The pics thread

[diddykoi6]

 

[waif]

I don't know, if you look at successor nation states to big empires, they are usually less warlike. Examples include the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Soviet Union. I mean when was the last time the Czech Republic started a war. Even if you look at Yugoslavia, the violence could be seen more as a reaction of being conglomerated together rather than nation-states fighting each other.

Also the European Empires fought the bloodiest conflict in history other than World War II and it can be strongly argued that World War II would not have happened without World War I, so I don't think your argument that nation-states are more violent than empires is sound.

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.

 

[False Joe]

Only one thing can save this page of political faggotry.

 

[Blind Guardian]

Adding an Elin wallpaper

http://www.fotosdefamosas.com.br/Celebrities/Elin-Grindemyr/Elin-Grindemyr-3.JPG

 

[ASD]

Ideally the Byzantine Empire would be restored and Islam abolished.

Tr00 Varangian anti-Islamic kvlt black metal for the tan, Hellenic elite.

 

[Zephyrus]

I think the middle ground in this history debate is that we cannot compare due to the state of military technology when these types of governments existed. Suppose the Roman Empire and Persian Empire had bomber aircraft and tanks - their wars may have been just as devastating as World War 2.

 

[CF87]

 

[SweptbackFlame]

Only one thing can save this page of political faggotry.

Drooooool

 

[Belligerent]

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.

 

[SentinelSlain]

If someone did that in England they'd come back from work one day and some nosy neighbour type old granny would have painted over it because it offended her.

 

[Dak]

Ideally the Byzantine Empire would be restored and Islam abolished.



I wasn't suggesting that. It's just common sense that the more you divide the world, the more wars will be fought between those divisions, especially when they fall upon racial and religious lines. Then make that concurrent with the advance of military technology in the hands of the tyrannical demagogues at the head of each nation-state, and you have a recipe for World War.

Notice that since WW2, with the development of supernational bodies such as the NATO, the Warsaw Pact, UN and EU, the threat of world war has diminished, due to the erasure of the racist and religionist contentions that caused nation-states to fight each other.

I'm not an expert of current geopolitics, but you should accept that a homogenous nation fights more vociferously than a heterogeneous empire or supernational body.

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.

 

[Vimana]

 

[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.