Defense Distributed Is The Greatest

Results? America only had one successful conquest that lasted for more than fourty years and it was because half of them literaly asked you to do it. Since the thirties America as been too squeamish to annex anything that so much as lifts a finger against it and recently its become so self-righteous taking land by force has become unthinkable without a shed load of misinformation and a promise from the start of pulling out.
You're big, you're powerful, you're on top, but that means nothing here because we're comparing conquests not power, and when it comes to conquest you haven't even topped Belgium!

Quote:

---

*Furthermore, Iraq, Vietnam, and pretty much every war in recent memory, was a war for something other than territorial conquest. Do you think we couldn't have gone Ghengis Khan on the entire middle east if we wanted to? Did you see what we did to Iraq's Army, TWICE!?

---

Um, are you under the impression I'm saying you arent powerful? Because I'm not, I'm saying your track record of conquest it kinda puny compared to europe's.

Quote:

---

The rest of the world is just lucky our government isn't in the territorial conquest game any more.

---

I wish you were, I want my united world government now dangit!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

No, you silly European. I'm explaining to you why Hitler used the USA (in small part) as a blueprint for expansion.

---

...He failed, hard

Quote:

---

Because our method has worked where others haven't.

---

...Dude our methods worked pretty well, we took over the world didnt we? They failed for him, hard.

Quote:

---

That has more to it than just acquiring territory, its about who's on the territory and how fast you can pacify or exterminate them.

---

...Yeah, europeans followed that method too, and even if we didnt; europe did better than america in spite of America's 'better methods'. Hitler also failed at that too, hard.

Quote:

---

Now, as I recall, when Hitler had a technological and procedural advantage over Europe, he won. He won pretty hard. It took the combined efforts of the USA and (arguable the only country more ruthless than us) the USSR to beat them, so... Europe's not looking too good here.

---

Only France really, the germans and italians could say that it makes them really good.

Quote:

---

Let go of that pride, and accept the fact that you're all stuck on that little continent with eachother, speaking different languages and getting all riled up about every little thing, because none of you could ever succeed at beating eachother up to the point of total conquest until Hitler came along

---

That's because every time someone tried Britain supported the opposition, keeping the balance of power was britain's schtick.

Quote:

---

--and you're lucky the two big guys were there to help for that, or else you'd all be speaking German (and you'd probably be the world's largest power, too).

---

...ignoring that you just unfairly sidelined Britain, Hitler started with half of europe already his, a pact with russia not to kill eachother, a numbers advantage, tech advantage, and his generals were good enough to completely do over the french.

He still failed, hard.

Quote:

---

So.. what I'm saying is that Hitler was right, and you should be afraid of America.

---

I wasnt arguing that point, I was saying that america has been a mediocre conqueror compared to europeans in spite of it's size and power, I am now saying that the guy who advocated america as a blueprint for territorial expansion himself sucked at it.

America has very rarely practiced outright territorial annexation and incorporation. It prefers vassalization.

Dude, Britain wasnt a vassal until the 1950's-60's when you used our weakened state to pressure us into dispanding the empire.

Yes I wasnt arguing that point, I'm still saying we are better conqerors.

Quote:

---

*Greyblades totally missed my point though. Hitler would have won, and Europe would have been much stronger (militarily and strategically) and certainly more unified and independant in the face of the rest of the world. The USA and the USSR couldn't have that. Europe today is just a collection of satellite states.

---

Actually I am of the impression that had Germany carried on with out getting you or russia involved Britain and Germany would have devolved into a stalemate ending with one starving the other enough to surrender.

Well now I'm confused, lets see... I probably misinterprited one of your posts and made challenge saying that american methods of conquest weren't a good blueprint, you seemed misinterprit it and responded as if I said america sucked, then we went back and forth tearing eachother's posts to pieces with no real goal (You know, like every other argument in this forum)

Ugh, not again, You know what I say Europe were better conquerors, America were better power players, can we call this pointless and move on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

My ultimate point was that you Europeans should learn to get along, and quickly adopt a stronger and more unified federal structure. Your failure to do so as a continent is your legacy of failure--and your brutal methods for attempting to gain the upper hand over eachother (which is all that your Imperialistic Conquests ever were) don't amount to a legacy of military success at all in the big picture.

---

Huh, I dont think anyone in history has ever done that, even america's "sucess" is a direct result of constant attempts to gain the upper hand actually succeeding; Britain's sucess in gaining the upper hand over France and spain, the colonist's success in gaining the upper hand over Britain, The USA's success in gaining the upper hand over Mexico, the Unionists sucess in gaining the upper hand over the confederates, America getting the upper hand over Europe, America gaining the upper hand over Russia to finally become on top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

They didn't succeed at all! Many of your former colonial conquests are stronger than the nations they came from. In attempting to exploit the world to gain that upper hand, they sowed the seeds of their own destruction, and now Europe's only hope on the world stage is peaceful unification. Why the USA's legacy is more successful than yours is discernable on a map, for the same reason Russia's is: A whole lot of space where people used to live, but they all died or assimilated. Most of America is still just empty space waiting to be populated by the next generations. That is an unequivocal success, even if it was gotten in a horrible way (and it was--the US Government's treatment of the Natives should go down in history as something every bit as bad as the holocaust). Europe, due to a complete lack of success in gaining the upper hand over eachother, now finds itself faced with having to do something that's never been done: Peaceful Unification of an entire Continent. In the end, after all, Europeans share more in common with eachother than they do with anybody else--including Americans.

---

I dont think I said they did succeed, I said you succeeded. The USA's success is a result of it's own attempts to gain the upper hand over it's neighbours, China's success was due to the same, Russia too, there is no precident of spontanious peaceful unification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

After the Dutch insurrection, Catholicism was considered an illegal religion. Normal Catholic celebrations were not possible in the United Provinces, therefore Pope Clement VIII decided in 1592 to declare the area above the river Waal as a mission area, as large portions of the area's population had fallen to Protestantism, at least officially, except for some minor staunchly Catholic regions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Mission

In practice, Catholic services in all provinces were quickly forbidden and the Reformed Church became the "public" or "privileged" church in the Republic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Republic#Religion

---

They were forbidden only on paper, in practise they were allowed. There were time-schedules to avoid eachother. No political power for the Vatican though

Well, don't forget that there are quite a few instances where European nations or governments worked together against outside threats. For example when the Polish and others helped defend Vienna against the Ottomans and so on. I agree that a full unification is desirable though.

And as for the whole conquering thing, it's laughable because the American settlers faced technologically inferior Native Americans while the European powers were mostly on the same level. Siberia is mostly empty space, not hard to conquer but also not very useful for settling and food production. And settling more people in the Nevada desert will eat up a lot of resources, probably more than you can get from the desert. In the same way many of the European conquests for colonies were against inferior enemies.

A better question may be why European warfare was superior to that of many other nations or tribes around the world? And maybe that was because of all the fighting between equal nations and a strive to improve one's own weaponry, which then inevitably spread to other factions, maintaining the power balance within Europe, but also raising the war tech above that of other people around the world. And then all the misery also brought up all these ideas of how to get peace that led to enlightenment etc.

Americans just built on this advantage the Europeans had acquired to conquer their territory against inferior enemies. In the modern day and age, I'd argue it's more useful to work together than against one another however. And it's somewhat weird to say that Europe has missed that trend because the EU still exists. The small guy may not support it but the small guy in America is hoarding assault rifles to bring down the federal government one day so there's not that much of a difference...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

My ultimate point was that you Europeans should learn to get along, and quickly adopt a stronger and more unified federal structure. Your failure to do so as a continent is your legacy of failure--and your brutal methods for attempting to gain the upper hand over eachother (which is all that your Imperialistic Conquests ever were) don't amount to a legacy of military success at all in the big picture.

---

Europe is a continent only on a map, it's no entity.

Quote:

---

Europe is a continent only on a map

---

You consider yourself a Eurasian?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

You consider yourself a Eurasian?

---

Eastasian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

You consider yourself a Eurasian?

---

I am Dutch. The Netherlands is a country on the continent of Europe, that's all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

My ultimate point was that you Europeans should learn to get along, and quickly adopt a stronger and more unified federal structure. Your failure to do so as a continent is your legacy of failure--and your brutal methods for attempting to gain the upper hand over eachother (which is all that your Imperialistic Conquests ever were) don't amount to a legacy of military success at all in the big picture.

---

Eh? There is this new idea called the treaty of Rome. The aim is to get some kind of European union.. It's quite a new project, pie in the sky, so you probably haven't heard of it. Hopefully it will stop the dozens of European wars we've had in the last 100 years.

Europe isn't a real continent. It's a political area rather than a geographical one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Europe isn't a real continent. It's a political area rather than a geographical one.

---

So true.

Dear Americans, we are not like you, there is no Europe. France still has nukes aimed at every major city in Germany England and the Neds ffs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

So true.

Dear Americans, we are not like you, there is no Europe. France still has nukes aimed at every major city in Germany England and the Neds ffs

---

That's got to be a funny attempt to undermine the Franco-German friendship. First of all what does "aimed at" mean concerning nukes? Was the mouse pointer of the controller found hovering over Germany while he was on the toilet or was that just the flight data they entered sometime during the cold war and just never changed due to a lack of new threats? And are they aimed there to destroy Germany or to stop a Russian invasion? Because, you know, pretty much everyone had nukes "aimed at" Germany during the cold war...
You say that as though France still thinks Germany wants to invade it but that's pure europhobic hysteria.

As much as I admire weapons grade manufacturing at home as an indication of how much 3D printing has matured for home enthusiasts it isn't the start of a revolution.

A printer does not an author make. Neither will 3D printers make everyone into a machinist.

It should allow more creativity, shorter supply chains and many interesting things that will upset the current paradigms far more then just weapons. Hopefully it will create more makers then breakers in the long run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

They were forbidden only on paper, in practise they were allowed. There were time-schedules to avoid eachother. No political power for the Vatican though

---

Nor any public offices for Roman Catholics, fines if you let your house be used for religious practices etc. It's not because Catholics weren't burned at the stake, that they were free. By our definitions, the Dutch Republic suppressed Catholicism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

Nor any public offices for Roman Catholics, fines if you let your house be used for religious practices etc. It's not because Catholics weren't burned at the stake, that they were free. By our definitions, the Dutch Republic suppressed Catholicism.

---

Surpressed the Vatican, but catholics weren't harmed. The catholic church was a political power that was cut off because of the war with Spain and that remained, but catholics were allowed to practise, but discretely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Surpressed the Vatican, but catholics weren't harmed. The catholic church was a political power that was cut off because of the war with Spain and that remained, but catholics were allowed to practise, but discretely.

---

That's a load of rubbish by your own words they were suppressed if they couldnt be open about religious observance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Never said there was any ~;)

Well.... Not counting the Jews you willingly rounded up and sent eastwards 70 years ago, of course...

---

There was quite a lot of intolerance and persecution under the Hapsburgs, though it can be argued that it was not then "The Netherlands." Persecution did not occur as The Netherlands, but certainly a degree of intolerance was practiced, with non-Calvanists or Jews (Jews could and did openly worship and participate in government) functionally barred from government office and Lutheran and other non-Calvinist churches required to practice their faith in private and in churches that conformed to Calvinist decorative standards.

I am less certain about the "willingness" to support the Holacaust. I wonder how much was willing versus how much was "unwilling to pay the cost of overt opposition." Neither position, of course, is morally perfect, but the latter seems a touch less like active persecution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

It's sort of a feature of right leaning Americans that they see their culture (well usually the imaginary culture of 30 years before) as being the finished article. That human culture is not under constant change.

Actually it's all conservatives. That's why it's such a contradiction of being obsessed with the past, yet totally ahistorical.

---

Baron Hailsham:

Quote:

---

the role of Conservatism is not to oppose all change but to resist and balance the volatility of current political fads and ideology, and to defend a middle position that enshrines a slowly-changing organic humane traditionalism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

That's a load of rubbish by your own words they were suppressed if they couldnt be open about religious observance.

---

Of course there was religious intolerance, but catholics were never prosecuted. There were seperate hours, and there were the haagepreken, that was well known by everyone, it was the political power of the vatican that was cut off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Baron Hailsham:

"those Roman Catholic bastards have no right to interfere!"

---

Yea mighty fella indeed was the bould baron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

There was quite a lot of intolerance and persecution under the Hapsburgs, though it can be argued that it was not then "The Netherlands." Persecution did not occur as The Netherlands, but certainly a degree of intolerance was practiced, with non-Calvanists or Jews (Jews could and did openly worship and participate in government) functionally barred from government office and Lutheran and other non-Calvinist churches required to practice their faith in private and in churches that conformed to Calvinist decorative standards.

I am less certain about the "willingness" to support the Holacaust. I wonder how much was willing versus how much was "unwilling to pay the cost of overt opposition." Neither position, of course, is morally perfect, but the latter seems a touch less like active persecution.

---

For every article I read about ww2, I get more and more convinced that "unwilling to pay the cost of overt opposition." is just an excuse people made after ze germans lost.

I believe the truth is simply that nobody cared about the jews. Not in the Neds, Not in Scandinavia, certainly not in France.

After all, we natives(in several countries) were so enthusiastic about rounding up the jews that the germans had to ask us to calm down, since they feared it would cause social unrest and undermine their war effort. Quisling, for example, was deposed and replaced by Terboven solely because he was too pro-nazi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Baron Hailsham:
the role of Conservatism is not to oppose all change but to resist and balance the volatility of current political fads and ideology, and to defend a middle position that enshrines a slowly-changing organic humane traditionalism.

---

I thought it was to kick out the darkies and encourage poor people to enter domestic service?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I thought it was to kick out the darkies and encourage poor people to enter domestic service?

---

But life has killed the dream