In previous posts, I’ve discussed how more often than not,
the nations are forced to comply with their bosses’ orders, often at the
expense of going against what they think is right. It would follow then, that
there’s a discrepant irony between what the nations represent (their people),
and who they serve (their bosses).

Despite this direct involvement of the gov’t facilitating nation
action, there are many instances where the nations lack very minimal political
power and influence. In other words, you don’t commonly see the nations facilitating
much gov’t action.

One of the prime examples of this would be how powerless
they are to stop corruption. Nonetheless, they still possess a deep awareness and
recognition of these political issues.

Without further ado, let’s go over some examples, shall we?

The Italy Brothers:

The Italy brothers experience a lot of troubles back home.
For one thing, they have the mafia and pick-pocketers who routinely steal from
him.

Italy has his car and phone stolen.

The mafia attempts to steal imports that Romano intends to
send to Spain.

As such, the prevalence of being constantly stolen from and
victimized ultimately motivated Romano to learn how to defend himself against
pick-pocketers.

Lastly, we get an explicit recognition from Italy that the
Italian Parliament suffers from transparency and corruption issues.

America:

America’s involvement in his politics is a tricky puzzle,
all right.

He’s incredibly optimistic about the outcome of his
elections…well, at the very least he leads on the façade of believing that
everyone will get along in the end.

England notes that because of how partisan America’s
citizens are, it divides the country.

America responds by saying that the “powerful enthusiasm” of
his citizens is a good thing…

…to which England counters by deeming America to be blithe
about the political division in his country. Basically, England is saying that
America is cheerfully indifferent about how polarized the Republicans and
Democrats are.

What makes me think that America is putting on a façade is
the fact that when he claims that everyone will get along in the end, the image
he pictures is in stark contrast to his statement. It reveals two beaten-up and
worn-down citizens agreeing on the fact that the President isn’t doing his job
well.

Go back to the first panel where America refers to their political
activism as “lively.” When comparing that statement to the fact that America is
implicitly acknowledging how potentially violent his politics can become, it shows a
reluctance on his part to confront the volatile–both verbal and sometimes
physical i.e. rallies or protests–aspects of his elections.

The “United after all” phrase seems like America is trying
to convince himself that the situation in his country isn’t that bad. It’s also
important to consider that this strip is recent, having come out in 2016.

It doesn’t end here, either. As a result of America’s
dividing politics, England expresses concern for the former’s health– a small
reminder that a nation’s health can be affected by the stability or instability
of their political situation.

Of course, America waves off England’s comment, likely not
wanting to admit that even with his super strength, he can grow weaker just
like any other nation can during dire economic recessions or turbulent socio-political
disputes.

What he says next, however, gives a better hint as to how
involved he is in his politics. It’s quite worrisome.

To surmise, means to accept something as true without possessing
the evidence to confirm it. If that’s the case and America’s merely guessing
what his citizens want, it would mean that he’s not directly involved in the campaigning and gathering of public opinion.

Without a decent grasp of what the polls are like before
voting, perhaps America is relying on media reports and/or word of mouth from
other gov’t officials on who the people are leaning toward. Point is, he doesn’t
seem to be directly involved in the process of actively talking to people
during elections.

This doesn’t mean to say that America is completely removed
from his politics. He hails and takes the privilege of voting very seriously.
What I’m trying to get at is that he might have more of a sideline role with
regards to how active and engaged he is during elections.

Russia:

This one is pretty disturbing and unsuprising, but it still
goes to show how little control a nation has over their gov’t.

Bluntly and with a
troubled look on his face, Russia admits that votes [and people] in his country disappear, and
that he doesn’t even know if all of the votes are counted.

France’s Speculation about Germany:

While this is just a speculation on France’s part, it
nevertheless demonstrates the recognition that nations are capable of taking
part in corrupted schemes. As stated above, however, they don’t always have the
discretion to oppose these gov’t orders.

France suspects
that Germany took part in a conspiracy where he knew that letting Greece into the
EU would cause the European economy to crash.

Germany obviously denies this.

It’s the realized possibility that matters here, not the
actuality of it playing out in real life.

That said, while the nations are often used as puppets by
their leaders, that doesn’t mean that they share a similar mindset. Instead,
when presented with issues like corruption, it causes them to experience reciprocal
internal conflict.

I don’t get why it’s canon that America hasn’t had a cold before WWII. America’s had plenty of recessions & depressions prior to World War II & the Great Depression, so it doesn’t make sense why that would the the first time. There’s been something around 30 pre-WWII recessions in the U.S, with varying degrees of impact. Some of them heavily influenced elections, politics, beliefs, and the average American’s daily life. Can you offer some explanation as to why this is a canon fact?

I completely agree with you.

That’s why I mentioned the possibility of it being a consistency error in the post. Otherwise, it wouldn’t make sense given the lack of strength America has shown when he experiences economic depressions.

I.e. During the Great Depression, he’s visibly weaker, low in spirits, and is lacking in confidence to the point that he shivers in the face of the other nations’ anger. That’s not something you would typically see from him.

First, let’s just establish the fact that for the most part,
the nations are bound by their bosses’ orders.

“They accept their fate as it is and let their bosses order
them around.”

All right, good. Now that that’s out of the way, it’s
important to differentiate between what the nations represent and what they do.
The nations represent their people – they’re cultural personifications.

However, what’s ironic is that because the nations are
subordinated to their leaders, they often act in ways that goes against the best
interests of their people.

Basically, while the nations are personifications that
represent their people, they may not represent them well politically. There’s
an inherent tension between the reason why the nations exist (their people),
and whose interests they serve (their leaders/politicians).

Of course, this doesn’t mean to say that a government can’t
act in the best interest of their people, nor am I trying to justify or
minimize any wrong action taken by a nation as a result of an order given to
them. The point here is that there is an evident power imbalance between a
nation and their boss.

More often than not, the nations don’t have any other choice
but to listen to their boss, aside from the fact of whether the latter’s
intentions are good or bad.

Nonetheless, what I also intend to reveal is how the nations
are still able to exercise a sense of agency and resist their bosses to some
degree. Not only that, but there are times when the nations form a strong and
positive relationship with their boss.

Dictative Relationships:

Russia:

Russia is the epitome of a nation who is forced to comply
with their boss’ orders.

His bosses are “notorious” for making unreasonable demands. It’s
even alluded that they’ve tortured Russia before out of mere boredom.

He was once asked to stop a tank with his own body.

He was also ordered to build a canal in frigid weather
without any food.

Germany:

He’s forced to annex Austria, despite voicing his
unwillingness to do so.

During WW2, Finland talks to Germany about his boss troubles.
He jokes with Germany and says that countries can be imprisoned by their boss
if they complain too much.

This joke takes a dark turn when Finland suggests that
Germany’s boss would actually be capable of doing this.

Private Life:

Now that these more drastic orders have been covered, let’s go
over some of the more trivial aspects of a nation’s life that is controlled by
their boss. Like I said before, the relationship between the two isn’t always oppressive,
but there still remains a clear hierarchy.

England:

England’s banned from alcohol and sweets by his boss, and is
threatened with higher duties and taxes should he consume either of them.

The boss enforces this ban to keep England’s health in check.
Either way, this demonstrates how pervasive and extensive their control is.

Lies + Blind-sidedness:

Sometimes, the nations are kept in the dark about things
too.

America:

After the Roswell New Mexico incident, America is told that
the UFO he saw was nothing more than a weather balloon and that he should
forget that it ever happened.

Likewise, it seems that America is a bit disconnected and naïve
about how his own political system works. The fact that he has to “surmise”
what everyone wants is troubling. The naivety comes with the fact that he
thinks he can find a satisfactory political candidate that pleases everyone.

On the other hand, to surmise means to guess, estimate, or
speculate without having any evidence to confirm the assumption. If anything,
this might mean that he’s not directly involved in gathering public opinion,
but rather that he’s adopted a passive role when elections come around.

It makes me wonder how much he’s permitted to get involved
in the process.

Resistance:

While bound by their bosses’ orders through customary
tradition, there are times when the nations go against them.

Japan:

During the formation of the Anglo-Japanese alliance, Japan apologizes
to England when his boss “went on his own accord.”

Italy:

Italy maintains a boundary with his boss by asserting his right
to keep some of his life private. Admittedly, he does offer to reveal these
stories should his boss treat him to lunch.

Notice the title of this strip too. This confirms the power
differential between boss and nation.

Idolizing Relationships:

Prussia:

Lastly, there are times where the nation forms a lasting
bond with their boss.

Prussia and his relationship with Frederick II “Fritz” is
the best example of this.

Prussia idolized, or rather still idolizes, Fritz to the
point that he still keeps a picture of him on his nightside table.

You’ll also find that when he feels anxious or lonely,
Prussia evokes the memory of Fritz to comfort him. This is seen
in Buon San Valentino.

Bonus: In his character song “Mein Gott!”, Prussia also asks Fritz to watch over him.

In sum…

The nations are often forced to comply with their bosses’
orders, despite being representations of their people. None of this negates or
justifies the fact that they’ve likely been commanded to do unspeakable things.

The bosses’ orders are not always negative in nature, but
they’re still authoritative.

The nations have been shown to exercise discretion and
agency by resisting their bosses.

It’s possible for a nation to form an affectionate
relationship with their boss.

Can you analyze the relationships between the countries and their leaders? I think it would be very interesting. Would they represent their people’s view points while maybe having their own?

“Do you think that nations can go against their bosses and governments? Or do you think that they have the same beliefs as them? Can
the people influence the nation?”

What you’ll see is a complicated blend of what you two
asked.

For the most part, they’re bound by their bosses’ orders. It
does happen, but very rarely do they go against them.

Of course, it’s important to consider that the nations have minds
of their own and often disagree with the orders they’re given. Some of what
they’re told to do isn’t in their peoples’ best interest. The irony is that the
nations exist because of their people, not the government alone:

Lastly, because the nations work under their leaders’ orders,
they’re primarily reactive to their peoples’ perceptions of them.

Ex: Russia expresses
dismay during the Bloody Sunday revolt, given how hard he had worked to improve his
country for the betterment of all.

Ex: After the
Revolutionary government gains power, France is prevented from dressing
aristocratically in the fear that he’ll be assaulted.

With all that cleared out of the way, an analysis of the
nations’ bosses coming up tonight!

Keep in mind that the rules I’ve come up with here are not
canon. They’re simply just me compiling examples that form a consistent logic.

Overall, I’ve noticed two principle factors that causes the
nations to mature. There are other sub-principles that fall in tandem with
these categories.

1) They need a strong and autonomous economy, which
usually entails having a large population – If the nation is being taxed as a
colony, then they’re not economically autonomous.

2) They need to achieve political autonomy and
sovereignty (independence) – This includes a self-functioning and officially recognized
government.

Let’s go over a few examples.

America:

At a young age, due to an early economic boom, we know that
America gained super strength. However, because his economy and legislatures
were authoritatively controlled by England, he grew weak for some time.

Now, notice how under England’s overbearing rule America’s
economy is strained. Not only that, but he looks considerably younger.

Then, look at him after he begins fighting for his
independence; there’s a notable increase in age between these two panels.

We also see this same growth spurt in volume 3, where
America ages exponentially right before he revolutionizes.

With control over his politics and economy, America was then
able to become an adult.

Admittedly, in the “Cleaning out the Storage” strip, America
admits that he feels like he’s becoming an “old geezer.”

Lithuania responds by telling him that he’s merely “becoming
an adult.”

Put into context, I interpret this as America maturing
mentally, as opposed to physically. From the example above, we know just how
dramatically he aged.

Likewise, what you’ll see in a moment is that America was considered
to be an adult well before the 1930s (around the time when the outsourcing
strips take place).

Canada:

Canada is another good example of this autonomous economy/politics
requirement.

For one thing, he ages far slower than America, remaining as
a young child while the latter grew up at a faster rate. This is likely owed to
America’s larger economy.

That said, this proves the strong role that the total
strength of an economy overall plays
in the nations’ aging process. America and Canada were both under England’s
rule and were subjected to taxes, but because America’s economy [and
population] was larger, he matured more quickly.

The political autonomy rule is realized once Canada becomes
a Dominion (1867). While it’s not complete independence from Britain, it was
enough for Canada to physically mature from a teen to an adult.

Monarchies vs Constitutional Monarchies and Republics:

This is a more tentative example, but I’ve noticed that the
nations possibly could have aged as a result of a changed structure in their
governments.

Before constitutional monarchies or people’s republics, the
government was strictly run by the church and later monarchs, who ruled by
absolute divine right. Basically, the people had no say in their governments.

I mention this because in this strip here, we know that
Austria, France, and Russia are about 17-18 years old during the Seven Years’
war.

We know now that France is 26 and Austria is just a little
younger than Prussia, who’s 20↑

. We still don’t have a confirmed age for Russia
yet.

Nonetheless, the difference between now and then is that
democratic governments today are supposed to derive their power from their people (corruption
and tricky nuances aside, it’s the structure not the pragmatics that matters
here).

Starting in the late 18^th century, this new era
of politics and the subsequent provision of constitutional rights might have
lent to stronger senses of national identities, thus causing the nations to
adapt and age in response.

We also know from France that the nations exist and therefore get
their power from their people.

Latvia:

With the following rules above applied, this explains why
Latvia remains so fragile, small, and young despite existing for far longer
than some of the other nations who are physically
older than him.

Latvia hasn’t historically experienced consistent political
independence and autonomy, and has been subjected to foreign control for much
of his existence.

His economy is also considerably poor. He lags behind in
industrial developments and remains largely dependent on agriculture.

So, before anyone says that Hima characterizes a nation’s
age for seemingly no reason, try applying these rules. I guarantee you that you’ll
find some sort of economic or political justification.

I’ve seen this question enough times where I think it’s
important to differentiate between a few things.

Misconception #1: That nations are a reflection of their governments.

This couldn’t be the more opposite. Countless times
throughout the series, the nations have been shown to do things against their
will. Right from the get-go, this rule is established in chapter 1 of World Stars.

The nations may not agree with their bosses, but they
nonetheless accept their fate, resign, and obligately listen and do what they’re
told–not that it makes it right, nor am I justifying it.

Likewise, the nations represent their people. Yes, they’re
political in the sense that they’re forced to work for their governments, but
it’s important to remember that they’re cultural and historical
personifications.

They don’t represent the government. The nations represent
their people in whole; the government is only a small part of that.

In other words, likewise to the stereotypes they embody, the
nations are a symbol of their people’s cultural identity.

Think of it this way: when you identify yourself with a
national identity, is it predicated on the negative actions of your government?

No.

Then why apply the same faulty logic to the nations?

What the government does is not a reflection of that
nation’s culture. That said, it wouldn’t make sense to attribute the actions of
a political minority onto a cultural personification that represents the
majority. Not to mention that again, the nations are often forced to follow
their bosses’ orders.

Misconception #2:
Political Enemies = Personal Enemies

Remember that the nations themselves are people too.
Regardless of the wartime alliances they get involved in, they’re more often
than not able to transcend over them. While war may impact how they formally relate
to each other, it doesn’t impact the past that they’ve shared and experienced
together (spanning across decades, centuries, and sometimes even millennia).

So, while they may be enemies during war, when fighting
isn’t necessary, the nations will still interact and see each other as friends
above all else. Political relations between national leaders is more orientated
in the present, whereas due to long-established and developed relationships, the nations are more influenced by the past. However, that doesn’t mean that they hold grudges either. It just means that they have more to consider.

Misconception #3: Tense Relations = Incompatibility

Like I said above, the nations are humans too. Yes, their
countries may not have had/have the best relations, but that doesn’t
automatically mean that the respective personifications won’t get along either.

The best example of this is how Russia and America interact
with each other, especially in modern
times. They may not be the best of friends, but they still share a considerably
familiar and comfortable relationship.

Why do you say that Russia had the super strength that America has? Do you mean that Russia had it, but he lost it?

From what I understand, yes. Let’s take you through it.

Basically, I believe that
America and Russia’s super humanness stems from a historical allusion to their
status as world Superpowers during the Cold War.

The rule in the series is
that a nation’s strength derives from the strength of their economy, the
stability of their government, and whether or not they hold a dominant position
in global politics. Since both Russia and America emerged as the two leading
powers following the end of World War 2, they achieved a Superpower status. The
logic, then, is that they would be physically stronger than the other
nations. Yes, they were stronger than usual beforehand, but this accelerated their abilities even more.

You even see Finland during
the 2010 Christmas Event referring to America and Russia as super humans.
Again, I think this is a reference to the Cold War, as the power balances in
the world have long shifted since their time spent as unmitigated Superpowers.

Also
important to note here is that Finland mentions that the nations normally are
not that much different than humans. This is
consistent with the rule that a nation is more resilient than a human (aside
from their obvious immortality), but that they still nonetheless need to be a
powerful figure themself in comparison to the other nations if they’re to
possess this additional strength.

I believe that Russia doesn’t
possess his super strength anymore mainly because he’s no longer a Superpower.
He’s still stronger than most, as Finland said, but I think it’s suggested that
his super strength has waned in this strip.

When asked about their current relations, Russia responds by
stating that he used to want to “squeeze” and “snap” America.

He then goes on a sidetracked tangent about how America always
makes friends with people first. More importantly is that after showing annoyance at
Russians stereotypically being made into villains in Hollywood, he admits that
he still wants to smash America’s glasses into “ten equal parts.”

The scene ends with Russia
quickly changing the subject and proving that his relationship with America nevertheless isn’t all that bad. To me, that seems that likewise to his country’s loss of a Superpower status, Russia doesn’t have the same strength to fight America than he used to. Meanwhile, America still remains as a powerhouse today.

That said, for transparency’s sake, I really want to stress that
Russia and America still get along really well despite irking each other and
bearing old grudges.

Lastly, while acquiring a Superpower status allows younger nations
to possess additional super strength, this doesn’t seem to be the case with the older
nations. Like humans, the nations’ bodies age, albeit gradually.

This especially applies to
China and Japan. Japan held the title of the world’s second largest economy,
but if you pay close attention in the strips, a consistent theme with him is
that he’s grown weaker from old age. Ex: He has high

blood pressure, can’t do
strenuous exercise, and is referred to as an old man.

Likewise, you have the same
situation with China, who’s even older than Japan and is also referred to as an
old man/grandpa. Currently, China would be considered a superpower, and figures
suggest that they’ll eventually surpass the US economy. However, because
China’s body has aged considerably, even if he’s a Superpower, his physical
body may not be able to gain back this strength again.

Me whenever I’m asked to leave my room

So…Is Russia good or bad?

I don’t think he’s either.

Used loosely here, a ‘good’ person has a righteous morality, meanwhile a ‘bad’ person has an unacceptable morality (immoral).

If you’re incapable of understanding the consequences (both good and bad) of your actions, then you can’t possess morals. Russia’s too complex to box his character into one category. Having any morality means knowing the difference between right and wrong, an ability that Russia doesn’t consistently possess.

In other words, Russia’s amoral. However, that doesn’t mean he can’t show moments of kindness or have good intentions..

America is far from dumb. I’ve
explained this many times before. But, if more examples are needed, I’m happy
to give them.

Despite being naïve and seemingly
simple-minded at times, the reality is that America is selective in his choice
to read the atmosphere. He’s also extremely intelligent.