Nationalism and Freedom

Nationalism is a spook. Who governs my country? Depending on when and where, it's the nobility, clergy, or bourgeoisie. Therefore, there will always exist a domination that supercedes nationality. If there is no problem of nationality in this hypothetical situation, why would I have any preference as to whether the people doing this domination share my heritage?

No it isn't wrong and I wouldn't revolt. I would only care if my rights are being trampled or my quality of life takes a nosedive. Nationalism for the sake of nationalism is dumb, there needs to be an actual, real reason for rebellion, a label change isn't one.

>>2907040
What you describe is a very very mild treatment of a conquered nation.I think most of the people would not fight in situation like this.
There would be very little resistance because you eliminated all the serious reasons for it, and even if it happens it would be suppressed not just by the occupier but also by local collaborators who don't want this to justify a worsening of the regime.

In a just a few years most would probably be integrated into the new system and the conquest would officially be described as "unification" and everybody will belive it.

>Would you, even if just by opinion, side with insurgent or resistance movements? And if so, why?
If I had something to loose, maybe, but even so if my life didn't depend on it I probably wouldn't side with them and just think the resistance are troublemakers.

>>2907040
If they conquer you, you must have some kind of power. People need to realise that.

>>2907040

Depends entirely on *country*. Specifically why it even is a country.

If its European style 'we wuz tribes' no, that's not justification for a rebellion.

If your country was bourne from revolutionary struggle like the USA or the USSR though? That entirely depends on how you feel about the ideals in question. I'd say it's your duty to fight for 'The Great Experiment' or 'The Dictatorship of the Proletariat' depending on which side of the curtain you're on. Those are the only examples that immediately come to mind, though.

I guess a Fascist state would theoretically count if you were taken over by another Fascist state. That seems a little far-fetched given our current timeline though.

In this incredibly unfeasible hypothetical sure, no big deal.

>>2907040
given tht they conquer u so easily theyre much stronger than u and have literally no reason to treat u as one of them. this is a flawed scenario

>>2907225
What do you mean? I didn't get what you were trying to say.

>>2907230
Communism seems like it is a bit problematic, since at least the base idea not only requires the communist to do their own thing in their own country but also force all other countries to do the same.

I suppose ideology is a hard thing to fight against.

>>2907231
It is incredibly unfeasible, nearly impossible, but it was mostly to eliminate all "physical" reasons to oppose a new regime.

>>2907242
Well, I could think of plenty of reasons, but it is just a hypothetical scenario.

>>2907040
Depends, you have the Ottoman Empire treatment where you can fight but not much else, hapsburg empire where you have your own laws and customs but must fight

>>2907247
Well why would they then?

>>2907253
>not wanting to create tension
>not wanting to influence the creation of guerrilla movements
>not wanting to give fuel for other powers to attack you
>not wanting to give justification for resistance

In general even if you are far more powerful than the conquered people, a pacific assimilation is more convenient for all the people involved, especially if you have long-term plans.
I mean, the fact that we see people bring up things that happened 400+ years ago as justification for certain actions is a good indicative that you need to give them as little as possible.

>>2907040
As long as my lord is just and strong why would i.

>Annex a country
>No reason other than to say that's an annex

I understand the hypothetical, but honestly there's no reason for annexation in the first place if at least one of these things don't result. Annexation is the taking over of, and no matter if it's as peaceful as Woodstock, someone isn't going to like the idea of having "their" country owned by another.

But of course, it's just a hypothetical.

>>2907365
Having the taxes redirected to your goverment and access to new resources and land seems like a plausible benefit.

Tho what I was really asking ultimately is, I guess, if ideals were strong enough for people to oppose even the mildlest of conquests.