|
| Thread: The World would have become a better place had Austria-Hungary won WW1 |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted May 05, 2021 09:37 PM |
|
|
i wouldn't make 25 years; that's insane. i barely tolerated less than a decade. that definitely explains the high desertion rate.
of course, if they're a jackass, i can see someone doing 25 years just fine. pricks proliferate in the military.
|
|
Kipshasz
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's Darkside
|
|
posted May 05, 2021 09:43 PM |
|
|
People evaded conscription either way. Wikipedia cites that it was primarily for russians, but it's complete BS on guide with Russia's Official History policy no doubt.
After the 1831 and 1863 uprisings western provinces below Finland of Russian empire were subjugated heavily to forced conscription.
One of the main exceptions was if the guy was an only son.
The desertion in the Russo-Japanese war was for few reasons - it was an unpopular war, and also at the same time there was an anti-tsarist uprising, which was quelled fast and brutally. One town here was subjected to an artillery barrage, because they ran a russian teacher out of town.
____________
"Kip is the Gavin McInnes of HC" - Salamandre
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 05, 2021 09:50 PM |
|
|
Kipshasz said:
Salamandre said:
JJ would be the chief mod here, so thanks god they lost
He pretty much is, just to get his way has to chip away at Cor's sanity and spam him with HCMs.
1700+ years of recorded history and people still don't learn that giving germans anything is a bad idea of colossal proportions.
Except that no one ever "gave" Germans anything - ok, they gave them the 30 years war alright, but other than that ...
And, guys, seriously, I wouldn't be mod - I'd have my serfs to do it for me, you poor sods. 
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 05, 2021 09:54 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 21:57, 05 May 2021.
|
jj doesn't have to be a mod; he's got one in his pocket. count his qp's.
damn, maybe more than one.
|
|
Gandalf196
Disgraceful
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 05, 2021 11:57 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Gandalf196 said:
artu said:
“Are my posts going to be deleted, I object, I want democracy”
Hey, what? I never asked for people to vote on deletion of posts... You seem to be confunding the political categories.
For instance, the United Kingdom is a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy -'tis both a democracy and a monarchy. Mutatis mutandis that was the case of Austria-Hungary...
Your criticisms are as hollow as you good sense 
I detect contexts. When you set monarchy as some kind of “golden age” I know it’s not because of a symbolical monarchy, that is not on the table. You wish upon some nostalgic “goldan era” to whine about our “troubled times.”
In those times, your head would be chopped off in a second.
You are an ignorant. Your understanding of the matter is childish at best.
In my opinion, the Principality of Liechtenstein has the best political system in the planet. Its Monarch is its touchstone. His immense political power ensures the healthy functioning of the State. Read its Constitution before spitting gibberish through your forked tongue:
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Liechtenstein_2011.pdf?lang=en#:~:text=The%20Principality%20is%20a%20constitutional,provisions%20of%20the%20present%20Constitution.
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 06, 2021 05:32 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 05:33, 06 May 2021.
|
Gandalf said:
In my opinion, the Principality of Liechtenstein has the best political system in the planet.
By now, I’m getting quite used to your opinions being off the charts. You can not compare some tiny principality to collapsing empires to begin with, one of the major reasons WW1 started is the power vacuum caused by that in the first place. You have cumbersome regimes, that got in the colonial game too late, too little, wanting their piece of the pie.
And as I said, I dont take your poll meant as brainstorming through alternative history, I take it as a jab at modern times and as flawed as they are, we wouldnt be better off with something more authoritarian. This is not about having a symbolical monarchy, UK also has one, so what. It’s about why you, in a particular context, dream about “how the world would be a better place” through that. Are you seriously suggesting your poll has nothing to do with your political stance, that “evil globalists versus Trump” bs you keep bringing up, for instance.
Oh, and mentioning ignorance would be shooting your own foot but sure, go ahead…
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Kipshasz
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's Darkside
|
|
posted May 06, 2021 10:37 AM |
|
|
Artu is right for a change. the years of late 1800s and early 1900s was a massive flustercuck of syphilis, bad decisions, opium peddling and smaller ethnoses within these empires showing their horns and demanding at the very least an autonomy.
And in comes a serb to pop a duke, and that was the pretext everyone wanted to have before coming at each others throats.
____________
"Kip is the Gavin McInnes of HC" - Salamandre
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior
|
|
Gandalf196
Disgraceful
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 12, 2021 05:37 PM |
|
|
____________
|
|
Gandalf196
Disgraceful
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 14, 2021 08:20 PM |
|
|
"Central Europe is a region of crucial geopolitical importance, as history shows. But now, these states find themselves marginalized by the large Western powers of the European Union. By seeking more political and economic alignment, Central European countries could become a more effective counterweight to Brussels and gain more leverage over Russia
[...]
The Austro-Hungarian Habsburg monarchy united and protected some of these nations. Poland was partitioned and ruled by different empires. After World War I, the nations of Central Europe gained independence only for some to lose it to Nazi occupation soon after. After World War II all of them fell under the Soviet yoke. The only exception was modern-day Austria."
https://www.gisreportsonline.com/the-central-european-dilemma,politics,3664.html
____________
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 14, 2021 08:31 PM |
|
|
"Winning" WW1 wouldn't have necessarily made Austria-Hungary any better off against Germany or the communists, since the USA was the only genuine winner in either WW1 or WW2 in the sense that it was strategically better off than before. Even the USSR in WW2 was a loser despite the territorial gains. Over 8 million young men that could have been working in schools and factories and shipyards and on railroads were dead, an older population was left behind, and a lot of the infrastructure and production was destroyed by the Nazis as they retreated. Lots of cities were left damaged and smoking. USA lost a little over half a million in WW1 & WW2 combined lol, and the only civilian deaths were either at Pearl Harbor or from u-boat attacks. USSR lost over 20 million civilians.
Britain and France "won" WW1 and gained even more territory abroad after the Ottoman collapsed and Germany lost its colonies, but they were actually weaker. There were already growing independence movements around the world in the early 20th century and more and more police and infrastructure was needed to effectively control these areas. Even as "winners" they lost millions of men in the first World War and people were more skeptical than ever with military adventurism. The colonial empire model was doomed. The Netherlands and France were in denial and tried to hold on in the 50s and 60s and they just ended having a lot more people die and getting grilled for it at home.
So yeah. There weren't any winners anywhere in Europe in either of those wars. There were losers and then there were ****ing losers.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Gandalf196
Disgraceful
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2021 07:14 PM |
|
|
Gandalf196 said:
The constitutional monarchy is the finest version of an ancient institution tailored to a time defined by nationalism, state-building, and a political dynamic driven by the interplay among conservative, liberal, and socialist ideas. Its intrinsic versatility facilitated a surprising mutation in its very purpose, shifting from protecting the rights of the people against royal arbitrariness to creating an institutional figurehead as head of state who would help constrain the unhinged and self-dealing impulses of elected politicians. As Emperor Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary intimated to U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt in 1910, “The role of the monarchy is ‘to protect my peoples from their governments.’”
The Monarchy and the Economy
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2021 09:10 PM |
|
|
The whole thing is a load of nonsense. Look at some actual constitutional monarchies, say, Britain. Or Sweden. The monarch's role is more or less the same than that of the "president" in the Republic of Germany (and many others), which is NOT the president of the US (which is the Chancellor in Britain and Germany).
Difference? President is elected (NOT by the people, but by the legislative, in Germany), while the monarch's job is hereditary.
In comparison, hereditary looks crappy.
|
|
Gandalf196
Disgraceful
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2021 11:52 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
The whole thing is a load of nonsense. Look at some actual constitutional monarchies, say, Britain. Or Sweden. The monarch's role is more or less the same than that of the "president" in the Republic of Germany (and many others), which is NOT the president of the US (which is the Chancellor in Britain and Germany).
Difference? President is elected (NOT by the people, but by the legislative, in Germany), while the monarch's job is hereditary.
In comparison, hereditary looks crappy.
The article is loaded with data and well-posed arguments
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 01, 2022 12:30 AM |
|
|
It's a nonstarter. Why?
There is no blue blood and being the son/daughter of someone is no qualification whatsoever.
Case closed.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted January 01, 2022 12:34 PM |
|
|
You know JJ, because you disagree with something doesn't mean it's "nonsense" or a closed case. But there's no point in trying to discuss with you anyway.
Gandalf, the article is actually interesting. 
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 01, 2022 05:26 PM |
|
|
You didn't answer to the point, you just answer as "you can't say that".
But the POINT stands. Monarchy is based on (past) PRIVILEGES not on actual MERITS. So when the system is HEREDITITARY, there is simply no valid fundament for this kind of "government".
If it's NOT hereditary, but based on an election process, then it divides again: If a privileged CLASS is electing a king/queen from their midth (say, when a king dies or is declared unfit by some legal process, and then the "nobility" is coosing one of their midth, like with the Pope). Or, if the population is involved in the election process, it's something like the President in Germany (it's no Monarchy in that case).
You didn't say anything to that point - Monarchy has no feet to stand on, because nobility comes with privileges and not merits useful for the governed body.
Which means, iT's you who isn't discussing.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted January 01, 2022 05:37 PM |
|
|
Whatever you say. I have no desire to argue with your points. In fact I wish this forum had an "ignore user" feature, but since it does not, I still have to read some of what you post, even accidentally.
Have a nice day/night/whatever. Bye.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 01, 2022 06:17 PM |
|
|
So you start posts with "You know, JJ,..."?, but wished you could somehow ignore my posts (but seemingly can't) and don't want to discuss anything with me?
That's not the definition of "rational" behaviour - more like obsessive-compulsive.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 01, 2022 06:57 PM |
|
|
I think you can reduce the discussion to the question of legitimation:
How do you legitimate the rulership of a monarch?
|
|
phe
Famous Hero
Life and Freedom
|
|
posted January 01, 2022 09:33 PM |
|
Edited by phe at 21:41, 01 Jan 2022.
|
JollyJoker said:
I think you can reduce the discussion to the question of legitimation:
How do you legitimate the rulership of a monarch?
Monarch as supreme good objective individuum:
not allowing bad influence of:
- bad people' voting
- red-tape's influence
- secret services' inluence
- lobbings' influence (oil, cars, energy, military, real estates, finances, meat, criminals, lawyers etc.)
taking care of basics as:
- providing security if enemy invades by commanding automatized defence systems and commanding mass mobilization of armed people
- allowing good people who swear loyalty to monarch to hold guns, explosives, mortars, cannons, tanks, quad cannons, armed aircrafts and antigravity crafts
- providing freedom from taxes and criminals
- judging conflicts and eradication of criminality
- providing free education on computers on every level without budget's spendings and without taxes on it
|
|
|
|
