wins, but first you must be nominated in threads such as this one. And it works like this.

Post of the Fortnight - Rules

-Each user can nominate up to 2 posts per round, and the only valid form of nomination is by quoting with a link as shown below the chosen post in the PotF thread designated for it.

Looking forward to getting this kicked off for real!

-Each 15 days there will be a new Nomination thread put up, and all the posts written during this period are considered eligible, if properly nominated. Exception are posts who are somewhat breaking the ToS; upon being acted by Moderation, they are always considered uneligible.

- Remember: It is possible to nominate up to 2 posts each round of the competition; it is also possible to change a nomination anytime before the actual round of nominations ends.

- There will be two competitions held every month, with a period for nominations followed by a period of voting. The submitted posts can be discussed in a dedicated space.

- Only posts that have not participated in a previous poll and that have been published in the current period of given time in any section of the D&D area may be nominated.

- The authors of the nominated post will be informed so they can withdraw the candidacy if that is their wish.

- The maximum number of participating posts in the final vote will be ten. If more than ten nominations are submitted, seconded nominations will take priority. After seconded nominations are considered, earliest nominations will take priority. If the number of posts submitted to the contest is less than ten, the organizing committee may nominate posts if it considers it appropriate.

-The members of the committee will never nominate a post belonging to one of them, but the rest of the users can nominate their posts (organizers posts), and vice versa.

-In the event of a tie, both posts will be awarded and both posters will receive rep and 1 competition point.

- Public or private messages asking for a vote for a candidate post are forbidden. Violators (and their posts) may not participate in the running contest.

- People are expected to consider the quality and structure of the post itself, more than the content of the same. While it's certainly impossible to completely split the two aspects when making our own opinion on a post, it remains intended, as also explained in the Competition Commentary Thread, that commenting and discussing on the content rather than on the form/structure of the post is considered off-topic for the purpose of this competition. You are free to nominate and vote for whatever reason you want, but what happens in public has to strictly follow up with the competition rules.

A nominated post should:

1. Be focused and relevant to the topic(s) being discussed.
2. Demonstrate a well-developed, insightful and nuanced understanding of the topic(s) it is discussing.
3. Be logically coherent, well organized and communicate its points effectively.
4. Support its contentions with verifiable evidence, either in the form of links or references.
5. Not be deliberately vexatious to other users.

Good luck everyone!

[Prodromos]

I'd recommend that book Abdul linked to anyone interested in the topic - Who We Are and How We Got Here by David Reich. Only that particular chapter "The genomics of race and identity" is relevant to the Watson discussion. I'm fairly sure there are particular reasons Reich chooses Watson, Harpending, and Wade in particular to call out in that chapter, some of them probably personal. Wade because he's not a real scientist and his book on the genetics of race is mostly speculative crap. Harpending because he's dead, and as such, using him as an illustrative example doesn't hurt anyone's career, and Watson because he's a dick, and has (as I have heard) been a bit of dick to Reich himself on several occasions.

If you want an alternative opinion by someone who knows what they're talking, here's Greg Cochran writing about that chapter, which he illustrates thusly:



For Cochran, it's also probably personal. Harpending was a good friend of his and a close colleague. Cochran has himself been accused of racism for his scientific views. Although I would say, it may be like Watson as much a matter of style and looseness with words that draws the criticism from reasonable people. This will be apparent if you read the linked blog post. In contrast, John Hawks who has collaborated with both Cochran and Harpending and holds similar scientific views, has rarely received such criticism and is regularly invited to contribute to mainstream media articles, largely due to the fact that he knows how to speak carefully about nuanced and controversial issues.

Neither my recommending Reich's book nor linking Cochran's commentary on it is meant to be taken as an endorsement of the entirety of either's views, but to inform regarding the internal politics of such criticism. I'd say that where the two agree, one can safely assume that to be fairly representative scientific consensus among those involved in the field. Watson has a tendency to talk stupid (as we say in my dialect), so throwing him to the wolves is a good way to protect the field from attracting an inquisition.

This is a bad way to characterize labor dynamics in United States. The reality is, that "Coal Miner" vs "Liberal Elite" is a narrative that suits poor Whites in coal towns, but that's not really how the labor force is broken down. Real Median income is 32,000$. People who earn below that are pre-school and kindergarten teachers, cosmetics workers (like the stereotypical Vietnamese woman), casino workers, pet workers (like those guys you see at Petco or a local equivalent), janitors, non-union handymen, low-skill factory workers, salesmen, extraction industry (like the aforementioned miners), etc.

Then there are people who make quite a bit of money, but are without college education, often above median wage. I'm talking about Unionized skilled labor like electricians, maintenance workers, mechanics, machinists, middle management, plumbers, technicians, entry level administrator assistants, police, etc.

And by the way, those people, tend to earn just as much, in the vicinity of, or sometimes even more than the so-called "liberal elite". And who are the liberal elite really? They're not just computer science majors and marketing whizzes who earn 100k$+ in silicon valley. They aren't highly paid, tenured, college professors who work in UCs or Ivys. No, the "liberal elite" that so many whine about, are high school teachers, video and photo editors (many of whom work on below minimum wage during the beginnings of their career), interior designers, librarians, archivists, law workers, specialized or high-level government workers like forest rangers/data analysts, writers, linguists, and therapists.

Both groups have decently high wages, but one group tends to vote for Trump, and the other tends to vote for Democrats. What's the difference? Education. So quite frankly, this isn't so much about the reality of an "oppressed" white male class, as it is about "feeling" oppressed. My father is an electrician who regularly notices racism and xenophobia among his co-workers. He frequently comments about how he can never be "in" with the management and the buddy groups that form in his workplace. He regularly comments about how his work ethic and labor is what earns him his spot, whereas many of his coworkers can slack off and get by due to being White and friendly. That's not an isolated coincidence. I've worked and I've seen how such industries operate and the dynamics of local relationships. There's a reason why White men dominate such workplaces. Mechanics, construction workers, and technicians... They form white-only cliques who regularly feel oppressed by even a hint of what they coin as "counter-racism". These people earn a good living, they're not oppressed in any way whatsoever. In fact, I rarely see immigrants among them, despite there being plenty of immigrants who would love to have those high-wages coupled with low educational requirement. Why? Lots of reasons, and racism plays a part.

So no, I disagree with this narrative of "oppressed" and "left behind" white males. There are plenty of people who earn just as little as them, I was one of those people. This isn't anything but an excuse to be racist. You see, it's very easy to justify police brutality towards black people if black people are portrayed as criminals and gang bangers. The same goes for the "liberal elite" and "immigrants". It's real easy to blame them when you paint a narrative of how these college-educated folks are earning six-figures, and immigrants are taking all the McDonald jobs. Poor Johnny over here is merely earning 35$ per hour and gets unemployment benefits from his Union. Yeah, feeling real oppressed on his couch, drinking beer, watching his orange-headed idol telling how he will build a wall and have Mexico pay American Union workers to do it.

[Aexodus]

Prior to the Iraq invasion the nation was a toothless, paper tiger but it was internaly stable and in a position to be a foil against Iran. The government was anti-Iran but was also not subject to the religous extremism prevalent in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. We'd effectively destroyed the Iraqi military in the first gulf war and the no fly zone maintained that status quo by ensuring the iraqis could never develop or sustain an air defence network.

Eventualy Saddam or his successor would be forced to come back to the table and Iraq could again be developed as a fol against Iran and even, perhaps, a third party/proxy to instigate the war against Iran that you seem to so desperately want.

The botched invason and complete dismantling of Iraq removed a substantial threat to Iran's border, blew the lid on the complex mix of ethnic tensions that Saddam had kept under control which broke Iraq into a fragmented collection of hostile sectarian factions and gave birth to isis. Iran has now been able to effectively take over large areas of Northern Iraq and spread it's influence into Syria.

As a bonus prize, America's enemies got to watch 4,424 American service personel die for Iran's extension of geo-political control of the region.

The only winner of the Iraq invasion was Iran.

[Flinn]

“I am indebted to my father for living, but to my teacher for living well.” –Alexander the Great

Alexander is generally considered one of the most accomplished and influential military leaders of all-time, but when balancing the realm of his feats and accomplishments its clear he had a ton of help:



Who then among Alexander's many contemporaries (rivals, mentors, or companions) deserves to be recognized alongside Alexander?

Note: this is not a thread about who primarily deserves credit for Alexander's success (lady luck deserves first place for that) but rather who might have taught or influenced Alexander the most.

Which person had the greatest impact on Alexander?


Alcibiades being taught by Socrates

Some nominations:

Philip II - The most obvious choice. No other person can claim more credit for Alexander's generalship, education, military training, political upbringing, and art of war then Philip II of Macedon (creating an army and phalanx system that Alexander used to conqueror the known world -in this discussion- doesn't count). Philip was also the one who introduced Alexander to Aristotle at age 13, army life at age 16, made Alexander his regent (also age 16), and appointed Alexander a major command post at the Battle of Chaeronea (age 18). Philip again, was also the one who shared with Alexander the original battle plans for the conquest of Persia.

If the criteria of a great teacher then is providing ample opportunities for the student to learn, participate, and observe, then Philip II wins first place. Where Philip falls short of course are the marriage disputes, jealousy, and "daddy issues," (at one point leading to Alexander's exile) and the fact that Philip's sudden assassination (both a curse and boon for Alexander) created loyalty issues with Philip's old guard. Alexander would struggle for their trust and support for much of his adult life (though the unending desire to escape his father's shadow and prove his worth time and again could also be used as an influence argument in Philip's favor).

Olympias - The next obvious choice. Alexander, according to some historians, was spurred on by his mother. From his mother he gained a fiery and violent temper, as well as an inclination towards rage, privilege, and entitlement. It was Olympias after all who first whispered into Alexander's ear that he was divine and that he should be king over his petulant father. To Olympias's credit she also taught Alexander to disregard most material possessions (through Leonidas's mentorship and religious piety) and how to use back-channel manipulation for political gain. Nobody assisted Alexander's rise to the throne more than Olympias, though her unconfirmed role in Philip's assassination of course, does not count as influence in this discussion.

Aristotle - One of the most brilliant minds who has ever lived and Alexander's teacher for three years. Would have taught philosophy, literature, rhetoric, geography, mathematics, geometry, and basic zoology; the equivalent of a privileged education in Greece. Beyond that however, it is highly speculative whether Alexander (a man of action) was really all that influenced by the great thinker.

Achilles - Alexander's favorite superhero. To Achilles, Alexander owes his personality as well as his disregard for physical danger, his love of risk taking, single-combat, blood and battle, and life or death defying courage. Achilles influence on Alexander is all the more impressive considering (according to Arrian) that Alexander was not of a very impressive build and probably not that athletic. No doubt though, Alexander still deserves credit for being one of the most courageous (or insane) warrior kings to have ever lived.

Darius III- Darius was Alexander's greatest rival who held the title "king of kings" and most commanding man in the world before Alexander. If you believe then that Alexander was motivated by glory (which his conquests and adoption of Darius's family, titles, and kingdom as his own seems to suggest) then Darius's mere existence had a huge impact on Alexander. It was Alexander after all, who desperately wanted to be Darius (king of kings), and hurriedly chased after him in every battle.

Cyrus the Great - If you believe Alexander was a benevolent ruler (not sure if he was really a peacemaker in my opinion, but to each his own), then you may point to Cyrus the Great as having had the greatest impact on Alexander. Before great kings bowed at the tomb of Alexander, they bowed before the tomb of Cyrus the Great, the greatest conquer and nation builder the world had ever known. Alexander did of course visit the tomb of Cyrus the Great where some say his cultural fusion plans were an attempt to relive and outdo the other's legacy.

Hephaestion - The most interesting pick and Alexander's closest friend. The only person Alexander may have considered an equal. At his death, Alexander insisted that Hephestion be worshiped as a god, where he also became manically depressed at his young friend's passing. Unfortunately however, most historical evidence shows that Hepahestion may have mostly lacked in any kind of obvious military skill or political talent. His role again seems to be more of a friend and companion than any kind of political adviser and second in command.

The Oracle at Swia - Famously proclaimed and confirmed that Alexander was the Son of Zeus. Obviously had a huge impact on Alexander's life.

Diogenes - The legendary stoic philosopher from Athens, and maybe the only person ever to b-slap Alexander philosophically and then live to tell about it. Legend has it that Alexander offered to Diogenes the entire world and as a gift anything he could possibly want, but to Diogenes' credit he appropriately told the boy king to go **** himself. Stunned by the philosopher's dignity and self worth, Alexander is quoted as saying he wishes he were more like Diogenes than anyone else who had ever lived. Alexander's constant whining and thin skin however, suggests that maybe Alexander never learned a thing from Diogenes.

Demosthenes and The Resistance Party - Demosthenes and Greek detractors were a constant thorn in young Alexander's side. If you believe then that Alexander had thin skin to the extreme, then his struggle to win a good name in Athens -and prove he was Greek- was a huge motivating force in his life.

The Army and General Staff - A point that is gaining more attention from historians and leadership experts. The argument is Alexander needed the army more than the army ever needed him (which could go either way; for example, what happens to the Macedonian army if Alexander dies in battle?) and the theory that his generals were constantly scheming to usurp him. In order then to maintain the army's loyalty and support, Alexander had to constantly lead by heroic selfless example. He had to constantly prove that he was the fittest and the bravest or somebody else from the Macedonian warrior culture would mutiny and take his place. Alexander therefore, was a slave to the ambitions of his generals and the moral needs of his army, constantly at war with both. In the end, Alexander pushed the army as far as it could go and may have exhausted himself in the process.

No one - The maverick pick. Alexander was a historical outlier. An adolescent, angry, genocidal, war-mongering megalomaniac and momma's boy who should give all the credit in the world to his incredible good fortunate. No alcoholic drunk, reckless gambler, or psychopathic prince has ever benefited so much from outcome bias. His accomplishments were either borrowed from the works of others or works of luck. He is more myth than man, but as a boy king he listened and looked up to no one. He truly believed he was a god and could do no wrong. War and glory (to include imposing his will on others) were thus his playground and his true legacy is that of an ego-centric narcissistic monster given way too much power to play with.

All the above - Another solid pick. Alexander is a complicated figure and it probably does no good to try and psycho analyze him. However, historians should still speculate whether somebody else without Alexander's unique tutelage and upbringing could also have conquered Persia. This is important when validating (or disproving) the Great Man Theory and its impact on history.

Philip II, Antiperer and Antiperer's son, Cassander, bring this last point into debate.

[makanyane]

Nazism's religion was Nazism. Anything else was just a means to an end, a way to get into the hearts and minds of the German people. The Nazis co-opted Protestantism to appeal to Protestant Germans (and to use Martin Luther as a nationalist hero), they cooperated with Catholicism to appeal to Catholic Germans and Austrians, they tolerated proto-neo-pagan Germanic Mysticism to appeal to hard-right intellectuals. And so on. Hitler's own stance on religion was probably some vaguely-defined Deism that saw himself as Germany's Messiah-- a religious standpoint that was strongly encouraged in the SS.

Now, the root movements that spawned Nazism is a bit of a more complex story. The Volkisch movement that spawned Nazism was influenced by an overall Occult Revival that was going-on in Europe and North America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It was unavoidable characteristic of the era. But these groups were not always interested in Germanic historical polytheism as a source of inspiration. Many were Theosophical societies, which held to very odd blend of Eastern thought and Hermetic mysticism. The German Faith Movement notably tried to use Vedic Indian religion as the basis for Germanic revival. And the movements that did base themselves on specifically Germanic pre-Christian roots, like Ariosophy, basically pulled things out of their ass and never really used proper scholarly backing for their religion (which is sharply different from modern Heathenry).
But the Volkisch movement was just as much driver by secular nationalism, a belief in the spiritual connection between a land and its people, and Social Darwinist views on race, resources, and struggle.

[Katsumoto]

I am glad responsibility prevailed. I don't care much about NATO's interests in the Balkans, but the name dispute fueled xenophobia and far-right populism for decades. I predict that the ratification will definitely be brought up by the opposition in the next elections as an example of "unpatriotic treason" and a grave insult against Alexander's fragile heritage, but the issue will be gradually forgotten. Macedonian feta will continue to be sold in Australian supermarkets, the 4th German Reich will not colonize the peninsula and, that ignorant tourists from Alabama will not accidentally visit Skopje instead of the Archaeological Museum of Thessalonica, that no mosaic of Alexandr Filippov in squat position and dressed in Adidas tracksuit will suddenly be discovered, and most surprisingly, neither North Macedonia will march southwards nor the Greeks will conquer their northern neighbors. As a result, the exploitation the negotiated compromise will quickly lose its political profitability, which will deter hypocritical charlatans to parrot it frequently in front of potential voters. Its remnants will only survive in obscure, ultra-nationalistic blogs, next to poorly written tirades about the Zionist-controlled media and the coalition between the Bolsheviks, Freemasons and Cthulhu.

Indeed, there are always exceptions. As far as I know, Velestinles was more of a passionate revolutionary mainly inspired from the events of the French Republic than an Enlightenment intellectual. Therefore, he was more inclined to appeal to popular tradition, although, as his nickname suggests (Pheraeos), he was not immune to the temptation of Antiquisation. Thanks to the Romance, the person of Alexander succeeded in maintaining its prominent position in the peasant's folklore, although more as a mythical hero, capable of glorious achievements, than a historical monarch of a long forgotten kingdom. I assume he was the only figure of the Antiquity, of which the future citizens of the planned nation-state were aware, in contrast to Pericles, Themistocles or Aristotle. As the article I cited explains, this is why, even Korais, despite his deep hatred against the Macedonian royalty for destroying Greek freedom, hypocritically proposed to use Alexander to rally the Christians, as he knew his symbolic importance.

[Aexodus]

We would have to define what Libertarian means in this case.

There was certainly an element of private enterprise and free market economics. The idea being that people could engage with the market so long as the government could direct the government and their efforts. Of course this was not so much the original goal of Fascism as a Socialist concept. But because Hitler and Mussolini lacked the resources to implement a full Socialist system they chose to make concessions and engage with the market to acquire capital but regulated by the state.

This would lead some to claim that Fascism was actually "State Capitalism" but that is to ignore the basic premise of Fascism and the complex system of Germany and Italy's economics. There was also a conflict among Leftists that Syndicalism was not true Socialism and was really just State Capitalism. But this is just an autistic semantic argument with no real importance in reality or pragmatic implementations. By that train of thought modern China as of Deng Xiaoping and Hu Jintao isn't Communist. But I don't see why it can't be both Communist and Capitalist. The fact is that China only "reformed Communism" due to the fact that Mao's collectivization and command economy had failed. It is similar to Fascist, State Capitalist, other Socialist and Syndicalist models but in this case one which emerged entirely from Communism and the need to pursue practical policies rather than theories. This isn't much different from what Lenin or Stalin attempted later on either, once Marxist economic policies had failed. Just that Post-Reform China has taken these attempts to new extremes.

It really wasn't Capitalist it was a form of Socialism which from necessity depended on private enterprise rather than total collectivism. Though unlike various forms of Marxism, Fascism had an emphasis on individual interests and private property. It is therefore curious that many claim that Fascism was influenced by Erich Ludendorff's Total State Principles. However this is to overestimate Ludendorff's intellectual contributions and to take the Total State out of context, both ideologically and historically. Ludendorff was writing in the aftermath of WW1 in which Germany's defeat was largely attributed to their inability to create a Total War economy. Ludendorff theorized that total control over the state would allow for the state to more easily seize production and resources for the purpose of waging war.

However Germany did not have sufficient capital to implement these policies or win such a war. As such it was Hans von Seeckt who suggested that Germany acquire their capital through private enterprise. He also advocated for a professional army rather than a large army formed through conscription, which was the impetus for the Wehrmacht. Seeckt was more influential than Ludendorff. The only major changes which Hitler made were to expand the Wehrmacht and introduce conscription. In a way Seeckt was correct but largely incorrect. While his assessment that Germany did not have the means to form a Total War economy and that allowing war industrialists to build up the armed forces was more practical, he was ultimately incorrect. Relying on various corporations actually made German war production a mess. Without the central control of the state or standardized production the Germans were outproduced by the Soviets, who carried this out entirely through collectivist policies.

If we have established that in spite of extreme collectivism, the Soviets actually had better production then why did the Germans not simply implement total collectivism?
Well there are a lot of reasons. For starters the Germans simply did not have the resources nor the means to implement these policies. This easily explains why Hitler waited until 1942 to mobilize the state for Total War. They had immense shortages of fuel and raw materials, in order to maximize these resources they had to resort to diverting production towards synthetic materials and also rationing resources to take them out of the domestic market. Essentially this caused mass famine, which was also a problem in USSR and Britain but alleviated through lend lease. The Germans also had to pay these corporations through credit and the equivalent of warbonds, much like in America and Britain.

Why did they have to pay to implement a war economy? Because by taking these resources to fuel the war economy it removed them from the domestic market and so they needed a way to exchange physical resources and produce, or else not have this in the economy at all. Credit was the only way to do it, they had nothing else. But unlike the USSR which collectivized their production, resources and labour they did not have easy access to private property. But yeah, the bottom line is that by not collectivizing the Germans actually made production a nightmare. They were not on the right track until 1942 when they implemented Total War and industrialists such as Albrecht Speer helped to develop the war economy. But the reason that this war economy failed was simply because the Germans lacked the resources to fuel it, unlike America and USSR.

Why were Hitler and Mussolini unable to implement Socialist and Collectivist policies?
Largely they lacked the industry or resources to do so. However this doesn't explain why they didn't try to do it sooner. The reason being that the Conservatives and Liberals in power were against it. For instance Hitler had to fight against his generals and policy makers, just to implement conscription in 1935. Ultimately Hitler was proven correct and Hans von Seeckt and his subordinates were wrong. On this technicality Ludendorff was correct. When it comes to economics and government Hitler had to appeal to the Conservatives and Liberals to come into power and to keep his power. This largely included the army which was controlled by Prussian aristocrats (likewise in Italy, the monarchist aristocracy). The radical elements of the Nazi party wanted to implement a revolution, purge the state and military and called out Hitler for conceding to the aristocracy and only implementing reforms. When they conspired to overthrow the state these were purged in the Night of the Long Knives. However it is fair to say that Roehm had a point. Had the Germans gone full Stalin and taken total control of the state they would have likely been able to implement more efficient policies, carried out production far better (not having to rely on various uncoordinated corporations), had a better war economy and as a caveat no attempts by the officers to blow up Hitler, nor officers like Canaris to give intel to the British. Quite likely the Germans would have performed better militarily as well, no old school Prussians attempting outdated maneuvers and tactics.

[Abdülmecid I]

People bring up how the west has such high emissions per capita in order to guilt us, and saying we need to lower our living standards in order that others can raise theirs. But where is the sense of making per capita comparisons when the the population growth is radically different? Let's say we magically make every country have the same emission per capita. What happens next? poor muhammad in nigeria decides he needs to have five wives and ten kids with each wife even though he can't even feed them. Then he comes to me and tells me I have to cut my living standard even more because now he increased the number of nigerians, so their per capita emissions is lower. How is this fair? Unless I can influence how many kids muhammad gets to have, it's not fair that he can demand more resources.

This is unfair as it punishes responsible countries and encourages irresponsible countries. This can be generalised to other per capita comparisions with other resources. Point is that much of the third world's problems are due to their own irresponsibility. If you cointinue to breed like rabbits even though you know you're dirt poor, you deserve to stay in poverty. Look at China, they realised this and did the smart thing, limiting their growth, and now they grow richer. A better thing would be to, by some fair method, give each country a fixed % of resources, which does not vary by population. that's not going to happen of course, but it'd be a lot fairer than per capita.

Moved to the Academy, as it's not a current political event. ~Abdülmecid I

2000 publication from IPCC: Summary for Policymakers - Emissions Scenarios: A Special Report of IPCC Working Group III


Science 2018: Global warming policy: Is population left out in the cold?
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6403/650
http://demographic-challenge.com/fil...cience-361.pdf

Science 2014: No way to stop human population growth?
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/...ulation-growth

Science 1991: Environmentalists: Ban the (Population) Bomb
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/252/5010/1247

World Bank: Population, Poverty, and Climate Change
http://documents.worldbank.org/curat...df/WPS6631.pdf

2006 human population density:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_density_map.PNG

Demography is not forgotten. It is simply very hard to solve anything related to this issue because it happens in poor countries. But if demography is a part of the problem, it is not a part of the solution anymore. There is no way we can divide the actual human population in half for the next decades and the issue of climate change is pressing. We are late on this matter. Moreover, it is very difficult to ask anything to poor countries with bad institutions and governments when we are not even able to attain our own goals in the reduction of CO2 emissions while having better situations. Maybe we should first prove that we can respect our promises before to interfere in the policy of poor countries. But you are right, in the end the size of the human population will be important.

The answer is similar, while not explicitly given by anyone in the previous thread you've posted, is American power.

Germany, Japan, Italy and all of their allies combined didn't have much, or any, advantage when it came to natural resources compared to the US, they did have circa 100 million people more and that's about it. Meanwhile, their targets besides the US, included the British Empire, Soviet Union and the Chinese, among many others.

The resources and the population of the British Empire was far greater than of the Axis powers combined, SU, on the other had almost as many people as the the Axis. It would have been a tough fight, as evidenced by Soviet casualties, but add the US into the fray and the Axis chances of victory, which were at 1st December 1941 somewhat unrealistic, become nigh impossible.

Also there is a difference in pursuing, in my opinion at least, an ineffective, never ending interventionist foreign policy, with considerable undesired civilian casualties, and deliberately targeting civilians with biological weapons, which the Japanese did, or in Germany's case, implementing special plans to exterminate Slavs by starvation, slave labor, deportation to special reservations, or outright extermination, in order to create a "living space", and secure more arable land and natural resources.

Also there was the extermination not driven by economic factors, but out of a purely ideological belief that some peoples, such as the Jews and Romanis, who were considered innately inferior deserved it.

I'm not sure how many unarmed civilians did the US kill since achieving independence, however I think that the Axis powers achieved all those casualties in the span of less than a decade, where as the US needed more than 200 years.

In short, very oversimplified way, disregarding whose more evil, Germany and Co. were stopped because they weren't strong enough, whereas the US has no equal, and if the whole World would band together to destroy it which would only be possible if nuclear weapons didn't exist, it would still be difficult to cross the oceans to invade it, especially if Canada and Central America were to be occupied by the US.

Is the world really that afraid?

I'm quite certain that the majority of the World doesn't really care, as long as the US doesn't bomb them they're fine with it.

Is the US really that powerful?

Yes.

If the world destroyed America, would that really create more problems than solve it?

We won't be able to find that out in the near future, due to mutually assured destruction. Perhaps one day, when there's a distant colony on one of the Jupiter's or Saturn's moons, Humanity will no longer fear of Earth being annihilated and then we'll see what happens... outside Earth of course, no one will want to live in that America-Free Planet.