A couple of questions that I have:
1. What was Napoleons aim in all his wars? was it European unification?
2. Did Hitler want to unify all Europe under a fascist Regime?
3. Why is it always the English who are opposed to any dominate power in Europe but never seek to gain land within Europe and become the continental power?
>>1413406
>1. What was Napoleons aim in all his wars? was it European unification?
No. After the French Revolution, every monarchy in Europe became an enemy of the French. He was trying to defeat them to force them to recognize the French Republic.
>2. Did Hitler want to unify all Europe under a fascist Regime?
Unclear. According to his own rhetoric, he just wanted to unite all "Germans," who just so happened to live in various foreign countries.
>3. Why is it always the English who are opposed to any dominate power in Europe but never seek to gain land within Europe and become the continental power?
They have never had the strength to do that.
>>1413406
>Why is it always the English who are opposed to any dominate power in Europe but never seek to gain land within Europe and become the continental power?
Its location makes it hard to be attacked but also hard to attack other countries
>>1413450
>French Empire
FTFY
>>1413450
>>1413455
Thanks for the quick response lads.
>>1413463
Don't worry m8 I know what he meant.
>>1413406
>1. What was Napoleons aim in all his wars? was it European unification?
No, his aim was to defend France against foreign attacks.
>2. Did Hitler want to unify all Europe under a fascist Regime?
At first, his goal was irredentism. Then it (de)evolved into some twisted racial shit show whereby certain lands belonged to Germany so the German people could have a better future.
>3. Why is it always the English who are opposed to any dominate power in Europe but never seek to gain land within Europe and become the continental power?
Because they're shit at actual fighting. They've never won a war against another European military without the help of a coalition. To deflect this, they brag about killing Zulus and Indians.
>Why is it always the English who are opposed to any dominate power in Europe but never seek to gain land within Europe and become the continental power?
>>1413455
Partly this. A unified England is safe from attack UNLESS there is a largely dominant continental power that could focus all its energy on England.
>>1413504
>t: hans halbrusskind
>>1413514
More like
t. Patrick "Paddy" Muller
>>1413504
Name a single time a European power has decisively defeated another European power without allies. I'll wait.
>>1413540
Prussia defeated France under Napoleon III pretty much without allies, the only other belligerents in the war being the Southern German states, which would after the war constitute the Reich together with the Prussian/North German states.
OP here.
To add another not so much /his/ related question but if Europe was to be united what city would you choose to be the Capital from either a present or historical standpoint?
>>1413540
Well France for example..
>>1413540
>Name a single time a European power has decisively defeated another European power without allies
>>1413561
>if Europe was to be united what city would you choose to be the Capital from either a present or historical standpoint?
Berlin or Paris.
>>1413583
sorry where the fuck did you get that wikipedia image because i cant find it for shit
>>1413593
Good choice, i'd go with Paris or London
>>1413606
I found it on here a while back. I think the wikipedia page has been changed since then.
>>1413540
Winter war
>>1413550
Top kek
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War
North German
Confederation
Prussiac
Baden
Bavaria
Württemberg
Hesse-Darmstadt
Confederation of the rhine + Prussia + Bavaria + half of Danemark + Hesse + Baden + Wurtemberg.
It's basicaly Prussia + Holy Roman empire against France.
>>1413406
>Why is it always the English who are opposed to any dominate power in Europe but never seek to gain land within Europe and become the continental power?
The British Colonial Empire became completely obsessed with money. Literally everything they did was to increase profit for the East India Company, cornering the spice trade and such in that era. Probably why the Empire suddenly poofed out of existence so fast. The soldiers and army did not have the motivations to invest as heavily as say a Ming army or Napoleonic French army could.
>>1413540
The French did 3 times under Louis XIV
+ End of the thirty year war
+ hundred years war
+ French war of revolution
+ First + second + third war
>>1413635
There's a reason the French call it Saint-Empire romain germanique
>>1413635
All those non-prussian state are a bunch of bitches though.
>Hesse-Darmstadt
I can see the fear in my enemies eyes when I mention Hesse-Darmstadt...
>>1413406
>1. What was Napoleons aim in all his wars? was it European unification?
French Dominion and defend France, but he was also extremely ambitious and claimed to be the successor of the Merovingians and the Carolingians unlike the decadent capetians(Louis XVI)
>2. Did Hitler want to unify all Europe under a fascist Regime?
Hitler wanted to complete the Generalplan Ost. Basically restore the German Dominion, reform the german society, and restore the germanic borders as they were before the arrival of the slavs.
>3. Why is it always the English who are opposed to any dominate power in Europe but never seek to gain land within Europe and become the continental power?
Traumatized by the Hundred Years War.
>>1413640
OP here.
This thread is literally me asking questions now so sorry sage if necessary.
Leading off from your response m8 Which was more Money Centrist/ Mercantile/ Capitalist (You get what I mean) at the zenith of its power the USA now or the British Empire in Pax Britannica?
Thanks to everyone for discussion.
>>1413672
>I can see the fear in my enemies eyes when I mention Hesse-Darmstadt...
What did you mean by this
China is far larger than europe and it united, why can't europe?
>>1413406
>1. Napoleon
The problem here is Napoleon realized Europe would never allow the French Republic to exist as a potential source of radicalization for populations elsewhere. What Napoleon sought to do was to liberalize Europe to such an extent the Republic's existence would not be threatened. While he failed in establishing a Republican Europe led by France, he did succeed in liberalizing the continent through reforms such as the Napoleonic code. The Republic did eventually became re-established and it was suffered by European monarchs who were forced to enact in their own countries many of its ideals.
>2.Hitler
Hitler's stated aim was pan-Germanism, his Third Reich would have ultimately required the incorporation of all territories inhabited by German speaking peoples (in the end this would have included even Switzerland) and a fascist European order with Germany at it's head, Vichy france or Franco's Spain offering examples of what he would have liked as a fate for England. It is unclear whether he intended to annex Scandinavia to the Reich although it seems reasonable to supose he meant to Germanize it, and perhaps eventually all of Western Europe (the thousand year Reich) and it is obvious he meant to occupy the East as lebensraum or vital space for the German people, using the Slavic peoples as a workforce to be eventually exterminated except for any populations he may have found useful for his eugenics program. While Hitler's plan may have eventually been a German speaking Aryan Europe under one government, the first practical step was a unified Germany. This is the reason the allies separated Austria from Germany and allowed the Russians to piecemeal German territories and populations in Eastern Europe.
>3. The English
This was deliberate policy, the Brits believed that a unified Europe would be counter to their interests and sought to avoid this by deliberately opposing the dominant power in the continent, generally France or Germany.
>>1413700
>Hitler wanted to complete the Generalplan Ost.
Can we stop with this meme already? There was a good thread about this topic earlier but for some reason it got deleted. GP Ost was only a draft of a plan, not an actual plan, and we don't even know whether Hitler was aware of this draft considering there was never any approval.
>>1413593
Paris, Brussels, Berlin, or Vienna
>>1413997
Also the Spanish who actually had a better chance at it than the Germans
>>1413561
From a historical standpoint, Rome or Paris.
Berlin makes no sense whatsoever, Wien eclipsed it in importance for the german world alone until the late 19th century, nevermind from a paneuropean POV.
From a present standpoint, Strassburg, Bruxelles or Geneva.
>>1413624
>Finland
>In the same weight class as the USSR
>>1413895
China has pretty much cleansed and/or assimilated all non han ethnic groups native to the land through a 3000 years long sinicization process and a shit load of genocide. Now they're something like 98% han.
A better comparison would be India, which is a slap in the face to every antieuropeist that believes Europe is too different to unify.
>>1416331
India only unified after a hundred years of occupation and exploitation by a foreign power. Even then, it split into three separate countries, and even after all that, India itself faces constant low level armed resistance
>>1416338
India split on religion issues, Europe is wholly christian from a cultural POV.
I'm not aware of what sort of armed resistance happens in India, but like you said the country was forced together by a foreign power, they didn't come of their own will like EU members, so if anything the fact it still endures easily despite starting off much worse is an even greater indicator of the EU's viability as a federation.
>>1413649
30 years war involves France siding with a coalition, they weren't exactly ramboing.
The hundred years war is a shit show of dynastic politics, I don't think it can be counted as states fighting as such. Even if it can, there were allied powers on both sides.
The revolution and wars if the coalition are the closest, but even then you have client States and allies fighting along side France
>>1416352
>Europe
>Religiously unified
Right...
Putting that aside, India isn't "just divided religiously." It's a freaking sub continent with a billion and a half people. There are culture divides, lingual divides, racial divides, and political divides. Shit, the longest running rebel group are a regional branch of Maoists, who stick to the areas their ethnicity comes from.
Looking at Pakistan, you can hardly say that it's unified just because it has the same religion; if that were true, Bangladesh wouldn't have seceded. But putting that aside, the country is still a shithole of competing tribes.
And finally, India is a terrible example to show to the Eurosceptics because it's poor as fuck. A Frenchman is going to see how rich regions like Kashmir have to prop up poverty-stricken States, and tell start thinking about Bosnia and how he doesn't want to pay for that shit.
>>1416489
Thats some badass pic
Any info about who did this?
>>1413540
Sweden, France, Spain, Prussia
>>1413606
That picture is correct though, all these blue countries had declared war and were fighting France
The pic you posted (Fifth Coalition War, which actually was not a coalition war at all but a straight austro-french war) was actually the time when Napoleon was fighting the least amount of enemies. And even then its missleading, because massive battles were fought in Spain at the same time.
>>1416531
It's by Henri-Paul Motte, depicting Cardinal Richelieu at the siege of La Rochelle. Historically, that siege to place to subdue Huguenot rebels. Richelieu was also known for his pivotal role in the religious shit show that was the Thirty Years War. All these things taken together, the picture was chosen to remind anon the claim that "Europe is religiously unified"is a load of bunk.
>>1416338
The Maurya Empire conquered the whole of India before. The muslim conquests were also a close thing (though there remained some small hindu kingdoms in the south and shitloads of sultans soon became fully or half independent)
>>1416531
Richelieu, the man who singlehandedly made France Great Again. The painter is Henry Motte
>>1416581
Sure, India had been unified a few times in the past. But those empires collapsed after a century or two. Europe had moments where is more centralized too. But huge multi ethnic States don't tend to last. Shit, the EU us already splintering, and it's less than thirty years old.
>>1413672
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessian_(soldier)
>>1416643
>But huge multi ethnic States don't tend to last.
??? ???
>>1416643
>But huge multi ethnic States don't tend to last.
Actually they last far longer than nation state republics, you're just too uneducated to know anything about history.
>>1416450
In 30 years war, at the end, it is the France that is fighting against Austria, HOLY R... and Spain.
In the hundred year war, France had been betrayed by the most important of her vassal and is fightinh with more little allie so the 1vs1 still correct
The war of revolution is basically France against half of Europe.
The client state are under influence of France because France gained it. So why denying the 1vs1 ?
Did you deny the 1vs1 for british because they had colonies in Canada while fighting someone ?
>>1416489
What is the purpose of the huge spikes in that picture?
>>1416450
>client states
The French first had to subdue said states, which might as well be considered a conquest
>allies
A militia of Irishmen isn't sufficient enough. As for Mysore and Denmark, they weren't allies of France. It's simply that the anglos pissed them both off coincidently during the French Revolutionary Wars.
>>1416788
I believe it's to stop ships docking and relieving the city
>>1416643
>But huge multi ethnic States don't tend to last.
>>1416833
Don't forget Russia and arguably China
>>1413406
>1. What was Napoleons aim in all his wars? was it European unification?
Most of the times the wars were started by Napoleon's/Republic's enemies', at some point he started building buffer zone and wanted to take out Britain. So the end goal was to defeat Britain and ensure that enormously oversized French Republic/Empire will remain the hegemon in Europe.
>2. Did Hitler want to unify all Europe under a fascist Regime?
No.
>
3. Why is it always the English who are opposed to any dominate power in Europe but never seek to gain land within Europe and become the continental power?
English/British geopolitical position makes it obvious. As long as their economy is competitive with the biggest continental economy, they can defend themselves by relying more or less only on fleet since every single possible enemy would have to 1-up their fleet while having to maintain quite huge army because of their geopolitical location. If they'd invade continental Europe, they would lose that advantage.
As such a situation where continental Europe is divided in - let's say - 3-5 big blocks/countries, Britain will try to alienate the strongest bloc/country diplomatically and force them to maintain huge army which will reduce the amount of capital they can possibly pour into fleet, therefore maintaining British supremacy on seas. Every time the strongest bloc/country shifts, they step on the side of the weaker parts.
This strategy allowed them to expand overseas without risking major invasion from any continental European country and coined the Perfidious Albion label for them. Of course with the start of Cold War this strategy stopped being a thing but the reason why Britain is still sceptical towards EU is because the population is sceptical towards it and politics have to at least partially honour that sentiment.
>>1416833
Didnt the Abbassids rise because of that?
>>1413406
In response to your third question, it was to maintain the balance of power within Europe. England had little/no interest in the continent because it was much more profitable to increase their trade power and corner markets such as the spice trade. A Europe in which a single entity (France, Germany, Russia, etc.) had too much power and disrupted the balance of power was a threat to England.
