How anachronistically do your fantasy characters dress?

I don't know. I let the imagination of the other player fill the gaps. Just one detail here and there.

File: 61b73a5e2b52734bcf866fea4e5e3d0efdc3fc4fb7e6-pT1Mfe.jpg (46KB, 400x626px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 400x626px

>>50834628
Skimpy outfits that stay in my head

On paper it is normal stuff

File: 1478914006055.jpg (122KB, 1000x597px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1000x597px

>>50834628
Multiple corsets, worn in layers.

Y-You mean you guys don't magical realm all day everyday? G-Get the fuck out!

>>50834647
This. I don't actually know anything about medieval clothing so I intentionally avoid describing anything that isn't armor or standard wizard dress.

>>50834628
>wearing clothes

>>50834773

That sounds terribly constricting.

>>50834881
Well apparently you've never been to Singapore.

File: Yvenne Finished Small.png (3MB, 2060x1200px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2060x1200px

As much as they damn well please

>>50834683
t. referee

>>50834628
"Anachronism" is a meaningless term in a fantasy setting. By definition, it is not our own world. It does not play by our rules.

>>50834881
18th/19th century corsets would be. Modern corsets are more comfortable, assuming they're sized correctly. Still constricting, yes, but I think the main concern would be heat and sweat, two words which really should rhyme and now that I'm thinking about it, it kinda bugs me that they don't.

>>50834628
Source?

File: Mount Stupid.png (54KB, 579x740px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 579x740px

>>50834628
I think the problem with this question is that the outer limit of what one considers "historically accurate" is determined entirely by one's own knowledge. I have that problem with "realistic" medieval fantasy in general, really.

>>50835403
>"Anachronism" is a meaningless term in a fantasy setting. By definition, it is not our own world. It does not play by our rules.
It plays by its own rules though. Clothes may be anachronisic there depending on the setting.

None of my characters are too out of place for the time period of the setting. Considering that there's a huge variety of styles and ways of dress spread across the various cultures, it's not hard to find whatever clothes that they want. This is why my elf witch wears a sundress and sunhat.

>>50835597
Is that pic implying people only mention tomatoes are fruits because they don't know enough about plants? It's more just an annoying fact everyone knows.

>>50834628
Zippers exist and are common for adventurers.

>>50835597
Sorry, that was kind of unclear, especially how the picture is related. My problem with it is that it usually results in someone obsessively adhering to historical accuracy (or what they think is accurate) in certain, very limited respects while ignoring all the things they aren't already familiar with. For instance, demanding all the arms and armor be consistent with a certain time period while making characters a philosophically closer to how people saw the world 200 years ago than a genuine medieval outlook. Unless you're a genuine scholar (or at least, know enough to have that level of understanding) you're inevitably going to ignore so much shit that there's no longer any point

>>50835754
Randall Monroe spends his fair share of time yelling at the world from atop Mt. Stupid

>>50835692
I don't understand why everyone doesn't wear sundresses. Women, men, old, young, anyone in a warm climate should wear them. They're wonderful.

>>50835785
If I lived somewhere that had summers that weren't like a dry furnace and winters like a dry icebox I might try it. Not keen on withering my mergers by exposing them to our negative humidity air.

My character is in a sort of technology level (but not cultural) level of Victorian London (Bloodbornish)

Would Jeans exist yet?

>>50835779
How's KH3 coming along, Mr. Nomura?

>>50835783
Not to mention how hypocritical it tends to get.

>>50835830
>summers like a dry furnace
That's the best time for sundresses! When it's stuffy and warm and clothing just winds up trapping heat and a cool breeze can make all the difference.

>>50835858
Jeans were invented in 1871 and patented in 1873, and blue denim trousers were in existence before then.

However, they did originate in America, so they'd be quite exotic in a Victorian London knockoff.

>>50835868
>Kingdom Hearts
>because zippers exist
Do you call a setting edgy because people die, too?

I was talking more pant flies and jackets or secret pockets that can be quickly opened or closed.

>>50835900
>Do you call a setting edgy because people die, too?
Yes. In any good setting, everyone just gets sent to a farm owned by a kindly old couple where there are lots of rabbits for them to chase.

>>50835927
Tell me more about these 'rabbits'.

>>50835885

No no just the tech level around that era is all, not culturally speaking.

But thats good to know. Thanks.

>>50834881
UUUU

>>50835929
They'we vewy wascawy.

File: 1395466421691.jpg (404KB, 746x960px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 746x960px

>>50834628
I try to keep it within what's plausible for "The Renaissance 1500's", but I doubt I'm always accurate with my setting.

Of course, then you have folks, like the orcs and feral who are often deliberately anachronistic in the backwards sense due to their preferences of tribal life-style.

>>50835868
>Not to mention how hypocritical it tends to get.
I'm unfamilliar with the guy and his comics. Care to provide some examples?

I play with perverts, so bringing out pictures of hyper-slutty clothing for my characters is perfectly fine.
It's really hard to tell when the girls at the table are getting off though

File: Pornstars+fw+_3590a30ca92dffb49ba5209caaab9e2d[1].jpg (62KB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 350x350px

>>50836037
>Lewd, big sister type lady of the knight
>Orphan boy otouto who's probably NBR
I hope this is going where I think it is going.

File: 5e2[1].jpg (106KB, 554x439px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 554x439px

>>50836075
>lady of the knight
On the one hand, I made a typo.
On the other hand, it's better like this.

>>50836050
I more mean in terms of people who criticize armor as "historically inaccurate", often while having glaring mistakes of their own.

>>50835927
Tell me about the rabbits George

>>50836143
Aw, geez, Lennie, I musta told you a hundred times.

>>50836037
Why does this pic depress me.

>>50835754
The main problem is the "not a vegetable" part. Tomatoes are both, but a bunch of misinformed twats seem to have decided that the two are mutually exclusive and end up looking even dumber while trying to trick people into thinking they're smart. Kind of like when someone tries to use "per se" and spells it wrong.

>>50836075
That's his mom, dood. Which I'd also be fine with, but it doesn't look like the artist was into that.

File: 1420949150091.jpg (88KB, 564x631px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 564x631px

>>50836206
>She pushed that kid out from between her hips
>She still has an almost ideal hourglass figure
Older women truly are amazing!

Pretty accurate, I tend to use more modern boots and shoes but no one can recognize that except medieval historians so I dont care

>>50835783
>Randall Monroe spends his fair share of time yelling at the world from atop Mt. Stupid
that's not from xkcd, it's from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereals

>>50835754
The fruit/vegetable divide is a purely culinary one, where tomatoes are clearly vegetables and not fruits. In a wider botanical sense, a tomato is certainly a fruit, as it contains seeds. but this is also the case with tons of other culinary vegetables (like squash, cucumbers, beans, corn, etc.), and in that sense, a fruit is vegetable matter, just like the rest of the plant.

>>50834628
>Fantasy genre that isn't Historical Fantasy
>Anachronism

I have exactly *one* recurring NPC who dresses 300 years out of style, because fuck you, that's how he dresses.

>>50836257
Actually, it's the younger women who has an easier time bouncing back from childbirth. For the older ones, keeping their figure, or just simply not having much complications, is more a miracle than a trait of being older.

as fuck

File: 1462753373456.jpg (92KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1920x1080px

>>50836430
So the idea is to pump out 3 or 4 children before she hits 26, raise your children for another 20 years and then enjoy some quality time with your MILF wife?

Truly our ancestors knew what the good life was.

>>50834628

Usually try to keep it at least close to setting appropriate. I do have one character that is ridiculously anachronistic, though. Picture this. You've got a group of travellers. A cleric with her habit and matching chainmail. The barbarian with obligtory leather belts and a loincloth, and half a temper to crush anyone who mistakes her for a harlot, the alchemist with the face mask and robes, the wiz with his robes., the merchant with something straight out of Arabian Nights. And then there's this faggot with a cloth jacket, cotton sweater, miscolored studded jeans and a pair of plastic self-lacing running shoes. All accentuated with tron lines and an excess of zippers and pins.

There is an in-story justification, tho. He got thrown into the high fantasy setting from conventional Shadowrun setting by a silly mad scientist dragon with a dimensional door.

>>50836464
That's the idea! Remember that all ages have their perks, you should take advantage of the traits of youth while young and then enjoy age when it comes.
My son is 6, and I love him just as much as my 23-year-old wife.

File: 1467452652334.png (124KB, 305x363px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 305x363px

>>50836500
>My son is 6, and I love him just as much as my 23-year-old wife.
>23 - 6 = 17

>>50836535
What? We were stupid hormonal teenagers and I was told since 4th grade that I was supposed to be sterile.
Besides, I don't break the Half-Plus-7 law.

>>50834881
You're a big girl.

>>50836535
Teenagers fuck, anon.

>tfw I was born to high school freshmen

File: tomo 246.png (142KB, 640x958px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 640x958px

>>50836535

>>50836590
Umm... 13 is not the same as 17.

File: MarianRef.jpg (41KB, 214x344px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 214x344px

>>50834628
My characters dress like this

>>50836659
Sooooooooo, like a whore?

>>50836089
>On the other hand, it's better like this.

It's actually pretty good like that

>>50836535
There's nothing wrong with that. My grandmother had my mother back when she was 15.

Stop complaining.

Note: I'm in the Southern US so nobody gives a shit, especially back when my grandparents were young

>>50836464

You'll need between 6 and 13. Out of 6 only 2 will reach adulthood. Even rich families had high infant mortality. Most kids died before their third birthday.

>>50836558
>>tfw I was born to high school freshmen
What's that like?

>>50836535
Thats the perfect time for girls to have babies
Now we make them stall until an arbitrary age so we don't rush in or some shit.
Dating culture was a mistake.

>>50835597
But the Civial war WASN'T about slavery until Lincoln was up for re-election.

At least it wasn't JUST about slavery...

>>50838636
The pic is by some lefty webcomic artist. SMBC. Reminder that XKCD backed Her.

>>50838636
Even the guys that created the confederacy openly said that it was about slavery.

>>50836535
On the plus side, when he's 17 she'll be only 34.

>>50834628
If we're talking about how I would actually picture my characters probably very

Just thinking of one assuming D&D at say 1500 era clothing, My imagining of the charcter has clothes from well into the 1800's.

>>50836500
How old are you, Anon?

>>50835403
Think about it this way sweat rhymes with wet.

>>50834628
>How anachronistically do your fantasy characters dress?
On the outside, they wear period clothes.

But underneath, modern underwear/swimwear. Period underclothes are just boring.

>>50834628
>anachronistically
>fantasy
How the FUCK you can be anachronistic if you are not real world setting?

Seriously, this is one of those things that trigger me to no end - idiots talking about anachronisms and historical accuracy for made-up worlds and settings.

>>50838681
Yes, as part of the bigger issue of federal law superseding state law. The confederacy fought to dismantle big government. Slavery was probably a sticking point due to the debilitating blow the economy was projected to be (and was) dealt in the South, but there was a greater, overarching thing there. To say it was "about" slavery is misinformation. It would be like saying WWII was "about" stopping the Holocaust, there were much more complicated elements and agendas at play there and the thing you're claiming it was "about" didn't come directly into focus until later in the war.

>>50839212
>Pretending American Civil War was about anything else than financial oligarchy B fighting against financial oligarchy A
>Pretending it was about protection of local self-governance
Anon... words cannot describe how redneck you sound

>game has elves and dwarves and dragons and magic
>"hey, you can't wear that! it's not historically accurate!"

>>50839147
>How the FUCK you can be anachronistic if you are not real world setting?
One-piece swimsuits in not!Ancient Egypt.

For example.

File: 1467176191797.jpg (211KB, 1280x803px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1280x803px

>>50834628
In a fantasy world, a truly free individual dress as they please

File: o-SOUTH-CAROLINA-SECESSION-STATEMENT-570.jpg (51KB, 570x276px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 570x276px

>>50839212
The Civil War was about slavery. The Confederates fought for slavery. In their secession statements, the Confederate states made it explicitly clear that they were seceding over slavery.

When the Civil War ended, people began this myth that the Confederates were fighting for anything but slavery in order to spare the South's feelings. Unfortunately, the truth is what it is.

>>50834628
>Anachronistic
Case study: 13th warrior film adaptation
Explaination: A largely real-world setting, set in specific period, yet numerous characters are somehow in possession of well-kept antiques OR wearing armours not even invented for next few centuries. Note how the anachronisms were completely absent in the source material book.
>Non-anachronistic
Case study: LotR
Explaination: A completely made up world, with zero relation to history or any particular period in it. This allows to have a combination of arms, clothes and weapon from any given "period". Films further exemplify on this

Dear /tg/ - finally learn the fucking difference

>>50839376
So?
It's not!Ancient Egypt. It can have fucking mecha, magic and physical gods, alongside rifled muskets (it's a thing), scythian chariots and fucking Chinese dragons endangering easter flank of the country. And let's not forget about cute catgirls

In short - if it's not Ancient Egypt, but instead not!Ancient Egypt, you can put whatever the fuck you want in it.

>>50839376
If it's explicitly not a historical setting, you can't be anachronistic, you asthmatic aspie.

>>50839421
>separate control over its own institutions
It was about states rights.

>>50839212
>To say it was "about" slavery is misinformation.
>http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp
>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
Uh-huh.

>>50839421
t. revisionist

keep drinking the kool aid

>>50839536
>t. revisionist
Said the guy claiming the confederacy was about anything else than slavery

>>50839525
>It was about states rights.
The only state right the Confederacy cared was slavery, hence why it didn't allowed states to don't have slavery within themselves.

>>50839536
>Revisionist
>Citation from founding documents
I tip you a whatever-hat-was-popular-in-the-South

>>50839536
see >>50839530
Yes, it was about state's rights: the right to own slaves.
Yes, it was about protecting their economy: the economy dependent on slave labor.
Yes, it was about protecting the Southern Way of life: an idealized way of life in which slavery played a central role in upholding.

The men that drafted the declarations of secession had no qualms about admitting it. You shouldn't either.

>>50839564
Your own source proved it >>50839525

>>50839592
>The only state right the Confederacy cared was slavery
Source? Besides your imagination.

>>50839536
Keep sucking the dick of your aristorcratc masters.

>>50839525
Yeah, and said laws were respectively abolishion of slavery and implementation of protective tarrifs.
Truly, a war for noble cause like no other!

>>50839614
>Your
Anon, I'm not even that guy.

Stay redneck, but stay away from internet.

File: 1476549621069.jpg (131KB, 700x845px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 700x845px

>>50834628
"~DEPENDS
ON
THE
SETTTIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNG~"
> guitar solo

>>50839626
>rights only matter if you do what I like with them
This is what is wrong with the West today.

>>50839639
>no counterargument
Ok.

Not even American.

Holy fucking crap. Eurofag here, and I'm astonished at what I'm seeing in this thread. We barely even learn much US history, but it always seems pretty cut and dry that 'The Civil War was about Slavery' is a non-controversial statement of fact. Do people really dispute that?

>>50839681
There are people who believe that World War II was an act of German self-defense, or that Japan had the right to invade the United States after the embargo. Why would you think things were any different on the civil war?

>>50839676
Here's your counterargument.
>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
>A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

>>50836556
For you.

>>50839676
>Not American
>Defending Confederacy
>Having the fucking audicity to even take voice in the subject
Literally kill yourself.

Also, nice to know national law should be less important than locally set laws and how this is somehow "wrong" about West today.
Better go back to medieval juditiary traditions, right?

>>50839716
Not him, but also fellow Eurofag.
And we spent fucking month analysing the Civil War step by step when doing history of the 19th century (entire 4th year of study was about it).
It's literally impossible to say it was a war for anything else than keeping slaves and abolishing tarrifs, as both those things were pretty much the very reason how South was able to operate, being agrarian (plantations to be precise) and lacking industrial base.
Which was also the reason why Confederacy failed in the end, since it had no fucking industry to speak about, while lacking Irish to throw into the grinder.

>>50839681
Basically, do you know how what was left of the german and japanese leadership after WW2 started saying that it was all work of a single man if you were german, or was a result of imperialist sanctions unjustly placed upon them if you were japanese, and the Allies kind of just rolled with that because they would need those guys for the post-war government? It is kind of like that.

>>50839681
Daily reminder there are people saying Holocause never happend and is just Jewish propaganda.
The same people usually will tell you how Confederacy was in fact all about protecting the law of state-tier self-governence and not, you know, war about keeping slaves to run your plantations.

The ultimate irony of the Civil War is how machines invented in the North eventually made mechanical collection of cotton so fucking efficient, hand-picking became all but obsolete by 1940s

>>50839866
Holocaust. Auto-correct on its finest

>>50839866
>The ultimate irony of the Civil War is how machines invented in the North eventually made mechanical collection of cotton so fucking efficient, hand-picking became all but obsolete by 1940s
Wouldn't it only be "the ultimate" irony if the Confederacy actually had won?

>>50839899
Nah, that's just one of the most boring and over-used alt!history cliches in existence. Especially tiresome if you are not American.
And the mechanical picker was invented precisely because how costly it was without slave labour to gather cotton.

>>50839525
>It was about states rights.
Yes, a states rights concerning the ownership of slaves.

Or, in other words, "it was about slavery."

>>50839681
That's what's taught in American high schools as well, and it's pretty non-controversial in most of the US. A lot of southerners are just totally in denial about the whole thing. On a side note, that's the root of all the crap about the Confederate battle flag and government buildings a couple years ago- to the people who wanted to keep the flag, it's a totally innocent symbol of the American south, and they put their fingers in their ears and go LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU if anyone tries to suggest it could mean anything more

>>50839729
>Also, nice to know national law should be less important than locally set laws
You'd prefer the USSR?

File: o-MISSISSIPPI-SECESSION-STATEMENT-570.jpg (34KB, 570x194px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 570x194px

>>50839525
Sweet job cherrypicking while closing your eyes and plugging your eyes when it specifically mentions slavery as being the state right they want.

>>50839269
>Red neck
Fuck off.

>>50839999
Or any number of unitary governments where National law supersedes local laws, including but not limited to the United Kingdom, France, the Roman Empire, and Denmark.

>>50840024
Ok look, we aren't ignoring that, but thank you for admitting our point.

>>50834628
>fantasy
>anachronistic clothing

wut

>>50840059
Actually in the three existing states you named federal law overrules national law.

>>50839681
Basically its just people repeating the line the southern aristocracy fed their poor dirt farming ancestors to get them to not only fight a war but not lynch everyone that lived in a plantation house after they lost.

Did you know that anyone that owned more than 20 slaves was exempt from military service?

>>50836650
It is biologically. :^)

And in Mexico

>>50840098
[citation needed]

>>50840059
Yep. Student in Civil Law here, and this kind of juridic system is perfectly viable, despite whatever [insert your strawman group of choosing here] will tell you

>>50839212
>Yes, as part of the bigger issue of federal law superseding state law

No. Alexander Stephens, the Confederate vice-President, gave a famous speech about how slavery was the cornerstone of their Confederacy. Slavery was THE point of the war. Every single aspect of it traces back to slavery.

You have yourself mixed up there - slavery wasn't part of the bigger issue of federal law; federal law was part of the bigger issue of slavery.

>>50840082
>fantasy setting has a certain very popular type of clothing that was invented in recent times
>time travel shenanigans makes the party end up many years in the past
>people look at the PC and wonder where they got those unusual but good looking clothes from
Bang, anachronistic clothing in a fictional setting.
Thought I doubt that's what OP really ment.

>>50834628
>anachronistically
Fantasy worlds are not beholden to the historicity of earth's chronology.

>>50840098
>federal law overrules national law.
What? Federal law IS National law in federal governments. There is no federal law in unitary governments, only national law and the statutes the national government delegates to local government. Given that everything listed is unitary, I'm pretty sure you have no clue what you're talking about.

>>50839598
High stovepipe hats (like what Lincoln wore; they were popular on both sides of the Mason-Dixon) for the wealthy; and straw hats of varying quality for everyone else.

>>50835403
Sean Bean is a crime against the english language

The best part about the Civil War is that if the Southern states had just bitten the bullet and accepted abolishment, the South would perhaps not be such an economic death zone in 2016.

The economic damage from keeping slaves for such a long time and getting into the mechanization game so late still scars the American South.

History keeps teaching us that mind trounces heart every time, but dumbass retard humans keep thinking that their feels are more important.

>>50840142
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solange_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factortame

>>50840098
>federal law overrules national law
Uhh... No ? My best guess is that you're talking about European laws having a higher power than national laws (which is normal, since if it wasn't the case, they wouldn't be fucking enforced), but calling the EU a federal state is wrong, so we can't say that "federal law" overrules national law, as federal law doesn't exist in these countries
Tl;Dr: National law DOES supersedes local laws in the UK, France, Denmark and a fuckton of countries

>>50840151
If it wasn't slavery, it would have been something else. You are misunderstanding how a. Different states saw themselves as independent of one another, and b. How people saw themselves as primarily citizens of their states rather than the US. Hell, the US was tethered to as these United States before the civil war. The civil war was a largely inescapable paradigm shift as how we saw ourselves as a nation regardless of slavery.

>>50840180
>>50840209

>>50839999
Anon, don't want to break it for you, but that's literally how law works all over the world.
Including federal governments, like Germany or Russia.

It's the same shit as Americans being surprised that democratic election is about getting the most votes from the votes and thus sparsely populated areas has less voting power. The best part is how Americans call this "dictate of the mob", while their convoluted recalculation of votes and assigning them to some equally convoluted electors is somehow "true democracy"

>>50839797
>Which was also the reason why Confederacy failed in the end

Yeah, that speech by whats-his-name in the beginning of Gone with the Wind is pretty accurate, despite the film as a whole being largely antebellum revisionist crap.

>No, I'm not hinting. I'm saying very plainly that the Yankees are better equipped than we. They've got factories, shipyards, coal mines...and a fleet to bottle up our harbors and starve us to death. All we've got is cotton and slaves and arrogance.

>>50840197
Meh, Bismarck considered the Civil War the result of European financial instigation.

>>50840209
yeah, so you're a dumbass for thinking that EU laws = federal law
I can't really blame you for that, not knowing what a federal state is, after all, a common trait in online discussions
IF the EU was a full on federal state, then sure. Problem is, it's not. If it was, it wouldn't have as many problems as it has today

>>50840209
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solange_II
>is a German constitutional law
I didn't include Germany? And Germany is a Federal Government, not a Unitary Government?

>Factortame
The European Union is not a nation. and the rights it holds are delegated by the nation-states that comprise it. This is irrelevant to your argument.

>>50840258
Bismark also wanted to cleanse his people in blood and fire

>>50840229
>>50840274
>>50840276

>>50840225
>but calling the EU a federal state is wrong
Tell that to academics, politicians and EU institutions, not some posted on the internet.

Why do you say that though?

>Tl;Dr: National law DOES supersedes local laws in the UK
There is no "local law" in the UK...

>>50839937
Not to mention kind of unrealistic, since they always seem to take the CSA surviving into modern times for granted. The CSA's centralized government had very little power, to the point that it badly hampered the war effort, and even when they were fighting for their very right to exist there were cases of states threatening to secede over petty squabbles. I find it a little hard to believe they wouldn't implode before the turn of the 20th century and get gobbled up by the US and Mexico

>>50840276
>the rights it holds are delegated by the nation-states that comprise it
So just like the USA then.

>>50840227
> it would have been something else

Highly doubtful, given how monumental and fundamental impact it had on the American economy. What else even begins to approach it? The only non-slave related thing that any of the original seceding states mentioned was Texas bringing up its opinion that the Federal government was not doing enough to protect it against the Comanches, and even that merited only a single line.

>Hell, the US was tethered to as these United States before the civil war.

In the South. Saying "The United States is" rather than "are" was common in the North pretty much from the inception, which is why New England's brief flirtation with secession in 1812 never amounted to anything more than a few get-togethers by dissatisfied merchants, presumably more as an excuse to drink than anything.

>>50840312
The USA is a nation-state. The European Union is a political union.

>>50840303
>Tell that to academics, politicians and EU institutions
>Scholars thus today see it as an intermediate form lying between a confederation and a federation, being an instance of neither political structure.[79]

I kind of don't see why people care how fantasy characters dress in a game. Ultimately, it's your fantasy, your imagination. If you want to picture in your mind's eye that your character is wearing a chainmail bikini, hey, why not? I get that might be annoying if stuff you don't like dominates fantasy artwork, but in a game, it doesn't matter all that much. I mean, most people describe how their character looks once max, and you can kind of shrug it off, y'know?

>>50840225
>but calling the EU a federal state is wrong
>>50840274
>IF the EU was a full on federal state, then sure. Problem is, it's not.
>>50840276
>The European Union is not a nation.
>>50840348
>The USA is a nation-state. The European Union is a political union.
Please explain the distinction, or distinctionS if you are multiple posters, you are making here.

>>50840429
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#Constitutional_nature
>Especially in terms of the European tradition, the term federation is equated with a sovereign federal state in international law; so the EU cannot be called a federation — at least, not without qualification. It is, however, described as being based on a federal model or federal in nature; and so it may be appropriate to consider it a federal union of states, a conceptual structure lying between the confederation of states and the federal state.[83]

>>50840252
Rhett Butler. And he's called coward and yellow-belly for just applying basic logic.
- I think it's hard winning a war with words, gentlemen.
>- What do you mean, sir?
>- I mean, Mr. Hamilton, there's not a cannon factory in the whole South.
>- What difference does that make, sir, to a gentleman?
>- I'm afraid it's going to make a great deal of difference to a great many gentlemen, sir.
and the final is the best of it
>- That's treacherous!
>- Her Brother: I refuse to listen to any renegade talk!
>- Well, I'm sorry if the truth offends you.

Literally 4chan-tier discussion, before there even was radio

>>50840258
Sure, but that's a textbook case of "myopic idiot can't fathom someone stubbing their toe without their country having a hand in it" (and Bismark absolutely was a myopic idiot in many respects). The US Civil War was all but guaranteed when the Constitution was signed without a meaningful resolution to the question of slavery.

Alright fine, if you really want to split hairs slavery could have died on its own without a war had the cotton gin never been invented, making slavery economically viable again, but then if I had wheels I'd be a wagon.

>>50840305
Well that's what exactly what you get for putting local laws and traditions over national law - a bunch of secessionists that at any point can further divide. In short - the entire Confederacy was like a grim joke made out of your average feudal anarchy in times of weak king.

>>50836175
Because his mom/sister is a whore

>>50840473
>the term federation is equated with a sovereign federal state in international law; so the EU cannot be called a federation
So technically it's not legally a federation simply because it's not officially a sovereign state?

That's rather semantic but I understand your point.

>>50836590
Now post the follow-up.

>>50840524
Exactly. And we know it would happen exactly this way because it already happened once before. It was the called the Articles of Confederation (I mean literally- from my understanding there was very little difference between the AoC and the CSA constitution in terms of the powers granted to the national government) and it was scrapped after like a week for being idiotic and fundamentally unworkable.

File: See ya Space Cowboy.png (2MB, 1535x1019px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1535x1019px

>>50839643
>Endling is kill

>>50840429
>>50840551
The basis of international politics and agreements is National Sovereignty, the right of a nation-state to determine the structure and nature of governance within its borders unless it so chooses to part with them, and non-intervention, the idea that areas protected by national sovereignty should not be contravened unless they affect other nations' national security (this is, of course, in theory). A political union or confederation is voluntary in nature in participation, and inherently participation is voluntary, because national sovereignty must be respected. This is why rulings on EU law such as Solange and Factortame must be pursued in national courts and EU courts, why Brexit can occur, and why the European Union does not maintain its own army: National Sovereignty ultimately safeguards rights to self-defense, participation based on internal legislation and the supremacy of national courts.

A Federal Nation-state need not hold these safeguards, as demonstrated by the Civil War. Whether justified or not, since the Civil War the United States has operated under the idea that its member states cannot leave without a modification of the constitutional compact to which they are all party to, requiring the same congressional majority/constitutional convention ratification as a constitutional amendment. Federal courts supersede State courts, and the United States as a nation state can raise its own military without any accession by the States. The United States Army, for example, can intervene in a state's affairs (i.e. Brown vs. Board of Education) against the state militia, because the principle of non-intervention is missing. As the states are not Nation-States, they are not protected by the principles of non-intervention and national sovereignty, and so they are not guaranteed the rights that would be allowed a nation-state.

File: 1452540758226.png (112KB, 619x562px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 619x562px

>>50840429
Anon, are you from the US ? If so, you might have a hard time trying to understand the clusterfuck that is the EU, as many people clearly don't
Keep in mind that this is an oversimplified version:

The US is a nation-state. Meaning that the smaller states have basically given control to the state to rule everything that is related to inter-state business. You probably know how law works in america so I won't bother explaining that, but you know that the state only judges cases that are either inter-state or international, or intentionally brought to them.
Now, the EU was originally controversial. When they started at six, they created a common market where a few ressources could be traded without taxes, and then, for a long period of time, the people who wanted to make the EU a federal state by uniting european countries won the upper hand. Problem is, they kept adding new members, and couldn't keep up with bringing them up to speed on the ever-increasing regulations and common goals. Now, the people who want a simple trade union have regained power and started to make a fuckton of rules in order to reinforce the common market, which scared people who think that the EU wants to become a federal state and rule them like an evil superstate !!!
Seeing a trend with 'murican's distrust from the governement in some states yet ?
The thing is, the EU is not a federal state, as the countries only basically give power to brussels to make laws regarding their common trades and policies, but since brussel doesn't have an authority over the countries' constitutions, it cannot be called a Federal state:
Tl;Dr: Since the countries's own constitutions still hold more power than the EU laws, we cannot call the EU a Nation, as it is CURRENTLY a simple political union

>>50834628

>anachronistic

> imaginary worlds' fantasy

Anon...

>>50840611
>Articles of Confederation
Care to explain to Eurofag?

>>50840661
the last line is the only thing needed really, but yeah, that's pretty much it

>>50840489
Well, technically well after, given that the film came out in 1939, and was based on a 1936 novel...

...but otherwise I take your meaning.

>>50840647
>A political union or confederation is voluntary in nature in participation, and inherently participation is voluntary
So every "federation" where secession is allowed, like the EU and USSR, aren't countries and aren't federations?

>>50840429
>>50840647
This is also why UN recognition as a nation-state is so important in spite of how powerless the UN is: UN recognition means that you are seen as a Nation by a majority of the international community, and acceded the same rights of National Sovereignty. For, say, Palestine, recognition as a nation means that Israeli military operations in the west bank and Gaza are no longer internal operations within Israeli borders, protected by National Sovereignty, but an invasion of the Nation of Palestine by the Nation of Israel, and thus justification/grounds for potential intervention, whether it be by neighboring countries or the Security Council.

If, say, Taiwan were recognized as a nation, that would mean that any attempt by China to reintegrate Taiwan or to annex Taiwan would be seen as a violation of one nation's national sovereignty, and thus grounds for action by the international community.

This is why China and Israel are so against Taiwan and Palestine being recognized as countries, because it would mean political protections that would make their policies to these two territories far more politically unjustifiable under international law.

>>50840661
>traded without taxes
Tariffs. The word you are looking for is tariffs

And as an eurofag, I support this post. It's a gross oversimplification, but true to the nature of how things are working.

>>50840647
>and why the European Union does not maintain its own army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union

>>50840507
Technically, it's all Mexico's fault. In short:

- Mexico lets Americans settle Tejas, provided they agree to follow Mexican law
- The Tejanos agree and bring all their property (including slaves)
- Cut to 1820 or so. Mexico outlaws slavery
- The Tejanos take exception to this; being additionally unable to spell, they declare the Republic of Texas
- Fight Mexico; remember the Alamo. Beg the USA for help
- USA helps the Texans curbstomp Mexico
- Republic of Texas spends 10 years begging to be part of the US; is finally let in
- Some other stuff means Mexico and USA go to war
- Mexico curbstomped so hard America gets half of Mexico to keep (in exchange for $4,000,000 and accepting Texas debt)
- All this new land has to be turned into states
- Slavery debate is kindled anew something fierce as new territories are argued over becoming "slave" or "free"
- Civil War happens

Basically Mexico accidentally ended slavery in North America.

>>50840768
Anon, please...
It's like saying African Union has half a billion soldiers, without taking into account shit doesn't work this way.
Or calling NATO an army.

Seriously, whenever I see someone talking about EU Army, I know I'm dealing with non-Eurofag AND a civilian.

>>50840745
No, every Federation where the right to leave is protected under National Sovereignty isn't a country or Federation, but a Confederation or Union.

For example, Ethiopia's constitution allows any of its member states to secede from its Federation. However, this is under rights of self-determination (which, while a human right, is not a part of national sovereignty) and does not recognize them inherently as separate nation-states.

>>50840713
This is the short version, but the Articles of Confederation were the USA's first attempt at a government. It allowed a great deal of autonomy between the states and gave the national government almost no power whatsoever. States could print their own money, could place tariffs on goods from other states, the national government couldn't raise an army or collect taxes, etc.

They were a gigantic clusterfuck in practice and that led to the Constitution being written a few years later. There are still some retards who either think the Articles of Confederation were a way better form of governance, or worse, some who think it still applies and gives them an excuse to ignore any laws they don't like or avoid paying taxes.

>>50840661
Explain the recently passed EU gun control measures then. It seems to me that the EU has become a defacto federalized state by virtue of expanding the definition of what qualifies under the authority of the common market, much like how Congress gave themselves the ability to regulate intra-state commerce by declaring that since intra-state commerce has an effect on interstate commerce it is under Congressional authority by virtue of the Commerce Clause.

>>50840800
More or less this, just a simple add-on

The whole Mexican-American war was about getting the territories Americans get in the end, but Mexico just wasn't selling. So burgers literally fought a war to rolfstomp their neighbour and then... buy the land anyway, rather than simple annexion.

>>50840661
>Since the countries's own constitutions still hold more power than the EU laws, we cannot call the EU a Nation
Actually this is an open question right now, with the possibility Hungary's constitution may be overruled for violating EU law.

How does that work anyway with countries like the UK without constitutions?

>>50840713
Basically the Treaty of Rome but for the Thirteen Colonies.

>>50840820
The Articles are reasonably functional if you don't mind each of the US states being completely separate, sovereign countries. However, that was absolutely untenable at the time (and also not what everyone was going for), and even today only a select few states could actually make a real go at it.

>>50840822
>Being this tier out of touch how things work in Europe or inside EU
Anon... I know burgers are touchy about guns, but here is a deal - barely any country in Europe allows them, and if, then very strictly regulated. The control measure was about making STANDARISED regulations, so police can work more efficiently and there are less issues when country X has law B, while country Y has regulation A.
In fact, the regulation made it EASIER to get gun in few countries.

>>50840802
So you didn't read the page? I'll quote it.
>The military of the European Union comprises the various cooperative structures that have been established between the armed forces of the member states, both intergovernmentally and within the institutional framework of the union;
>both intergovernmentally and within the institutional framework of the union;
>both intergovernmentally
>and within the institutional framework of the union;
Every other army in the world belongs to a state or is run intergovernmentally. But in the EU, intergovernmental is just one of its current military activities, to say nothing of the future.

>>50840858
I think only Texas, Cali (if it dropped a shitload of debt) and NY (ditto) could actually seceed and not immediately die?

>>50834628
> How anachronistically do your fantasy characters dress?
Considering they figured out the loom before they figured out the fire - quite anachronistically.

>>50840872
> I know burgers are touchy about guns

Not all of us. I'm broadly satisfied with the gun control laws in my home state of Massachusetts. But then even I'll admit that Massachusetts is in many ways a demi-European country.

New England taken as a whole could actually make a decent go at functioning as an independent nation.

>>50840768
>>50840878
It's explained to you in the introduction
>The military of the European Union comprises the various cooperative structures that have been established between the armed forces of the member states, both intergovernmentally and within the institutional framework of the union; the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) branch of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).
The "European Union Military" is just national militaries cooperating. That is, EU soldiers could be just French Soldiers operating under French Command. The French and Spanish national armies may be cooperating under EU auspices, but the President of the European Council does not have any place in this chain of command.

Compare that with the United States Army, where the Kentucky National Guard is fighting under a General from Kansas representing the Government of the United States (as opposed to the Kentucky state government) and led by the President of the United States.

>>50840812
>No, every Federation where the right to leave is protected under National Sovereignty isn't a country or Federation,
So the whole Article 50 thing in Britain is irrelevant because it already has the right to leave under National Sovereignty? Then why bother writing that article as if you're writing a federation's constitution?

>>50840820
>>50840858
So pretty much a failed first draft to form the US of A, as a C of A. Got it.

>>50840857
That really helps a bunch to fill the gaps.

>>50840902
Brexit, clusterfuck that it was, was meant to be a political show. Like America and Trump, no one expected the British public to actually vote yes. It was supposed to be a put up or shut up moment, and the PM was shocked when people put up.

>>50840713
Alright, so before we had the Constitution thing we're all so very, very proud of we had another document laying the legal foundation on which the country would be based. Having just liberated ourselves from distant, all-powerful entity people were wary of creating another one, so under the Articles the central government had extremely limited power (in some respects, even less than the EU has today). This created a borderline power vacuum where states could, for example, impose economic sanctions on states they were in competition with. The country started devolving into feuding petty states and people realized the whole system needed some major overhauling.

>>50840902
Because Great Britain is a Constitutional Government, and any process to leave the EU under Britain's Government must be approved by Parliament and enshrined in the Constitution.

Britain has the right to leave under National Sovereignty, but Article 50 outlines the process that the British Government decided (using its National Sovereignty) should be used to do so.

>>50840880
California stands the best chance, but it would need to secure water so it would never attempt it unless it could get at least Oregon and preferably also Washington to go along. If it did it would instantly become the 7th richest country in the world and be instantly allowed into the G7 (either displacing Italy or, more likely, simply turning it back into the G8)

(debt doesn't really matter; California's isnt' that high, and Japan is still a G7 nation despite having a debt 250% of its GDP)

Texas could make an excellent go of things thanks to a mixture of population and oil.

New York would basically become Singapore, but colder. Politer, though - which really tells you something about the average Spingaporean.

Massachusetts could probably be an okay nation on its own (we're pretty much a demi-European nation as-is), but New England as a whole would have a GDP as high as India and a much better standard of living, abundant natural and renewable resources, hydroelectric power, and chowdah.

Do not underestimate the chowdah.

...oh, also 75% of all cranberries in the world, I guess.

>>50840753
>Tariffs
yes, my bad
For a short story, I remember my teacher in Economics telling us about the history of the EU and how it was such a clusterfuck, with so many changes done all the fucking time
It's sad to see the EU in it's current state, it could've been something great

>>50840995

It's time for someone to Make Europe Great Again?

>>50840835
>How does that work anyway with countries like the UK without constitutions?
Good question, but I suspect it's part of the reasons behind their leave

>>50840878
Anon, I'm a serving member of a Polish military. And you are throwing at my face wikipedia article and asking me how I can disregard it content.

Nice knowing you are getting your informations from wikipedia in 2016.
The EU Army is a myth. It's a creature that exists only on paper. And unlike NATO, it has zero practical and realistic value or even meaning. In fact, given how all EU members are part of NATO (aside Finland), this is further a ridiculous concept, since EU already has unified military alliance of real, practical military value rather than hypothetical army made out of combined militaries of all countries, but lacking proper structure to even call out for mobilisation.

File: 1453464235170.png (386KB, 578x790px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 578x790px

>>50840965
>Do not underestimate the chowdah.

I read this in a pseudo-JFK voice. It was great.

File: refugee-germany-welcome-740x490.jpg (64KB, 740x490px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 740x490px

>>50840286
Was he wrong Tho?

>>50840902
National Sovereignty gives a national government the right to leave, but the national government is still bound by its own governmental structure made on a national level. For example, North Korea could invoke its national sovereignty to leave, say, the UN, whenever it wants, because it is a dictatorship and decisions are made by a single dictator. The United States, on the other hand, also has the theoretical ability to leave the United Nations whenever it wants under National Sovereignty, but as it is a democracy, domestically the process would require much more assent and debate.

In this case, Britain could theoretically just say "fuck it, I'm leaving" immediately if it were still an absolute monarchy or a dictatorship. But as a representative government, it makes its decision based on parliamentary action, and so it must take part in lengthy processes in accordance to its government.

tl;dr National Sovereignty is a right international politics, but the manner and usage of a nation's sovereignty is up to the Government of the nation.

>>50840995
I'm coming from the "Take" country - Poland, to be specific - and even in the utterly clusterfuck state (and only getting more fucked-up lately) it's still better than no Union, so go fucking figure. On the other hand, I don't really understand nationalistic sentiments, so maybe it's a matter of personal perception. I wouldn't mind further integration, but I wouldn't mind keeping things as they are either. For me it's important the Union exists in the first place.

>>50841011
Fuck off

>>50841041
Given that his actions ultimately created the catalyst that lead to World War I, AKA the most pointless and tragic war in human history since it didn't even accomplish anything other than to set the stage for World War II, I'd say that yes. He was wrong.

>>50840965
California has significant revenue/spending/debt issues and a stifling amount of industrial and business regulations. Texas has upwards of 1/3 of its economy tied to government contracts.

The real issue is that their economies are going to take a massive hit the moment they try to secede due to monetary issues.

>>50840872
Except you're still forcing member states to change their laws to align with the directives of a supra-national governing body.

>>50841081

Polan cannot into humor

>>50841098
>blaming Germany for the war

Allies detected

WW1 was a clusterfuck on all sides

>>50841098
Blame Willy II for that. Bismarck's policy was pretty much the same balance of power politics of the centuries before, making sure that Russia and France were never allies.

Wilhelm fucked it up by allowing France and Russia to reconcile.

>>50834628
Black leather trenchcoat and fedora is out of place, but so is my 5000x folded katana.

>>50841098
>AKA the most pointless and tragic war in human history
>I don't know anything about WWI, but goddamn Paths of Glory was a good movie, wasn't it?
I bet you think the officers sat around drinking Cognac while smarmily quipping about all the poor people who were out dying for them, too

>>50841011
it would be nice, but that's impossible
Doing so would require political stability a period of AT LEAST 10 to 20 years
And even then, it wouldn't be a guaranteed success, when taking into account that politicians are turning into showmans that want to show how ballsy they are by criticising the EU( when everyone does it), or support it when they don't actually intend to do anything about it
I'm curious about what trump is planning to do, but from what I understand from american politics, not having the support of the parliament is kind of a problem which worked against Obama for example
Not saying that he can't do it, just saying that from an economical perspective, making america "great again", if you try to compare to it's last "golden age" is going to be hard

File: 1462722636968.jpg (142KB, 496x462px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 496x462px

>>50834628
This thread has been a far more interesting read than it deserved to be.

Stay great /tg/.

>>50841098
The Belgians holding on to the tiny sliver of their previously-neutral country that wasn't currently being occupied by Germans would really object to the idea that they were fighting pointlessly.

>>50841109
It's not funny at all when you know who got elected into power in Poland last year and see how they fuck up diplomacy and economy with their half-witted decisions and giving money left and right for lowlives and unemployed to keep "society" content.

File: hitler[1].jpg (78KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1024x576px

>>50841011
They tried that, very bad things happened to him

>>50841113
>WW1 was a clusterfuck on all sides

I don't deny that, and actually I blame Gavrillo Princip for the war. It's just that Bismarck did all the big things that set the ultimate stage, like Alscace-Lorraine.

>>50841124
>ismarck's policy was pretty much the same balance of power politics of the centuries before

And was completely unsustainable.

>>50841142
>I bet you think the officers sat around drinking Cognac while smarmily quipping about all the poor people who were out dying for them, too

Of course not. But that was the net result, wasn't it?

>>50841098
Anon, don't want to break it for you, but compared with emperor Willie and his serious inferiority issues, Bismarck was pretty level-headed and innocent.
I'm not saying he didn't start French revanchism, but it was Willy who went all-in for gearing for war and "making Germany great again"

Also, the war was a clusterfuck on ALL sides, and EVERYONE is to blame for that shit. There were no victors, but there were also no innocents.

>>50841167
>read this thread
>get interested in learning about other cultures
>visit /int/
>it's just general threads devoted to individual countries, all in their own languages
>that or shitposting
o-ok...

>visit /pol/
OH DEAR FUCKING GOD

>>50841170
I get that, but ultimately what did Belgium accomplish for all that? A 20-year respite before the whole thing started up again, as a direct result of the events of the first World War, where the Belgians this time around didn't even get that much.

That's not to say that the Belgians should have just rolled over and died. Rather, I'm just disappointed at the end of World War I turning out the way it ultimately did.

>>50841224
In that case avoid /his/ if you don't like Evolution vs. Creationism debates or don't know what a spook is.

>>50841224
>Visiting /pol/ to learn anything about anyone
Have you've been smoking pot lately?

>>50841224
There's a reason why one of /tg/'s slogans has become "you don't even need the other boards anymore."

>>50841233
And who can you thank for that? France and England.

>>50841258
No, I WISH it was legal in my state goddamn... it would be so good for my dad, with his pain and nausea problems...

>>50841241
>avoid /his/ if you don't like Evolution vs. Creationism
That's only in American daytime hour. /his/ is literal Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde with this shit. Normal during the day, clusterfuck at night. And the "night" happens during American afternoon.

>>50841124
The problem with the system Bismark set up was that it only worked so long as it had Bismark around to maintain it. If he was truly the genius people are so desperate to make him out to be, he would have foreseen all that
>>50841200
>Of course not. But that was the net result, wasn't it?
Except it wasn't. At all. Go look up the death rates for British officers. Hate to break it to you, but just because something is portrayed the same way in media over and over again doesn't mean that's how it happened. Go read a book. One that isn't maudlin poetry.

Sometimes, I regret getting into /tg/ related hobbies because then I come here and see you stupid fuckers and I know that you assholes share my hobby.

File: 1381577936704.jpg (61KB, 320x304px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 320x304px

>>50841298

>>50841081
Anon you replied to here, I'm personnally in favor of integration but the problem is that the chance of it happening is diminishing every day
Of course, the union is better than nothing, but I'm more afraid from people trying to backpedal (it's pretty much in all the far right movements' programs now), when everyone with at least two functionning braincells knows that the common market and trade agreements are great for our economy
Fun fact: this teacher was polish (or is it pole ? Sorry if I'm wrong here)

>>50841144
Trump has a lot of leeway in regards to trade deals, tax rates, and government contracts.

>>50841284
>he would have foreseen all that
He fucking did, you dolt

The only thing he didn't forseen was Willy II being really this fucking stupid and getting him out of the cabinet. Seriously, Bismarck was one huge manipulative bastard, but Willy was too fucking stupid to get manipulated and instead was making most stupid decisions of all proposed options all the fucking time.

>>50840900
Except that directly contradicts the article.

>>50841284
>Except it wasn't. At all. Go look up the death rates for British officers.

Sorry, I was unclear - mea culpa. I meant that the fact that the only real thing World War I accomplished was setting the stage for World War II, or at the best some other, later conflicts, was the only real result of the war. Literally everything that everyone in it fought for was immediately put to risk or destroyed again in World War II, needing even more human death and suffering.

I know full well that British officers died at rates comparable to the rank-and-file; I wasn't objecting to that point. But again, I was unclear. Sorry.

For me, anachronism means things that do not make sense in the fantastic world where they exist. For example: People in polar climate wearing only fur lined underwear? Explain how you avoid death by hypothermia. Stone age tribesmen with swords and armor? Explain where they bought or stole them. etc, etc.

>>50841343
I rather think the Anon meant to say that if Bismarck was a true genius, he would have foreseen the need to make sure that his delicate game would function even if he was no longer around to manipulate things. If nothing else, he was gonna die of old age sooner or later (1898, specifically)

>>50841144
Most experts agree he can't really do the shit he wants, even with the support of Congress - then again most experts agreed he never had a chance in hell of winning either. The republicans swept the House and the Senate so they basically control the exec and leg right now, and he has an opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice of his choice to the SCOTUS giving him an edge in the judiciary as well.

What it all amounts to we'll have to see. it's already obvious the Dems are going to be huge partisan cocksucking babies about everything, just like the Reps were during all of Obamas 8 years.

>>50841343
>>50841374
This, Bismarks biggest mistake was misunderstanding Wilhelm and how he could be influenced. Bismark got too used to being top dog and Wilhelm had different ideas, the feud between them got quite personal and made co-operation impossible because they were both too fucking stubborn.

>>50841306
>polish (or is it pole
Both version works. Pole gets confusing if you forget about capital letter, but that's all.

The funny part about far right is how they want to go back to national level and completely dismantle the union to "make X great again", while in most of the countries that means not even being local power.
I mean seriously, Hungary great again? Slovakia?! Not to mention my native Poland, the biggest pushover for past 300 years, always with some idiot too eager to fight for honour rather than minding the business (the literal one). Especially scary when you signed your life on that dotted line and one day a schizophreniac is set as the minister of defense, deciding an AK variant is enough to stop potential Russian invasion, while actively alienating NATO and EU, while simultanously spending military budget on forming of fucking militia in fucking 21st century, made from football hooligans, overgrown scouts and survivalist freaks, as long as they share far-right believes.

>>50841374
You could make a comparison to Putin.
He is smarter and bolder than any Russian leader in the last 30 years, but when he passes, the power vacuum will be fucking enormous.
When you rule by personal charisma and ego, and make good ideas, you expect others to follow them the way you did, not do other shit of their own initiative. I can forgive Bismarck due to human nature. It wasn't smart, but fucking Alexander the Great did the same damn thing, so it's not a new issue.

>>50841306
I don't think most people have an issue with the common market and trade agreements, it's more about the level of control the EU has on the function of any specific member state. Even then from a purely economic perspective it's not hard to find issues with current policies and framework.

>>50841344
Except it doesn't.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Military_Staff
>The EUMS does not directly control the EU military missions. In order to conduct an EU military crisis management operation, an Operational Headquarters (OHQ) is nominated by the appropriate Council of the European Union decision. The OHQ directs the Force Headquarters or FHQ, also provided by a member country, which carries out the operation on the ground.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Battlegroup#Structure
>Larger member states will generally contribute their own Battlegroups, while smaller members are expected to create common groups. Each group will have a 'lead nation' or 'framework nation' which will take operational command, based on the model set up during the EU's peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Operation Artemis). Each group will also be associated with a headquarters.

The only part of the EU military command not responsible to a national military command in some way is the 1000-strong Eurocorps.

>>50841374
Thing is, he was in the process of setting things up to work without him, since he was more than aware he won't live forever.
And was ousted from the office roughtly half-way from achieving his goals.

>>50841380
>then again most experts agreed he never had a chance in hell of winning either

In fairness, that's a matter of statistics, whereas the things he wants to accomplish are a matter of law, in some cases Constitutional law. Like, his idea of banning Muslims is totally shut down by the 1st Amendment (freedom of religion), 4th Amendment (the source of the "right to privacy"), and 14th Amendment (provides that non-citizens are still protected by the strictures of the Constitution).

>>50841417
>but when he passes, the power vacuum will be fucking enormous
Anon, this is literally what happend to Soviet Union after Stalin died. He spend previous 30 years killing just about ANYONE who could oppose him.
For the rest of its existence Soviets literally didn't have anyone to replace him and things went only worse after trendemous idiot like Brezhnev was put for life as the leader.

>>50840944
>Because Great Britain is a Constitutional Government, and any process to leave the EU under Britain's Government must be approved by Parliament and enshrined in the Constitution.
But the UK doesn't have a constitution and treaties are a matter for the government, not parliament.

>>50841067
>The United States, on the other hand, also has the theoretical ability to leave the United Nations whenever it wants under National Sovereignty, but as it is a democracy, domestically the process would require much more assent and debate.
But the president has authority over international relations.

>In this case, Britain could theoretically just say "fuck it, I'm leaving" immediately if it were still an absolute monarchy or a dictatorship. But as a representative government, it makes its decision based on parliamentary action, and so it must take part in lengthy processes in accordance to its government.
That still doesn't explain why Article 50 exists when each country has its own system for making decisions.

>>50836334
SMBC doesn't live on Mount Stupid full-time like Monroe, but they definitely own real estate there.

>>50841422
>it's more about the level of control the EU has on the function of any specific member state
Which is NONE.
Unless of course you are far-right, then you BELIEVE you are living in a slave state, probably run by Germans or French, depending from what country you are and who local far-right hates more.

Also, newsflash - current far right stance toward EU has seriously radicalised, especially after Brexit, so there is literally nobody left in this spectrum of politics to still support any form of existence of the Union, even as a tariff-free zone.

>>50841492
Khrushchev wasn't the worst, though. I think he was probably the best option left. And notably, rather than killing people who opposed him, he tended to instead just move them to minor posts where they wouldn't be a threat to him.

>>50841352
WWI more or less defined the geopolitics of Asian, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa as we know it. Saying that it only really accomplished setting the stage for WW2 is like writing the obituary for an Olympic gold medalist and listing their only accomplishment as an appearance on a Wheaties box.

>>50841409
Actual militia or a reservist/National Guard type deal?

>>50841448
>The only part of the EU military command not responsible to a national military command in some way is the 1000-strong Eurocorps.
This

And said Eurocorps are still made up from active servicemen of their respective country and not just some magically created un-national forces.
In the end, EU Army doesn't exists.

>>50841352
That's fair. Sorry, I'm just fucking sick of people claiming it was literally over nothing because it was a purely political conflict. You're right that it was "pointless" in the sense that many of the underlying issues went unresolved and no one was really any better off than they were at the start.

>>50841508
>But the president has authority over international relations.

Yes and no. The President can't make treaties, for example.

>>50841030
>And you are throwing at my face wikipedia article and asking me how I can disregard it content.
>Nice knowing you are getting your informations from wikipedia in 2016.
Nobody complained when an anon earlier quotes incorrect parts of a wiki article that made the EU seem LESS bad... >>50840473

>>50841541
>WWI more or less defined the geopolitics of Asian, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa as we know it.

I think you'll find that World War II had a far bigger impact on those.

>>50841537
I'm not saying he wasn't. He was one of few "old guards" who fully comprehended the situation and could actually make a difference if he stayed in power for longer. But then due to shitload of politicking and backroom backstabbing, Brezhnev, a political, economical and intellectual ZERO, became the glorious leader.
It's like appointing a fucking bum to run a country.

>>50841508
>But the president has authority over international relations.
The president can make treaties. Congress can alter them as they like, as held in the Head money cases. They can also refuse to ratify treaties signed by the President, as with the League of Nations.

>That still doesn't explain why Article 50 exists when each country has its own system for making decisions.
The national government decided they were party to the charter, and decided to withdraw under the procedures set out in a charter. Yes, a truly chaotic nation could just withdraw without doing any of that, but the United Kingdom is not one of those nations, and it chooses to go through the proper channels because the current Tory government doesn't even want to withdraw in the first place and wish to remain integrated into the European common market in some form.

>>50841586
Yeah...I'm starting to think that the main cause of the many woes of Russia are fundamentally because it's full of Russians.

Like, after a certain point, you can't blame Germany or America or the winter and bad harvests, or even the Tsars or Communists, or whoever, and have to start seriously looking at your country and wondering if maybe the problem is more fundamental.

>>50841258
Yeah that slogan doesn't really apply any more >>50838562

>>50841656
We're having this thread, aren't we?

>>50841541
Actual militia.
It works like this - a 10k strong unit to "protect the eastern flank" with fucking old-stock AKs and good will. A most basic cannon fodder. Assuming it's to protect the borders, they can be wiped out within hours. And since Russian doctrine is all about opening attacks with barrage of artillery fire and then encirclement, they would probably just shit their pants and surrender.

But the reality is they are formed as private army to be used against any bigger demonstration, since they are under the direct command of the minister, outside the standard chain of command. So in the same time they rulling party is gaining "hard" power, while they've fucked up 3 massive trade deals for the actual army (Polish army won't get new air support, the AA weapons are an experimental system with zero certification and the local tank manufacturer will probably go out of business, leaving us without ability to service own tanks). In few months they will probably fuck up the prolongation of license for the Patria AMV, the current backbone of the Polish army.

This is what you get if you elect the worst possible populists into power, who then do their best to secure their position of power forever, never mind the country they are going to rule.

>>50841306
>when everyone with at least two functionning braincells knows that the common market and trade agreements are great for our economy
Sadly people in other countries don't make their decisions purely out of altruism towards yours!

>>50841200
>Gavrillo Princip

I like to imagine the powers that be had him stand at the entrance to the afterlife and apologise to everyone who came through it for the next 50 years or so.

>>50835403
>>50838704
>>50840194
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfRSvTSY0d4

File: 1461963870800.jpg (177KB, 710x888px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 710x888px

>>50834891

>>50841380
>Most experts agree
I think we've had enough of experts.

>>50841528
>Which is NONE.
Unless you have to rename a cheese because you lost a trade arbitration with another country.

Or in a more serious matter, the Eurozone itself strips larges swaths of monetary policy from its individual members. And yes I know that the Eurozone is not the same as the EU.

>>50841733
I mean, I understand why he did what he did, and I absolutely doubt that his intention was a world war.

But when a drunk driver runs over a six-year-old, you don't blame the car manufacturer, or the beer maker, or the bartender. You blame the driver.

>>50841714
Yes, becase not having to pay tariffs is soooo bad for your... what is it? What little bumfuck you come from?

Because what really scares me the most how all the far-right morons are gaining support in EAST of EU, aka the countries that gain all the privilidges without paying anything back. As far as I can understand the British anti-EU sentiment and the whole argumentation build about the money they had to pay to be then invested in Romania or Latvia, while they gain "nothing" from it, when you hear Latvians or Romanians crying how much they loose on EU, it's just fucking ridiculous.

t. Czech

>>50841671
Anecdotal. We're having it for now and missing out on countless others, past and future.

>>50841767
Maybe if the EU wasn't so evil people would love it more!

>>50841581
I don't know, the modern Middle East makes absolutely no sense unless you understand the Ottoman Empire and it's breakdown. Although I guess you can't pin that entirely on the war, and people overstating the importance of Sykes-Picot to make everything fit into nice, tidy "European colonialism is LITERALLY the root of all evil" narrative is a major pet peave of mine, so... I guess this is all pointless nitpicking.

>>50841714
>implying
When I said "our", I was obviously talking about the EU as a whole

>>50841767
American here, but the vast majority of my family lives in Ireland.

Any sense of what's happening there? It's my understanding that the Irish know that they more-or-less stole most of what they got from the EU and want to keep it together so they have an easier time taking more. They're thieves, but they're honest about it.

>>50841685
Fuck a doodledoo, Poland.

>>50841754
Anon, how the FUCK you think having a single currency for so many countries can work if not by taking control of their financies?
We already had Greece, who outright forged its financial reports for DECADES, basically putting everyone else in Eurozone in jeopardy by being bunch of lazy fucks and thieves. Members of Eurozone REALLY hate Greeks for that, because they basically said "fuck it, we are going to rob you all blind, and drag you down with ourselves".
So yeah, when you share currency, but don't want to share the RESPONSIBILITY for it, you shouldn't be using said currency in the first place.

But better cry about evil EU for fucking demanding you uphold the law you've agreed to pass, right?

>>50841167
>This thread has been a far more interesting read than it deserved to be.
Which of course is the opposite that is said to ERP threads despite the same applying.

>>50841812
>having a single currency for so many countries
There's your problem right there.

>>50841800
>unless you understand the Ottoman Empire and it's breakdown

Christ, I've tried, I really, honestly have, but I get a headache every time I do.

My school history experience was absolutely atypical for an American, we had very neutral history teachers who made sure to teach the good and the bad about all that they could and cover as much as possible, but in spite of that we only dealt with the Byzantine Empire as it related to the Crusades, and never learned a damn thing about the Ottoman Empire excepting to note that it joined Germany and Austria in World War I.

Subsequent attempts to learn about the place have been stymied by trying to navigate the (ironically) Byzantine nature of the nation.

>>50841800
Sykes-Picot defined the Middle East for one hundred years. It's not a "European colonialism is literally the root of all evil" it's, "Holy shit, you promised all these ethnic groups various things if they helped you undermine the Ottomans then went back on your word and divided the territory between yourselves without regard to local conditions."

>>50841448
>the EU doesn't have a military apart from the EU military which is like really really small that's why I lied about it not existing earlier while telling you you didn't know anything!

>>50841808
>Any sense of what's happening there?
Bunch of idiots taking mortgages and loans they were never able to pay back, while their government did the same on the national scale?
Which spectacularly backfired on them when the bubble bursted in '07 and they are in worse position than they were 20 years ago now, financially speaking.

At least unlike Greeks, Irish get their shit together and started working their debts back.
Greeks instead protested for 5 years, then elected bunch of faggots who basically said "fuck it, we won't gonna pay back and what you gonna do about it?". That was before Brexit, where preserving the integrity of EU and Eurozone was imperative
After Brexit, well...

>>50841831
As long as you are not trying to steal, it works wonders.
But the real problem was the assumption the people behind euro made that all members of Eurozone will be honest, rather than making actual laws to see if they are honest.

>>50841812
This seems relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK0De210TBQ

>>50841767
Latvians and Romanians can't compete with anything in EU. They are a source of cheap labour and there's no future for them beyond that.

>>50841867
>At least unlike Greeks, Irish get their shit together and started working their debts back.

Like I said: thieves, but honest thieves. That's the Irish way.

>>50841895
Tell that to far-right in their countries.
Actually, tell that to far-right in any of the countries that joined EU in '04.

They literally think the world is still in the 18th century and their countries are still revelant and/or can be revelant on their own, with no allies or with some stupid, historical alliances being restored.

Fun fact - did you know Slovakian far-right thinks their country is important internationally?
We are talking about the part of Czechoslovakia that was so poor Czechs, already a non-entity in international politics, simply decided to discard it rather than invest in it any further and in the same time get rid of the growing nationalism.

>>50841866
Want to go through everything I said again?
>and why the European Union does not maintain its own army
The Eurocorps are maintained by France and Germany, as is its only permanent brigade, the Franco-German Brigade (which, funny enough, was also created by agreement by the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany, not the EU council)
>The "European Union Military" is just national militaries cooperating.
This is true as well, as noted by >>50841553
regarding the Eurocorps.
>but the President of the European Council does not have any place in this chain of command.
This is also correct:
The European Corps is not subordinate to any other military organisation.[1] It is deployed on the authority of the Common Committee representing the member nations,[8][9] the Chief of Defense, and the Political Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Now quote and remind me again where I "lied" or said it literally doesn't have a military.

>>50841947
>stupid, historical alliances
Just check Poles and Hungarians. Especially on Polish side, where they seriously and realistically consider Hungary being better strategic partner than Germany and France.

As in - a country with smaller economy than Poland vs respectively 1st and 3nd economy in Europe and one of the biggest economies on this planet.

>>50841865
>divided the territory between yourselves without regard to local conditions
But that's exactly the simplistic narrative I'm talking about. They tried with the Middle East, but sadly there was never going to be clean solution. Smaller states would have meant more wars and squabbling. Larger ones would have fallen to infighting or enabled even more bullying of ethno-religious minorities. There wasn't much the British and French could have done that hadn't already been achieved by centuries of Ottoman neglect.

You people try to be critical of the West, yet you still struggle with the idea that something important can happen in the world, good or bad, without a white person being ultimately responsible.

>>50840082
Anachronistic by our standards.
As if someone met George Washington in a modern suit and tie.

>>50841947
>Fun fact - did you know Slovakian far-right thinks their country is important internationally?
I have a mild fascination with other countries' political fringe. What exactly do they say to justify that claim? I mean, I know it's ultimately based on nothing, but what's the rhetoric sound like?

>>50841812
>how the FUCK you think having a single currency for so many countries can work if not by taking control of their financies?

And that would be the sovereignty thing that is the sticking point with a lot of people about the Eurozone.

And don't absolve the Eurozone for Greece. Greece's ascension into the Eurozone was controversial because it was widely believed that they were cooking their books and that the economic forecasts were fairytales. Every single economic problem Greece has suffered was predicted years ago. But they were still let in. You don't let a thieving drug addict into your house then bitch when they steal all your shit and buy drugs.

>>50841528
>>it's more about the level of control the EU has on the function of any specific member state
>Which is NONE.
False
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_law

>>50841973
>Seriously pretending Sykes-Picot didn't fuck up Middle East
>Seriously saying it wasn't white men who did this
>Seriously saying it wasn't done for very short lived and short-sighted interest of England and France
Anon, words cannot describe.

Because while colonialism is a multi-faced issue that can be taken from different angles, Sykes-Picot was just utter stupidity of white men being white men. One of those pre-WW1 stupid agreements that somehow took into effect after WW1.

>>50834628
I only dress my characters in historical clothing. Except when I don't feel like it.

>>50841633
The land is shit. It's not fertile, it lacks natural borders for defense and natural resources are mainly located to the East.

>>50841947
It's weird to note that Mussolini was right...

I mean, not about the whole Fascism thing, obviously. But he had a theory that a country's independence and importance is directly determined by its maritime position. A country is "independent" if it has access to the open ocean, and not independent if it does not. Under this theory Italy was only semi-independent, since although it had free reign of the Mediterranean, it was "imprisoned" by the Suez, Gibraltar, Malta, and Cyprus under British control, and Corsica and Tunisia under French control. Corsica was specifically styled as a pistol pointed at the heart of Italy.

And that kind of bears out...a nation without access to the open ocean struggles immensely to be relevant even on a local scale.

>>50841996
The rhetoric is basically the old-ass "the imperialists are keeping us down to exploit us when we are weak, so by walling ourselves from the ouside world we will grow strong, away from the influence of those evil exploiters!"
That's pretty much what all far-right movements are saying for last 150 years in weak-ass countries.

>>50842005
Anon, Greece was accepted in times when their debt was about 1/10th of the size it was in 2007. And it was forecasted that at that point, they can work it out.
And they probably could, but NEVER EVEN TRIED.

>>50841113

I blame the fucking austrians, myself.

>>50842010
>Americans using wikipedia to learn about how shit is going in EU on the judical level.
Literally Fox News would be better source, you moron.

File: 1449657722360.jpg (366KB, 700x891px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 700x891px

Where could you get this kind of discussion anywhere else on 4chan ?
This is why I love you /tg/

>>50842085
>someone disagrees with me
>must be American!
The majority of Brits disagree with you.

>>50842010
>Daily reminder there are people who seriously believe this is how shit works in practice
Let me guess - EU also has an army, 180 million soldiers strong, right?

>>50841685
>the local tank manufacturer will probably go out of business, leaving us without ability to service own tanks
It could be worse. They could have invest a shitload of money in a pretty good tank design, try to sell it to Saudi Arabia, only to be cock blocked by the Uncle Sam so it could sell a worse tank, leading to them getting bankrupt.

>>50842107
Hey, I get to be in this one! Yay.

>>50842021
I'm trying to explain how Sykes-Picot didn't singlehandedly make the modern Middle East and you keep responding with "But Sykes-Picot made the modern Middle East."
>One of those pre-WW1 stupid agreements that somehow took into effect after WW1.
You're clearly confused about the treaty even was. I give up.

>>50842085
>The Employment Information Directive 1991 requires that every employee (however defined by member state law) has the right to a written statement of their employment contract. While there is no wage regulation, the Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision Directive 2003 requires that pension benefits are protected through a national insurance fund, that information is provided to beneficiaries, and minimum standards of governance are observed.
So these EU laws don't exist and some troll put them on Wikipedia and the EU doesn't really have the power to make them?

Get real.

>>50842098
Brits are just as stupid. Americans are usually lovable morons, Britbongs are just arrogant morons.

>>50842044
That's just basic logic. No sea - no easy trade - no cash. Rest of his theory is utter shit.

>>50842010
I suggest you take a look at
>>50840661
>>50840647

>>50842132
Enjoy your friends being deported back to your village and becoming a net contributor!

>>50842098
>The majority of Brits disagree with you.

Brits and Welsh, sure. But not Scots nor Irish. The assorted islands and possessions just wish you would stop arguing and maintain a stable status quo. Not like you've ever given a single fuck for any of the above.

>>50842143
What does that have to do with the point about EU powers?

>>50839212
Southerner here. We literally needed slavery to keep our economy, political representation, and quality of life all in the green. States rights, and everything else had something to do with it, but the cornerstone was slavery. Which was seen as a necessary and altogether okay way of life. Now the northerners didn't give a fuck about the plight of the negro, they hated them as much as they hated everyone else. The few abolitionists who gave a shit had their movement coopted by industrialists who saw it as a way of destroying the southern cotton oligarchy and politicians who saw it as a way to disenfranchise the south.

That said, it was still about slavery.

>>50842155
*English and Welsh, you mean. The English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish, are all British.

>>50842116
But this is pretty much what happend, anon. BUMAR is the main supplier of tanks to Malayisia. They fucking love our Twardy tanks, since they are relatively cheap, but all modern gear and BUMAR quickly worked out how to adopt them for Malayisian conditions, while keeping them cheap.
That deal was basically 3/4 of the cash the company was making and main source of income. And all previous governments where very busy maintaining that trade deal, no matter fucking what, since it's worth billions.
Cue current government that ignored negotiations for new shipment and then send Malayisian diplomats away, because "why should we selling our tanks so far away".

This is populism in action. This is what a nation gets when half of voters don't even bother to vote.

>>50842130
>Telling eurofag how things work in EU by reading wikipedia
You're cute, anon.

>>50842107
How new are you to /tg/?

And this thread is suprisingly good, given how much trigger-heavy material goes through it.

>>50842155
The was a single vote within one country.

>>50842230
>How new are you to /tg/?
How new are you?

This shit is common whenever threads derail. Why are you thinking that's a bad thing?

File: 10 secs of research.png (14KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 640x400px

>>50842130
Okay anon, I'll show you what has PREVIOUSLY been discussed in the thread
Yes the EU has laws, however these don't have as much impact as you think

>>50842203
Obviously eurofags don't know how the EU works. They have to start somewhere.

>>50842243
Seriously. I'd forgotten what this thread was originally supposed to be about.

>>50842163
here >>50842246

>>50841971
From an economic perspective Hungary probably is a better strategic partner. The problem with free trade agreements is that they become exploitative when one participant has a larger, more developed economy.

>>50841947
Looking for economic alliances and agreements outside the EU isn't a bad thing, nor is wanting to increase your national relevancy. The far-right are simply too myopic and pants-on-head retarded to actually carry out meaningful improvements in national standing.

>>50842171
>Now the northerners didn't give a fuck about the plight of the negro, they hated them as much as they hated everyone else

This doesn't bear out, seeing as the Republican party was campaigning with abolition as one of its major platform points, and had already won both the House and the Senate, with the Presidential post being the last of the trifecta. And all that changed was party names, it's not like the North hadn't been strongly abolitionist since the beginning.

>had their movement coopted by industrialists who saw it as a way of destroying the southern cotton oligarchy

This doesn't bear out, since Southern cotton was needed for Northern textile factories.

>and politicians who saw it as a way to disenfranchise the south.

This also wasn't needed. Simple demographics meant that the North was dominating the South anyway. The North just had more people, even without immigration, and remembering that the South's political power was kept artificially strong by the 3/5ths compromise.

>>50842130
Since trying to fully explain this to you in 2k signs will be just impossible, I will tell you really short version of how this works in practice.

EU pass law X. Country A doesn't want that law. They first stale for decade, because that's usually the time given to implement the law. Then they do nothing for following few years, since the EU decision making groups are too busy with different issue. Then eventually EU starts doing their thing and politely ask to implement the law. Country A instead says local High Court or whatever else institution will check the law according to local regulations, ofc first passing specific regulation that makes law X of the EU impossible to implement. The the paper-pushing continues for another decade or so. Eventually the original law X is no longer in force and country A never implemented it.
Welcome to bureaucracy.

>>50842243
Who told you I think it's a bad thing?

>>50842239
Funny, because last time I've checked, Scotland basically said "Fuck no, we are staying" in unitary vote.
And didn't vote for secession year ago, because British government said "No, we won't leave EU, we totally won't". At this point Scots are waiting for next vote about leaving the Union. The British Union. And they are "slightly" pissed now.

>>50842044
Well, Fascism isn't inherently that bad. It's just prone to being taken too far. Truth be told, it was working well for Italy until the invasion of Italy, and unlike Germany the war crimes it committed weren't actually a core part of the idea, it was just done because they were kind of dicks.

Lazy when you compare them to their immediate neighbor, but still dicks.

>>50842246
>however these don't have as much impact as you think
Seventeen and a half million people stand corrected.

>>50842316

Well.... no.

Also we did war crimes in Ethiopia allright.

>>50842257
>Hungary probably is a better strategic partne
Ok, let's for a single second assume you are not fucking retarded. Please, entertain us and explain how.

Because I'm really curious how this shit works in your imagination

>>50842316
>Truth be told, it was working well for Italy until the invasion of Italy
It never worked for Italy. Fascist policies were the main reason why Italian economy collapsed, since the middle class was pretty much stripped of all wealth or power, while the government nationalised most of big concerns and companies.

Also, Ethiopia and Greece were a thing

>>50842316
>it was working well for Italy

As other Anons told you, no, it wasn't, for economic collapse reasons.

What they didn't tell you is that a huge part of this is because one of the major economics of Fascist Italy was the actual inventor of the Ponzi scheme, Charles Ponzi.

>>50842353
just read the rest of his post: having a free trade agreement with an economic partner that is far more powerful than you will cause issues as they will try to take advantage of it
Why do you think they are so many european economists who are opposed to the EU-US trade agreement ?

>>50842264
The Republican Party weren't abolitionists. They favored the gradual phasing out of slavery through market forces. While Southern cotton was needed for Northern textile mills, it was also a massive export crop. It was as much a fight between Northern industrial concerns and Southern planters over economic policy, particularly foreign trade policy and internal investment. And by 1960 there were only 4 million slaves in America, giving the South an additional 2.6 million people counting towards the House of Representatives.

>>50842257
>3rd-rate power based on incompetent dictator in everything but name is better partner than 5th economy of the planet.
alternatively
>Country 4 times smaller than you in just about every measurable way and 1k km away is a better strategic partner than twice as big direct neighbour
Let me guess - you are Hungarian, right?
Or some really delusional Pole maybe?

>>50842246
>>50842255
>>50842277
>the level of control the EU has on the function of any specific member state
>Which is NONE.

>>50842311
SNP != Scotland

>>50842413
>Just read the rest of the post that explains nothing
Shame, I was really hoping for some juicy fanstasy rather than basic rebuttal and entry-tier tinhat bullshit about exploiting evil foreigners.

>>50842430
>1960
That's funny

File: CottonRecoveryPostCivilWar.jpg (81KB, 452x478px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 452x478px

>>50842090
>We literally needed slavery to keep our economy
which is totally why Southern cotton production returned to pre-war levels within 10 years right after everything north of Florida was ravaged by war (pic related)?
>political representation
Bullshit, the effective population (and thus electoral vote number) of the southern states would INCREASE if you abolished slavery, because all the freedmen would count for 1 person as opposed to 3/5ths of one, and they can actually vote. Not that the South didn't prevent that anyway once reconstructino was done.
>and quality of life all in the green.
Consider doing that without the use of human chattel?

>Now the northerners didn't give a fuck about the plight of the negro
This is true for the most part, but given it was the South that seceded over slavery and then attacked federal land they had renounced all claim to 3 decades ago, I think we can still safely say that it was all about slavery for the most part.

>>50842471
They are still going to leave you, salty britbong. This is what you get for being stupid.

>>50842481
>Southern cotton production returned to pre-war levels within 10 years right after everything north of Florida was ravaged by war
Not American, but nice to learn something new. I was sure it took much longer to recover.

This makes slavery in the South even more retarded than I've assumed it to be, given what Sherman left in his wake while marching South.

>>50842451
what, you're having trouble reading ?
As a filthy baguette scum, I can assure you that >>50842277 and >>50842246 are spot on
Yes the EU makes laws
Yes, they are severely limited in what they can actually do
Yes, even if they have laws, these won't matter as long as X country doesn't want them, at least for X country
If you got pissed off because someone told you that this is basically equivalent to not having power, please tell us more about it
I'll just add that the current "mainstream" view of EU politics are more about limiting it's influence than anything alse, and it has been like that for the past 10 years or so

>>50842264
>This doesn't bear out, seeing as the Republican party was campaigning with abolition as one of its major platform points, and had already won both the House and the Senate, with the Presidential post being the last of the trifecta. And all that changed was party names, it's not like the North hadn't been strongly abolitionist since the beginning.
That's pretty simplistic. Better than being straight-up wrong like he is, but still. A lot of the Northern peace movement was specifically based around people not wanting to have to fight to free blacks. Even many people who were nominally against slavery didn't see it as something worth fighting a war over. Union was the idea the war was sold to people on.
>>50842430
Seriously, where are you getting this from? The South wanted to secede because they were afraid the federal government would outlaw slavery. The North wanted to keep the country together. For another thing, the GOP weren't totally homogeneous. There were also radicals who wanted complete abolition, and they eventually won out as the war went on.

>>50842430
>And by 1960 there were only 4 million slaves in America

There were, to be a bit more specific, 3,950,528 slaves in the 1860 census; but sure, let's make it 4 million. You have left out, however, that the population of the Confederate States was about 9.103 million; and that the population of the USA as a whole was about 31.4 million. Slaves accounted for nearly half of the South's total population, and the South would have had drastically reduced voting power without the 3/5ths compromise.

So, again: The political power had been kept artificially high.

>They favored the gradual phasing out of slavery through market forces

Yes, but they didn't keep this fact a SECRET. Everyone knew that they were the party who wanted to, in one way or another, get rid of slaves, and yet they were being voted into power in the North anyway.

>>50842481
replying to the wrong post

>>50842530
Part of it was that farms were becoming more industrial: more farming machines were being introduced, which made farming much less labor intensive. But the issue also was that the rest of the world had learned to get along without American cotton. Although output resumed, the prices stopped growing because the British had started growing cotton in Egypt and India. So while production resumed to normal, the South's economy did take quite a bit longer to recover.

>>50842430
> And by 1960 there were only 4 million slaves in America, giving the South an additional 2.6 million people counting towards the House of Representatives.
You know that freeing all 4 million slaves would have given the south an additional 4 million people counting towards the House of Representatives instead of just 2.6 million, right?