Americans just can't conceive of it for some reason. Always itching for a fight and not even contemplating the notion that the fight isn't immediately adjacent to doing nothing.
Jesus, that's depressing, considering how long Franco was in power.
Rump might live off McDs but he also doesn't drink and gets regular movement (can you call golf exercise?) Its very possible he could plague us for another ten years.
Since when are elections revolutions? If everything is a revolution nothing is. If you define a revolution as a change of regime then all changes of regime are revolutions, it's a useless, entirely tautological definition.
The OP is asking if fascist regimes have been reverted "without a war or a revolution", presumably meaning without violent conflict.
This is a thing. It has happened multiple times, no matter how low of a bar for violence you set in place.
The Portuguese had class conscious troops, so it stayed peaceful, while being called a revolution.
They were mostly fedup with being forced to fight in the African colonies, but yes.
Oh, yes!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_transition_to_democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_transition_to_democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_transition_to_democracy
Americans just can't conceive of it for some reason. Always itching for a fight and not even contemplating the notion that the fight isn't immediately adjacent to doing nothing.
You're so right and wise and morally correct, MudMan, we need to let them murder people for fifty years first.
Did I say that? At what point did I say that? Is the snarky straw man thing a coping mechanism? Because it certainly isn't an argument.
Sure, after killing 3000 chileans.
Do you count nonviolent revolutions?
Nonviolent revolution, like street protests and strikes etc. is just another word for plain and simple democratic change - so yes, absolutely.
In that case, the nonviolent People Power Revolution ended 20 years of Ferdinand Marcos's dictatorship
Not sure if this fits the description but Greece seems to have done it pretty well in 74
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metapolitefsi
But in November 17th of the previous year, a riot had occurred which ultimately resulted in the end of the military junda.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Polytechnic_uprising
Fair - I wouldn't call it a war though. Not even a revolution as such. It was a riot as you say, with a clash where 40 individuals estimated killed.
Look at the fall of Franco’s regime
Jesus, that's depressing, considering how long Franco was in power.
Rump might live off McDs but he also doesn't drink and gets regular movement (can you call golf exercise?) Its very possible he could plague us for another ten years.
Yes. You need all the military on the side of the people.
Nup
I wish I had better news for you
Is the bad news you aren't very good at Wikipedia searches?
Hands probably too sticky.
What happened was definitely revolutionary
It wasn't as violent as some others, but it was still revolution
What happened where?
Since when are elections revolutions? If everything is a revolution nothing is. If you define a revolution as a change of regime then all changes of regime are revolutions, it's a useless, entirely tautological definition.
The OP is asking if fascist regimes have been reverted "without a war or a revolution", presumably meaning without violent conflict.
This is a thing. It has happened multiple times, no matter how low of a bar for violence you set in place.