>using 'Russia' and 'Soviet Union' interchangeably when referring specifically to the Soviet Union
>using 'England' and 'United Kingdom' interchangeably when referring specifically to the UK
>>447651
>>using 'Russia' and 'Soviet Union' interchangeably when referring specifically to the Putin's Russia
fixed that for you anon. Yes, I still hear people do this, and also
>czechoslovakia
>>how do you even know what that is, you were born in 1995!
>saying shit like "Soviet Hungary" and "Soviet Czechoslovakia"
>>447651
Is that the expression of a person taking dick up the ass?
>watching movie with subtitles
>subtitles use "Russian" when talking about Soviets
>>447672
>not knowing about Hungarian Soviet Republic, which my great-grandfather personally defended
>referring to anything before unification as Germany in anything but a regional sense
>>449312
Is it used in any other way?
>Union
>Soviet
>Socialist
>Republics
>>449320
interchangeably with actual country names or also in reference to non-German HRE countries.
>>449250
> lukacs as culture minister
>saying "Northern Germany" or "Southwestern Poland" instead of correct regional names
Instant pleb detector.
>>449367
>"the allies landed in Northern France on D-Day"
The Soviet Union was heavily russo-centric
>>449322
>Union
>Socialist
These work tho
>>449473
But you have to also account for the fact that most of the population was russian anyhow
>>449250
There's some chance he fought against my great grandfather.
>>449480
>Union
Only a union because secession would cause a state to get BTFO
>Socialist
Did workers own the means of production, or did Uncle Joe's friends?
>>451798
Neither, the state owned them. It doesn't mean that Central Committee and high party members became the new class though
>>451807
>Neither, the state owned them. It doesn't mean that Central Committee and high party members became the new class though
The state owned almost nothing in the Soviet Union. Even Sovkhoz, IIRC, were owned by semi-independent trusts.
The Soviet Union synchronised the plan through central banks, industrial banks, clearing market structures, trusts, independent factories, semi-independent of the trusts factories, and having party figures on almost all management boards.
For fucks sake you useless cunt read some economic history of the Soviet Union before you open your cunt flaps.
>>449250
>>451780
Doubt it, he just got talked into derailing a train carrying Czechoslovak soldiers by his brother-in-law.
>>447651
>using Republic of China and Taiwan interchangeably
>ever
It's the exact same thing you autist.
Just like the United Kingdom is England, or the United States is America.
>>454577
>United Kingdom is England
>>455693
Where's the capital? Who makes all the decisions? What language do they speak?
It's England and its little empire, deal with it.
>>454577
>>456861
>England AND its little empire
So its not just England?
>>456871
It's England.
When you talk about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in international politics for instance, you don't have to say that ridiculous pompous shit, you can just call it England which is what it is.
Same with the Soviet Union and Russia. It was nothing but Russia and the territories it owned, just like it was before the revolution.
>>456891
England doesn't 'own' scotland, for instance. The two countries are in union because the people there voted that way.
>>447653
>Using Holland and the Netherlands interchangeably
>using 'England' and 'United Kingdom' interchangeably when referring specifically to the UK
I blame their football teams
>>456891
>It was nothing but Russia and the territories it owned, just like it was before the revolution.
Actually no, Soviets were the ones who gave autonomy to the various republics. Ukraine was for example barely a concept during the empire and a full blown republic during the USSR.
>>456909
>I blame their football teams
Why? The English football team is called England
>>456922
Yeah, then people here in my country think England=UK
>>456907
lol yeah sure m8.
You're England's bitch, deal with it.
>>456907
And the Saarland voted to remain German. Doesn't mean I'm going to start calling Germany "the United Republic of Germany and Saarland".
>>456937
Scotland made the union and are a money sink to the union afaik. Scotland, Wales and norn iron have their own parliaments, but the english don't afaik
>>456944
That's super interesting.
Meanwhile the "union" is governed by English people in London and culturally completely English.
>>456940
But their official name literally is "United Kingdom" and not "England".
>>456965
53 out of the 64 million UK residents are English, that's to be expected.
>>456967
So? China's official name is "People's Republic of China". Burma's official name is "Republic of the Union of Myanmar". I'm still not going to call them "People's Republic" or "Republic of the Union".
>>456994
>People's republic of CHINA
>United kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN
>>456994
>a country shouldn't be called what it wants to be called
In china's case its also somewhat justified because there's a country formally known as Republic of China
>>449320
i've heard prussia being called germany a shitload
>>456965
>Meanwhile the "union" is governed by English people in London
To be fair to you, you guys had two Scottish Prime Ministers in a row (Blair, and Brown) and half their cabinets were Scots
though we've got an African president...
>>449312
>literally renamed to the holy roman empire of the german nation in 1512
>>457380
>the Holy Roman Empire was one country
>>457456
>literally renamed to the holy roman empire of the german nation in 1512
>>457479
This is literally like saying a country called "Europe" exists because of the European Union. The Holy Roman Empire was not "Germany".
>>456891
>When you talk about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in international politics for instance, you don't have to say that ridiculous pompous shit, you can just call it England
maybe if you're American and calling things what they actually are is too much of an effort
>It's England.
no, it's the united kingdom of england, wales, scotland and northern ireland
>>457486
But you can say "Europe has this and this stance in that matter". Same as you can say "Germany had these issues" when refering to 1600s HRE
>>457500
That guy is certainly retarded in calling it England, but in here we usually just call it Britain, and thats enough.
>>457486
>This is literally like saying a country called "Europe" exists because of the European Union.
No, you retard, it's like saying there was a historical event in which the Holy Roman Empire was named The German Nation in addition to its original title.
This was an actual event, I'm not sure what you're objection is. The vast majority of the Holy Roman Empire was what we know today as Germany. It's entirely logical.
>>457517
>The vast majority of the Holy Roman Empire was what we know today as Germany
Nope.
>it was an actual event
Doesn't matter for shit because the HRE was not a unified nation-state or even really a cohesive political union in 1512. Pan-Germanism was not a thing in the early 16th century.
>>457510
Or you can say "the HRE had these issues" or "Bavaria/Saxony/Austria/Brandenburg had these issues" because that was what existed back then. Viewing historical countries as simple predecessors to what exists in their place now is sloppy and should really only be used as a way to explain history to laymen. And for that matter, the Holy Roman Empire wasn't even a country, and had less control over its member states during a lot of its existence than the modern EU does.
>>457595
>Nope.
The largest collection of Imperial Circles comprises of modern Germany. The Saxon circles, Bavaria, Franconia, and Swabia are collectively larger than any other single region under the Empire's actual jurisdiction. You are denying basic history and geography. The vast majority of the Holy Roman Empire was what we know today as Germany, look at a map.
A factor in the title's adoption was the authority of Germans within the Empire.
>Doesn't matter for shit because the HRE was not a unified nation-state or even really a cohesive political union in 1512.
But there was a cohesive political union in the HRE in the 16th century, do you even understand the basic structure of the HRE? Because right now you're just denying basic facts.
The HRE comprised of what we know today as Germany, as the primary political union. The seats of the electoral princes was in Germany you historically illiterate freak.
>Pan-Germanism was not a thing in the early 16th century.
Then explain why the title lasted for centuries and was adopted in the first place you fucking retard.
Why weren't you there to explain this to the Emperor at the diet of 1512?
Clearly you knew better. What an absolute mongoloid.
>>457595
>and had less control over its member states
The HRE was comprised of its member states that collectively governed, since to make any major decisions, the emperor had to hold a diet to consult with the estates, and comes to a decision with them. The emperor didn't have centralized control, but there was still coherence.
>>457595
>Nope.
>Bohemia and Switzerland don't have political authority
>leaving Habsburg territories and what is today Germany
>Nope.
>>457660
>The vast majority of the Holy Roman Empire was what we know today as Germany, look at a map.
I see Austria, Bohemia-Moravia, Lombardy, the Low Countries, Switzerland, Alsace-Lorraine, Burgundy, Silesia, and Slovenia.
>cohesive political union
The Holy Roman Empire was not cohesive and no possible argument could be possibly made that it was during this time frame.
>Then explain why the title lasted for centuries and was adopted in the first place you fucking retard.
Oh, so titles during the medieval era are reflective of reality now? Sorry, I didn't get the memo. We are talking about a political union which constantly fought amongst itself whose leaders held the title of Roman Emperor despite holding neither Rome nor almost any Roman imperial territory during most of its existence. But you know, if a decentralized clusterfuck "empire" made up of hundreds of near-completely sovereign countries swearing fealty to an "emperor" who holds almost no authority over them decides to pin the title "of the German Nation" to their name that must mean Germany existed several centuries before German unification was even an extant concept, right?
>>457676
Like half of that territory is not part of modern-day Germany, what are you going on about?
>>457664
The HRE is a model for instability and lack of cohesiveness. If this is not the case then please explain why in pretty much every inter-European war the HRE collectively participated in there was almost always one or more member states fighting on the other side against it.
>cohesive political union
>shitty little princedoms literally declaring war on each other and squabbling like retards
>not even a common currency but a gulden / thaler / marck clusterfuck
>the only titular kingdom in the "empire" wasn't even German
>princes politically allying with non-HRE sovereigns against their own emperor
>when any uniting policies were attempted they couldn't even be properly enforced
Modern Eurozone is literally more of a country than HRE was.
>>457697
>The largest territory of the empire after 962 was the Kingdom of Germany, though it included the Kingdom of Bohemia, the Kingdom of Burgundy, the Kingdom of Italy, and numerous other territories.[7][8][9]
>I see Austria, Bohemia-Moravia, Lombardy, the Low Countries, Switzerland, Alsace-Lorraine, Burgundy, Silesia, and Slovenia.
And singularly as a state within the HRE, not a single one of those territories was larger than what collectively comprises, today, of Germany.
Bohemia's only political authority was temporary dynastic influence, Burgundy had no political authority, Switerland was effectively independent by the 14th century and officially not long after, and Austria was considered alongside the other German states until it rose to prominence.
The actual states with political power within the Empire were German. Quite literally. This was recognized in the 10th century, recognized in the 16th century, and after the 30 Years War the entire geopolitical landscape of the Empire changed.
>The Holy Roman Empire was not cohesive and no possible argument could be possibly made that it was during this time frame
LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU, YOU CAN'T CHANGE MY MIND
Yeah, you're a retard.
>Oh, so titles during the medieval era are reflective of reality now?
You apparently think that the borders of the HRE are more important than the geopolitical reality as demonstrated in 1512.
>We are talking about a political union which constantly fought amongst itself
Wow that's never happened in medieval-renaissance Europe.
>made up of hundreds of near-completely sovereign countries
Holy shit, you really don't know anything.
>who holds almost no authority over them decides to pin the title "of the German Nation"
The Emperor made that decision WITH the diet you mongoloid. You don't even realize how paradoxical you're being.
>>456891
American detected
>>457697
>must mean Germany existed several centuries before German unification was even an extant concept, right?
No, it means it's not a fucking crime against humanity to refer to the regions of the HRE that today make up Germany as Germany.
That it's completely fair to refer to Bavaria, Swabia, and the Saxon circles as 'Germany' collectively, even when referring to their existence in the HRE, because pragmatically, they were!
>>457703
>Like half of that territory is not part of modern-day Germany, what are you going on about?
Hey retard, you see those white bits in the Empire's borders?
No political authority.
You see those colored parts? Political authority.
Political authority isn't a decisive factor in what a state comprises of though, nah.
>>457711
>If this is not the case then please explain why in pretty much every inter-European war the HRE collectively participated in there was almost always one or more member states fighting on the other side against it.
That is such a piss-weak example, and you could use the exact same example to claim that the kingdoms of France and England were sooo unstable because there are several good examples of wars that took place with several factions between the kingdoms collectively.
The HRE did have a cohesive political union AT TIMES.
Sometimes this power was centralized to the emperor, this is usually only applicable in the first 3 centuries of the Empire's existence. After that? Emperorship was to be a glorified, elected monarch. An ELECTED monarch in an ELECTIVE monarchy, election necessarily entailing the relative cohesion of political powers coming together to elect a prince from amongst the most powerful princes.
>>457712
>shitty little princedoms literally declaring war on each other and squabbling like retards
Oh wow, you totally don't have a transparent bias against this historical entity, well done.
>>457734
Wow, moving the goalposts, why am I not surprised? So if the entirety of the world was under a one world government dominated by Russians, it would be acceptable to refer to every continent and region on the planet as being "Russia" just because no single country is geographically larger than Russia? What a fucking joke.
>Holy shit, you really don't know anything
kek, yes, countries like Bavaria, Austria, Saxony, Brandenburg, Bohemia, and Hannover were actually not countries and never had independent foreign policy, never maintained extra-imperial alliances, and never acted on their own initiative ever. They were just the medieval equivalent of modern US states. And you're accusing me of denying reality.
>>457750
This isn't about "political authority", it's about the HRE holding so much non-German territory and being so disorganized and fragmented that it's literally retarded to call it "Germany". The Holy Roman Empire was the Holy Roman Empire, which itself barely factored into the actions of its independent component states by the late medieval period. Stop trying to impose modern concepts of pan-Germanism on a loose collection of countries that were for one thing not all German, would probably have not even been able to understand each other sometimes due to dialect differences if they were, and felt loyal back then primarily to the countries they lived in which had strikingly different cultures to each other, not to some ideal of German "unity" or towards some aspiration of being a "German" state.
>>457750
>The HRE did have a cohesive political union AT TIMES.
Look at this retard.
Guys, please do not refer to Imperial Germany as Germany, because, you know, modern Germany is lacking East- and Western Prussia. Completely different things.
>>457768
>Wow, moving the goalposts
>>449312
>referring to anything before unification as Germany in anything but a regional sense
>Germany (known as the Kingdom of Germany in the 10th century and [the Holy Roman Empire of] the German Nation in the 16th century) comprised of the political states of the Holy Roman Empire
>therefore it is perfectly reasonable to refer to Germany as the governing collective, essential rulers, and recognized part within the Holy Roman Empire
>So if the entirety of the world was under a one world government dominated by Russians, it would be acceptable to refer to every continent and region on the planet as being "Russia" just because no single country is geographically larger than Russia? What a fucking joke.
False equivalents.
>kek, yes,
>continues to list 6 'countries'
>accuses me of moving goal posts
>after claiming the Empire was comprised of 'hundreds' of 'near-sovereign' countries
>when in reality it wasn't comprised of nearly as many who where nearly as willing to push their sovereignty until the entire structure of the Empire changed in the 30 Years War and afterwards
>This isn't about "political authority",
It actually is, since it's about fairly referring to the Holy Roman Empire as Germany in a political fashion, and considering the governing collective of the HRE initially existed collectively under the Kingdom of Germany, it's really not unreasonable to equivalate the two.
> it's about the HRE holding so much non-German territory and being so disorganized and fragmented that it's literally retarded to call it "Germany".
When that territory was effectively powerless and would have otherwise just been part of another state, it's really not that retarded.
And actually it's retarded to refer to the HRE as Germany on a regional basis. Which is NOT what I am arguing, and never was. I am arguing from a political level, that its perfectly rational to refer to the HRE as Germany, since it was governed by a German collective.
>>457776
Hey genius, nice argument.
>Empires existing for nearly a millennium don't have varying political cohesion
Incredible insight, truly inspiring.
Oh yeah, it's also an established consensus in art history to refer to 'German' fine and applied arts, meaning culturally that it's also valid to recognize the country of Germany today in the HRE, because today's South-Germany was the center of culture in the Gothic and Renaissance Holy Roman Empire.
I'm guessing those historians that do refer to the region as Germany for cultural identity's sake are just laymen too then.
>>457804
The only reason that it did last so long is precisely because it did lack cohesion. Every time the emperor pushed for further centralization there was war and countries leaving. The only reason it managed to survive until the early 19th century was because power was devolved to the independent countries that made up the "empire".
>continues to list 6 'countries'
I am sure what the fuck is wrong with you but Bavaria, Austria, Hannover, Saxony, Bavaria, Bohemia, Burgundy, the Palatinate of the Rhine, Brandenburg, Wuertemburg, Luxembourg, Friesland, Silesia, Milan, and many many others were all definitely countries, there's not anything requiring sarcasm quotation marks about it. In fact some of them still are countries today.
>>457798
>I am arguing from a political level, that its perfectly rational to refer to the HRE as Germany, since it was governed by a German collective.
No it is not, because the Holy Roman Empire was not a country and Germany is. Many countries within the empire were significant powers in their own right, it is retarded to bunch them together as "Germany" just because they are now part of a modern German state, when they were often at odds with each other and did not even have much in common with each other back then besides the very feeble empire.
>>457833
>the existence of Germans means that Germany existed in the 16th century
also
>South-Germany
Which would be Bavaria, Austria, Wuertemburg, and Baden. All important places that should not just be dismissed as "the south of a country that exists now". Nobody is arguing against using Germany as a regional descriptor, although it would be inadvisable because what constitutes "Germany" is incredibly ill-defined.
>>457849
>The only reason that it did last so long is precisely because it did lack cohesion.
That actually makes no sense.
> Every time the emperor pushed for further centralization there was war and countries leaving.
What?
What are you even talking about?
There was a great amount of centralization to Emperor's from the 10th-12th centuries. It was with the rise of medieval German, Czech, and Austrian dynasties that power began to decentralize. And the last Emperor's with any relevant power within the borders of the Empire would have been Sigismund, and the Habsburgs post-Bohemian inheritance.
>The only reason it managed to survive until the early 19th century was because power was devolved to the independent countries that made up the "empire".
Yeah, pretty much. The problem is, you're applying that narrative to the entire empire. You need to understand that it did vary. It was a gradual fragmentation that only decisively tore itself apart in the 17th century. Prior to that point, these regions were still all within one border. There were feuds and civil wars in literally every medieval realm. Look to Habsburg Switzerland and Netherlands to find regions that truly fought for their sovereignty, and won it. Otherwise, as I keep repeating myself, until the 17th century, they were cohesive enough to be contained within a single border.
And we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the rational practicality of referring to the HRE as Germany in a political context. There's no convincing you. The fundamental political structure of the Empire being comprised of German electoral states isn't enough to convince you, there's no point.
>Which would be Bavaria, Austria, Wuertemburg, and Baden.
Which are collectively referred to by historians and art historians as Southern Germany. But hey, your qualm is with them, I just agree with them and not you.
>>457849
>All important places that should not just be dismissed as "the south of a country that exists now".
You see, you're applying a tone that isn't there. You're seeing that as dismissal, when those historians are appealing to basic geographical and cultural reference.
> Nobody is arguing against using Germany as a regional descriptor,
But it's entirely valid as a political and cultural descriptor, and ethnic for crying out loud. Historians refer to 'Germans' and 'Germany' in 16th and 17th century history. I could literally list numerous examples of this practice because its a standard.
Germany today exists for a reason. As a cultural and ethnic region, it didn't just pop up in the 19th century. Referring to it in such a way may have, although it clearly didn't since it was once known as the Kingdom of Germany, and then known as the German Nation of the Empire etc. But I really think having strong opposition to it because you think it's an ignorant blanket-term is, well, ignorant. Ignorant of context, of how we communicate basic facts about the region, and it's topical to refer to it historically as Germany because it's the history of the current country.
>>451973
>>Using Holland and the Netherlands interchangeably
that is a valid pars pro toto
>>457933
>Germany today exists for a reason
Because of:
>forming a group identity in reaction to outside threats, much like the formation of a "European" group identity now
>the development of better communications
>the rise of two very large German states
It is not as simple as "we are all Germans so therefore we must unite", because if that was so unification would have happened far before it did. Loyalty was regional back then, and dialect and cultural differences were so exaggerated that some Germans would barely have been able to understand or relate to each other. I am not arguing against the existence of Germans historically, I am arguing against the application of modern standards of nationality to people at a time when whether somebody was Bavarian or Rhenish would have been nearly as important to Germans as whether somebody was German or Italian.
>>457907
>There was a great amount of centralization to Emperor's from the 10th-12th centuries.
This is a good half millennium before the time period we are talking about. The HRE was a centralized country, but its period of instability and fragmentation lasted much longer.
>>457907
>Which are collectively referred to by historians and art historians as Southern Germany.
Appeal to authority. What constitutes "Southern Germany" is too ill-defined to be useful in a context besides explaining something to the general reader. Does it mean areas occupied by people of Southern German Austro-Bavarian culture? Does it mean the southern half of the space settled by Germans as a whole? Does it mean the southern part of what is now Germany? What constitutes "Southern Germany" by any of these definitions is something that fluctuates by decade in most cases, let alone by century. It does not kill anybody to be specific.
>>456907
Do you truly believe this to be true?
>>449340
Wrong Soviet Hungarian Republic m8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Soviet_Republic
>>449367
This is necessary for Pedagogy, though. I'd heard "we landed in Normandy" for a decade before I started studying medieval history and learned where Normandy actually was.
>>456907
England owns Scotland de facto, which matters far more than their de jure "equality" within the English-dominated union.
>>459588
No, Lukacs was minister for culture in that republic too IIRC. Might be wrong, but Lukacs got an appointment in 1919 I'm pretty sure. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>>459620
Fucking hell, you're right.
It's pretty impressive that he managed to succeed in both societies.
>>449367
what if you're referring to more than one specific region?
Southern Germany makes more sense than "Bavaria+ Ba-Wü+ selected parts of x,y,z"
whereas saying East Germany is more or less understood to be the former territory of the DDR
>>454568
>implying anyone but chinkos talk about fucking Taiwan
>>459728
>It's pretty impressive that he managed to succeed in both societies.
That's what happens when you shop comrades to the NKVD to survive Moscow in the 1930s.
>the HRE was totally just like a unified Germany guys!
wtfamireading.avi
>>447663
>People born in 1995 are now 20 years old
Fuck, where did the time go
>>459582
>Almost
that right there is why it's incorrect. For decades, the Soviet Union was ruled by a Georgian, and one of the things that contributed to the chaotic political situation at the end of the union was the fact that every Soviet republic but Russia had its own communist party.
>>460877
It was before the Golden Bull
