The pics thread

[Zephyrus]

You are still assuming war will happen because there is a boundary. Alliances were the cause of WWI, and there would have been no WWII if there hadn't been a WWI. You can lay a lot of blame on Woodrow Wilson and America for creating the situation for the Nazis to rise. Meddling in other countries affairs is bad 99% of the time. This includes things like the EU, UN, etc.

Blame the tyrannical heads of state, not the state concept.

World War I was sparked by the gun of a Serbian nationalist.

Yep. Wilson's 14 Points simply sped up the process of forming nation states, and did a crappy job at it. The map of Europe was shittily redrawn, with Germans to the East, West and South placed in foreign countries, just begging for a German nationalist to rise up and liberate them.

Let me do some fanciful speculation here. Imagine if Napoleon won in the end. The World would eventually be divided between the French, Ottoman and Japanese Empires. Would they necessarily fight it out for total world domination, or recognize their limits and work for their mutual economic benefit? Don't answer this by saying Napoleon would have never succeeded. Just assume the situation I posed.

 

[Krow]

Eat it, fuck it... take it on road trips with you...

FUCK goats are versatile.

 

[The Ozzman]

A house two blocks away from me. Because of this patriotic fuckface my house will probably be worth less when i go to sell it.

Yes because paint is so expensive

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Eat it, fuck it... take it on road trips with you...

FUCK goats are versatile.

Win post. Almost sigable.

 

[Belligerent]

Yes because paint is so expensive

Yeah smartass not to mention the place is a shithole.

 

[Eligos]

Must be hard, moving through all that shit just to get food, check the internet, and go to sleep.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Just redid my Wall o' Death! This shit's right above my bed. I'm consistently watched over by great metal bands (and some OK ones, and one great noise act):

 

[waif]

World War I was sparked by the gun of a Serbian nationalist.

Reassure me that you understand the distinction between the trigger and the cause. WWI was inevitable due to conflicting interests in the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. The creation of nation-states in the Balkans was a nationalist movement, for sure. Russia's desire to control some of that territory was Slavic nationalism as well. But Prussia? Pure Machiavelian assholery. Of course, there was the general European desire to see who had the largest penis.

Let me do some fanciful speculation here. Imagine if Napoleon won in the end. The World would eventually be divided between the French, Ottoman and Japanese Empires. Would they necessarily fight it out for total world domination, or recognize their limits and work for their mutual economic benefit? Don't answer this by saying Napoleon would have never succeeded. Just assume the situation I posed.

What you're proposing is to imagine that the French nation-state could have conquered all the rest of Europe (not too much of a stretch) and then HELD IT despite the inevitable nationalist movements in those countries. That's a bit far-fetched. Also, "French, Ottoman, and Japanese?" If Russia circa 1808 has a free hand against the Ottomans, Russia wins.

This shit's right above my bed.

Uh...no, it's not. Unless you sleep on a desk.

 

[cookiecutter]

There were lots of wars before the development of nation-states, but they were generally fought by mercenaries and involved relatively little bloodshed and a lot of maneuvering. Wars certainly became much bloodier with the development of nation-states, since there were people who were willing to fight to the death. However, I think the root here is not the development of nation-states, but the development of a conscious sense of national or ethnic identity.

I would definitely dispute that the reasons wars became bloodier with the rise of the nation state is due to a sense of a national identity. It is due to tanks and machine guns and bombers and things like that. Really the only major conflict that has been fought since the development of the nation-state was WWII and as we've already said that grew out of WWI, a conflict you yourself admit was started by the European empires.

Serbia indeed was a nation-state at the outbreak of WWI but they were merely the trigger as you say not the underlying cause. If not for the network of alliances engineered by the French, German, Russian, British and Austro-Hungarian empires, it would've merely been a regional conflict.

Prior to 1914 there were tons of conflicts. If you want bloody examples look at the Boer War or the British invasion of Tibet. I know this all stemmed from a humorous cartoon, but I don't think the argument that the creation of nation-states has made humanity more warlike is not defensible.

 

[-CC-]

 

[False Joe]

Win

 

[Blind Guardian]

What's up with everyone having Utumno posters recently?! I thought no one even knew of this band.

 

[Hubster]

!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Hubster]

They call him the working man.

Fuck me dead thats Geddy Lee!

 

[Dak]

The rug really ties the room together.

 

[False Joe]

The rug really ties the room together.

Fucking legend movie.

"World of pain" and "Watch the beverage, man" have entered me and my mates regular vocabulary since we rewatched that.

 

[arg]

fap

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Yep. Hot

 

[Einherjar86]

The rug really ties the room together.

You totally just reminded me:

There's a guy running for senate on my campus whose last name is Dejesus.

I don't even need to tell you what his slogan should be, but I will anyway: "Nobody fucks with Dejesus!"

 

[waif]

I would definitely dispute that the reasons wars became bloodier with the rise of the nation state is due to a sense of a national identity. It is due to tanks and machine guns and bombers and things like that.

Agreed, there's increased killing power, but that doesn't matter without people willing to be killed. In WWI the Russians would have a line of soldiers. The guy at the front would have the gun. They'd run at a machine-gun nest and the guy in front would get shot. The guy behind him would pick up the gun and keep going. You don't get that sorta shit from mercenaries. Even without modern weapons WWI would have been a hell of a lot bloodier.

Really the only major conflict that has been fought since the development of the nation-state was WWII and as we've already said that grew out of WWI, a conflict you yourself admit was started by the European empires.

Right, WWII was inevitable after WWI...but only due to the development of nation-states in Europe; if the Treaty of Versailles had been made in the 1700s everything would have been cool.

If not for the network of alliances engineered by the French, German, Russian, British and Austro-Hungarian empires, it would've merely been a regional conflict.

Right. Nation-states were not really at fault for WWI.

I know this all stemmed from a humorous cartoon, but I don't think the argument that the creation of nation-states has made humanity more warlike is not defensible.

Or in other words you do think the argument that the creation of nation states has made humanity more warlike is defensible (Why the double negative?). You seem to be arguing that people were just as warlike before the rise of nation-states, though. And I'm not even sure what I'm arguing...