When did military conquest cease to be recognized as a legitimate

cold war
it was replaced by ideologically leveraging nations into serving as clients

>>2571725
Just military conquest has always failed, this has been true since the fall of the Spanish Empire. But in conjunction with other types of conquest... I'd say never. America is still doing it now.

>>2571725
After WW2, with the institution of international laws forbidding wars of aggression.

>>2571755
The US hasn't gained an inch of territory since several small islands belonging to Japan were annexed after WW2.

Depends who you are conquering. Even in the Middle Ages, European monarchs would cook up some "legitimate" pretext for fighting each other. Conquering "savages" required no such claim. (Or rather, the fact that they are heathens or whatever was a good enough pretext.)

What's the current status on Crimea? Didn't Russia indirectly "conquer" Crimea from Ukraine by supplying the ethnic Russians there? Sorry if I'm completely wrong.

>>2571725
When you reach diplomacy level 22, you get the imperialism CB which renders conquest obsolete.

Financial dickery > Military force

>>2571818

Russia straight up conquered Crimea, but they still held a sham election to "legitimize" it, thus implicitly acknowledging that conquest is not legitimate on its own.

>>2571782
>The US hasn't gained an inch of territory since several small islands belonging to Japan were annexed after WW2.

And yet they have military bases in 30 countries.

>>2571865

They ASKED us to come!

>>2571886
Bashar Assad asked Russia to come to bomb the shit out of his country too. Doesn't make it right.

>>2571725
Straight up declaring war for no reason other than wanting to expand your territory has never really been a thing, there was always at least a thin facade of an excuse. As political enfranchisement increased, you have an increasing number of people you need to dupe into a war if that war only serves entirely selfish interests. Territorial expansion, even in the time of the Roman Empire, has always been masqueraded as some sort of aggressive preemptive defensive strategy

It is an unwritten rule not to say that you're conquering territory for territorys' sake.

>>2572024
What about the Roman Invasion of Britannia?

>>2572135
In Caesar's case? Because he claimed Gallic enemies had been supported by British tribes and fled to Britain following their defeat. Following that, in Claudius time, it was to support a client tribe (I can't quite remember the names). This is how the pretense to war mostly worked in those days, declare your support for some faction in an internal struggle.

>>2571725
Some time in the future.

>>2571759
I would say even earlier than WW2, Italy gained nothing from their african aggressions during the Fascism, except getting kicked from the Society of Nations, oh wait League of nations, historians seems to consider the whole thing anachronistic.


>This is how the pretense to war mostly worked in those days, declare your support for some faction in an internal struggle.
Ah, Italy invaded Ethiopia with the excuse that they wanted to end slavery, they officially kinda did but they also sold them themselves.

>>2571725
You just have to be the "good guys", or at least not the bad guys.

Russia Annexing Crimea? Evil?
Turkey Carving off chunks of Syria? Nothing wrong there
China moving into the South China Sea? Aggression!
Israel settling the last couple of patches of Palestine? Nothing wrong with that, you fucking Nazi

>>2571782
America is the largest empire in history.

WW2 and increasing awareness of supposed morality, or at least the need to look moral.

In the modern era you simply can't be excused for invading on conquest reasons.

>>2572170
Caesar only needed a pretext because he had internal enemies who didn't want him getting more rich and popular. He didn't need a pretext because people gave a shit about the Celts.

wut? the loser (and probably external parties watching) is never going to consider it 'legitimate'. if you mean a PRACTICAL means of territorial expansion, then probably the last three decades or so unless youre superpower status. the cost is just too high to justify end these days.

>>2571759
>After WW2
actually ww1.

the reason versailles was so weird is because war was always considered an extension of a sovereign's prerogative. so after the war germans said, "you can't blame us for WW1 because it was within the competence of our sovereign power!"

but then the frenchies were like "hurr durr, you started the war hurrrrr, and now it's retroactively prohibited"

>>2573464
They also created a bunch of nation states for people that were part of empires but not all of them. International law and rules have never been very consistent.

>>2571860
>sham election

>>2573494
Because they are a meme. Everyone agrees to something until they don't.

File: 1470779285028.jpg (9KB, 141x199px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 141x199px

>>2571725
Its still totally legitimate. Nobody has tried it recently.

I bet 100% the USA could seize New Brunswick or 10% of Mexico and nobody would do a damn thing about it except tweet pics of big ben lit up in canadian colors.

>>2574075
>chinese colors*
Fix'd.

>>2571984
>stopping terrorism is bad

>>2574075
Remember that time saddam Hussein annexed Kuwait?

>Inb4 muh US army
Not much good against the rest of the world combined

>>2574262
I'm not even American and I know that the US Armed Forces could feasibly take on the rest of the world's armies not even accounting for wartime production. It's just that overpowered.

>>2574075
Have fun getting sanctioned and mass uproar in the states.