Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comparison of Belligerents' Foreign Policies

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    In short: manking behaving badly? Corruption, jealousy, cruelty, oppression, war...existed 3.000 years before Nappy was born. Let's just get rid of history it's always the same anyway!

    This is me being sarcastic!

    C'mon Emtos, truly...do you believe the French Revolution and Napoleon left no traces behind in our history? It is just a 'smear' on our timeline that was erased by the Congress of Vienna?
    Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily.- Napoleon

    It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation.- Herman Melville

    Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

    BORG

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Emtos View Post

      My knowledge is excellent. I don't have lessons to take.
      That is an ignorant and self-centered statement to make. All of us have room to learn and understand.

      You are clearly not demonstrating that idea.

      You are completely incorrect in your assessment of the period.

      Perhaps you could name some sources that support your opinions.
      We are not now that strength which in old days
      Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
      Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
      To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

      Comment


      • #33
        What opinions? Be precise.
        There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Stratego View Post
          In short: manking behaving badly? Corruption, jealousy, cruelty, oppression, war...existed 3.000 years before Nappy was born. Let's just get rid of history it's always the same anyway!

          This is me being sarcastic!

          C'mon Emtos, truly...do you believe the French Revolution and Napoleon left no traces behind in our history? It is just a 'smear' on our timeline that was erased by the Congress of Vienna?
          There are some Nappy fans left. Some guyswho like to dress as soldiers from era. Some laws and organisations. But that's pretty much all. Congress of Vienna put the things back in correct direction.Things continued like they used to be.
          There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Emtos View Post

            There are some Nappy fans left. Some guyswho like to dress as soldiers from era. Some laws and organisations. But that's pretty much all. Congress of Vienna put the things back in correct direction.Things continued like they used to be.
            If they had we would still be ruled by absolute monarchs by the Grace of God, in police states, with passports for internal travel, and the Reaction would be the dominant ideology.

            The Reaction WANTED to stuff it all back into the box. And they killed a LOT of people for quite some time to try to get it that way. And they failed. So comprehensively political reactionism is today entirely incomprehensible – just not part of the ideological or political landscape, only historians keep track of it (since without keeping it in mind, the entire post-Napoleonic period, the revolutions in particular, makes no sense).

            Becaues this all came about through the WAVES of revolutions that started as soon as the Napoleonic wars ended. Sure, one didn't do it, it took loads of them all over Europe to get there. But it did.

            And it had won when even political leaders hostile o it, like Bismarck, felt it necessary to co-opt part of the liberal revolutionary agenda – as the only safe way to ensure not being swept away by the next wave of revolution.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
              If they had we would still be ruled by absolute monarchs by the Grace of God, in police states, with passports for internal travel, and the Reaction would be the dominant ideology.

              The Reaction WANTED to stuff it all back into the box. And they killed a LOT of people for quite some time to try to get it that way. And they failed. So comprehensively political reactionism is today entirely incomprehensible – just not part of the ideological or political landscape, only historians keep track of it (since without keeping it in mind, the entire post-Napoleonic period, the revolutions in particular, makes no sense).

              Becaues this all came about through the WAVES of revolutions that started as soon as the Napoleonic wars ended. Sure, one didn't do it, it took loads of them all over Europe to get there. But it did.

              And it had won when even political leaders hostile o it, like Bismarck, felt it necessary to co-opt part of the liberal revolutionary agenda – as the only safe way to ensure not being swept away by the next wave of revolution.
              I think you need to distinguish between revolts and revolutions, the latter being the episodes that actually brought about something approaching meaningful change, as opposed to the numerous risings that were suppressed,

              Moreover, after a hundred years the liberal 'experiment', despite, for example. Belgian independence ( that turned out well for humanity*), the Unificaion of italy, and the Third Republic ( -cough- Dreyfus) Europe still managed to preside over a half century of the most murderous non-monarchical absolutism and two bouts of bloody conflict which then ushered in fifty years of Cold War underwritten by Mutually Assured Destruction.

              However, Man did make it to the Moon.

              (*PS add something about C19th Colonialism if you have time)

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Emtos View Post

                Existed long before Napoleon.



                Poland was a problem for Russia 800 before Napoleon. So nothing new.



                Friedrich II already did this before Napy was born.



                Existed before.



                They were great in the years before revolution nor they were great after Napy was gone. The other governments however performed not much better.
                Um- indeed. That the point of my post. I was agreeing with you. You saw that, right?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by jf42 View Post

                  I think you need to distinguish between revolts and revolutions, the latter being the episodes that actually brought about something approaching meaningful change, as opposed to the numerous risings that were suppressed,
                  That, if anything is semantics.

                  But sure, rebellions are the ones that fail – certainly in the eyes of those that defeat them. The 19th c. was however full of defeated REVOLUTIONS. Things went the way that did because the forces involved were as heavily committed and aggressive as they were. The Reaction never managed to defeat the revolutionary Liberals. As time went on their desperation and fear of them increased to the point where the need to reform and compromise was recognised.
                  Originally posted by jf42 View Post
                  Moreover, after a hundred years the liberal 'experiment', despite, for example. Belgian independence ( that turned out well for humanity*), the Unificaion of italy, and the Third Republic ( -cough- Dreyfus) Europe still managed to preside over a half century of the most murderous non-monarchical absolutism and two bouts of bloody conflict which then ushered in fifty years of Cold War underwritten by Mutually Assured Destruction.

                  However, Man did make it to the Moon.

                  (*PS add something about C19th Colonialism if you have time)
                  You mean we would all have been better off is history has just stopped in 1789? Perhaps. Not really likely though.

                  And what you're doing here is assigning blame with zero context. IF revolutionary Liberalism had succeeded sooner, all these displacement activities attempted by conservative governments trying to stem the inexorable tide would not have been needed – including aggressive nationalist militarism, which in turn was part of co-opting part of the the Liberal agenda for Conservatism (when outright Reaction had already proven its inability to control matters).

                  The multinational empire, "the prisons of the nations", where inherently imperialistic and aggressive, so no change. Liberalism was about freedom here.

                  Besides, the main driver of European overseas colonialism was the British empire – out of the circuit of the stakes of the European revolutionary situation, and inherently Liberal. The "informal" British empire managed for most of the 19th c. The late 19th c. European imperial colonialism, "the Scramble for Africa" etc., was largely a matter of the British informal empire getting actual competition from

                  You can't dislike Liberalism if you like, but the you have to denounce the British first, and the US – which is a Liberal state – is hardly blameless in the imperialism department either.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post

                    The Reaction WANTED to stuff it all back into the box. And they killed a LOT of people for quite some time to try to get it that way. And they failed. So comprehensively political reactionism is today entirely incomprehensible – just not part of the ideological or political landscape, only historians keep track of it (since without keeping it in mind, the entire post-Napoleonic period, the revolutions in particular, makes no sense).
                    Europe was, slowly and unevenly, becoming more liberal before the French Revolution. It was the tremendous violence and instability unleashed by the revolution that allowed the victory of reactionary forces.
                    At the end of the day the old fashioned European autocracies still killed far fewer of their own people than the revolutionary mob did or would have had they got the chance.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Gooner View Post

                      Europe was, slowly and unevenly, becoming more liberal before the French Revolution. It was the tremendous violence and instability unleashed by the revolution that allowed the victory of reactionary forces.
                      At the end of the day the old fashioned European autocracies still killed far fewer of their own people than the revolutionary mob did or would have had they got the chance.
                      Where was that liberalism? It certainly was not in Austria, Russia, or Prussia whose rulers were autocrats as well as absolute monarchs.

                      Spain, because of the Napoleonic influence, did become more liberal until the return of Ferdinand brought reaction and oppression in the old way along with a return of the Inquisition.

                      The return of the Papal States to the pope in 1814 brought a return of the Inquisition there as well as a return of the Jewish Ghetto both of which had been abolished by Napoleon.
                      We are not now that strength which in old days
                      Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                      Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                      To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Massena View Post

                        Where was that liberalism? It certainly was not in Austria, Russia, or Prussia whose rulers were autocrats as well as absolute monarchs.
                        So if liberalism is incompatible with autocracy and an absolute ruler then it must also be incompatible with Napoleon.

                        Careful to avoid the term 'Enlightened Absolutism' in a reply.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by jf42 View Post

                          I think you need to distinguish between revolts and revolutions, the latter being the episodes that actually brought about something approaching meaningful change, as opposed to the numerous risings that were suppressed,

                          Moreover, after a hundred years the liberal 'experiment', despite, for example. Belgian independence ( that turned out well for humanity*), the Unificaion of italy, and the Third Republic ( -cough- Dreyfus) Europe still managed to preside over a half century of the most murderous non-monarchical absolutism and two bouts of bloody conflict which then ushered in fifty years of Cold War underwritten by Mutually Assured Destruction.

                          However, Man did make it to the Moon.

                          (*PS add something about C19th Colonialism if you have time)
                          All the 'risings' were not suppressed, such as that of the Belgians in 1830, and the two French revolutions in 1830 and 1848. Seems to me that the terms 'revolt' and 'revolution' convey the same meaning.

                          We are not now that strength which in old days
                          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Gooner View Post

                            So if liberalism is incompatible with autocracy and an absolute ruler then it must also be incompatible with Napoleon.

                            Careful to avoid the term 'Enlightened Absolutism' in a reply.
                            Compared to his fellow monarchs, Napoleon was a liberal based on the social, political, and governmental reforms that he initiated which changed France and still maintained the social gains of the Revolution.
                            We are not now that strength which in old days
                            Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                            Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                            To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Gooner View Post


                              At the end of the day the old fashioned European autocracies still killed far fewer of their own people than the revolutionary mob did or would have had they got the chance.
                              That is is so untrue...the reason why the mob reacted with such violence is because they've seen their relatives starve to death - this for hundreds of years. If you can 't put yourself in their shoes, there is no way you will be able to understand the French Revolution...
                              And yes, I can almost taste and smell the feelings of the common people 250 years ago.

                              The absolutist monarchs and their aristocrats have been guilty of so many deaths in the past centuries of their rule it makes that what the mob did in the years 1789 - 1794 look like a simple 'papercut'.

                              There were certain ways for monarchs and aritstocrats to stay in power: by oppression, intrigue, corruption and inbreed. For this reason alone I would be ashamed to be descended from any monarch or aristorcratic family in my familiy tree
                              Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily.- Napoleon

                              It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation.- Herman Melville

                              Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

                              BORG

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
                                That, if anything is semantics..
                                It is indeed. Using language to embody ideas. In this case to distinguish between politically movitvated violence that hoped to effect change but failed and that which succeeded.

                                Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
                                But sure, rebellions are the ones that fail – certainly in the eyes of those that defeat them. The 19th c. was however full of defeated REVOLUTIONS. Things went the way that did because the forces involved were as heavily committed and aggressive as they were. The Reaction never managed to defeat the revolutionary Liberals.
                                I am sorry that just doesnt make sense. A failed rising is a failed rising- whether you are one of those implicated or those rounding them up. And in what way do you distinguish between a failed rebellion and a failed revolution- ( feel free to use semantics)?

                                True what we might call liberal thinking (we haven't really defined our terms, here) continued to evolve throughout the C19th as did the spirit of Reaction.

                                This contributed to successive challenges to the absolutist, religious and colonial status quo (am not sure I would really describe them as 'waves of revolutions,' though) and there was incremental political and social reform. There was no systemic change until 1917 in Russia, whether that was liberal is another matter, and Austria and Germany saw considerable change in becoming republics, while of course the Ottoman empire saw radical change with Turkey becoming a secular state, but the bulk of its lands appropriated by European powers.


                                Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
                                You mean we would all have been better off is history has just stopped in 1789?
                                No.

                                Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
                                And what you're doing here is assigning blame with zero context.
                                'Assigning blame'- to whom?

                                Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
                                IF revolutionary Liberalism had succeeded sooner, all these displacement activities attempted by conservative governments trying to stem the inexorable tide would not have been needed – including aggressive nationalist militarism, which in turn was part of co-opting part of the the Liberal agenda for Conservatism (when outright Reaction had already proven its inability to control matters).
                                'If.' But it didn't.

                                In any case the intellectual movement known as the Enlightenment had begun before the Fr Rev, which indeed was in part a consequence of that movement. Think of those aristocratic French officers who went to America. There were even British Army officers who were reluctant to serve in the war. There was always a liberal element in the establishment.

                                Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
                                The multinational empire, "the prisons of the nations", where inherently imperialistic and aggressive, so no change. Liberalism was about freedom here.
                                Well of course: empire, imperial; liberty, liberal, etc

                                Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
                                Besides, the main driver of European overseas colonialism was the British empire – out of the circuit of the stakes of the European revolutionary situation, and inherently Liberal....
                                You might be overstating the case there, somewhat.

                                Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
                                You can't dislike Liberalism if you like, but the you have to denounce the British first, and the US – which is a Liberal state – is hardly blameless in the imperialism department either.
                                No, you'll have to run that one by me again.
                                Last edited by jf42; 23 Jul 19, 09:06.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X