When did war for territory stop and why?
It seems like pre 1900 almost all wars were fought were over territory and expansion. At what point did this change?
And did it change because the economy is so much more complex than it was back then?
Is conquering a land and absorbing its people not as prosperous as once was?
because U.N.
and because you dont need to take land to dominate countries anymore
>When did war for territory stop and why?
I didn't.
It stopped when nato said it would provide military support to nations and their clay if they denounced communism.
It assfucked the middle east, which ended up with yugoslavia tier borders.
>>462451
Tfw no soviet equivilant to the gulf wars.
They should occupy some of their african trade partnrrs for shits and giggles.
>>462451
thats the exception and not the rule though.
what does UN have to do with it?
>>462429
>It seems like pre 1900 almost all wars were fought were over territory and expansion
As opposed to
WW I?
WW II?
Korea?
Vietnam?
To name but the most obvious ones
>>462461
Korean and vietnam where where not about annexing land.
>>462429
>Korean and vietnam where where not about annexing land.
No. But it involved two sovereign countries not recognizing the fuck out of each other and try to unify the split halves of it.
>>462473
So N-Korea didn't try to annex S-Korea?
So in the end N-Vietnam didn't annex S-Vietnam?
>>462461
The latter 2 were based on communist ideology, rather than simply wanting territory for it's own sake
>>462492
>Korea trying to annex korea
>Vietnam trying to annex Vietnam
That's called a civil war, dipshit.
>>462460
Armenian-Azerbaijan War.
Ethiopian-Eriterian War.
Balkan Wars.
Wars in Georgia.
Dozens wars in Africa no one knows about.
There are plenty wars for clay, it's the West who is exceptionally peaceful recently, thanks to Pax Americana.
>>462429
Pls google "lebensraum"
>>462495
It wasnt. Both North/South Halves of the land were technically sovereign countries.
The fact that they had their own flags attest to this.
It's better to just own the government that's on the land instead of committing soldiers yourself.
>>462451
irredentism isn't war for territory idiot
>>462509
I guess the american civil war wasnt a civil war.
T.anon
>>462521
And also still about territory. You seem to think that these two exclude each other.
>>462523
>Russian irredenta
This is a slippery slope.
>>462526
The American Civil War remains a civil war on three grounds
1) The CSA was founded in the midst of the war.
2) The CSA lacked global recognition.
3) The CSA mcfucking lost
Compare this to North/South Vietnam/Korea
-Both halves were recognized
-Both halves established long before their respective wars ever happened.
-Both halves managed to survive as sovereign states recognized by the nations of the world. (well, not for the South Vietnamese it aint)
>>462638
>1) The CSA was founded in the midst of the war.
WRONG
>>462429
It's continued past 1900, in ww2 Japan, Germany, and USSR did it. Saddam did it, all the Yugoslavian factions did it, it happens plenty still in Africa. Isis is even its own state with borders.
The only thing that's changed is the world community stopped recognizing aggressive annexations and won't redraw the map until all is said and done.
>>462499
Gibe Azeri land back
>>462429
>and why
AK-47 is the tool
>>462638
North and South Vietnam were founded by US and Soviet interests respectively. The idea of a north and south vietnam was an artificial construct. The same of course being true of Korea.
So where does one draw the line for what wars we call civil wars and which one we don't?
The Vietnamese didn't want to different states. But the ruling class in either state didn't want to give up their ideology either.
Technically they are both civil wars since both states considered themselves the legitimate "Vietnam".
>>462429
>When did war for territory stop and why?
When the United Nations was formed. Why? Because the United Nations was formed.
>>462509
>The fact that they had their own flags attest to this.
That reminds me of the episode of Family Guy where Peter creates his own country. Which proves you're a fucking retard.
>>462509
>The fact that they had their own flags attest to this.
ebin
>>464861
You have the FG assosiation but he's the retard. Right.
>>464881
This is a flag of Tokyo. Tokyo is a city in Japan. Tokyo is not and has never been an independent country.
End of fucking story.
>>462429
After colonizing all the world the westerns understood that it was useless to conquer territories when you can delegate the administration to puppets and keep the real power.
It didn't. It's just frowned upon to the point that it's extremely uncommon and generally counterproductive.
The short answer is WWII -> de-colonization -> Breton Woods -> UN/Security Council -> Pax Americana
The way the world is supposed to work now: seizing territory through violence is a direct violation of international law. To launch any kind of unprovoked aggression against another state, you have to literally plead your case to the winners of WWII. If they don't deem your cause worthy and you decide to chimp out anyway, you either get gangbanged by NATO or your economy gets sanctioned into oblivion.
>>462429
why conquer territory with uncooperative population (not counting resulting international hate) if you can achieve similar effect just with economical, political and cultural hegemony? Ie. America has military bases in other countries without occupying them, globalised companies can make money in the whole world, buying resources from puppet 3rd world governments is less problematic than running colonial administration, etc.
It started after WW1, Woodrow Wilson pushed rights of nations for their territory and sovereignty. And League of Nations made wars for territory illegal. Even new British and French territory in Near East became just temporary "mandates" because Brits and Frenchmen totally weren't claygreedy but because their obvious good will to guide Arabs who werent able to rule themselves atm.
>>462446
>/thread
In the West is stopped after WW2 since the world wars scared everyone straight.
Hasn't come to an end in the rest of the world: there have been loads of wars over territory, even if they usually fail to change anything.
>>462429
>Is conquering a land and absorbing its people not as prosperous as once was?
Up until the Second World War/Cold War, a nation's strength was based upon its/its colonial resources (since protectionism was going strong) and its industrial foot-print.
Compared to now, resource-driven economies perform rather poorly compared to their service-driven counterparts (on average, there are some exceptions).
Annexing chunks of land isn't really attractive any more for the West. It's attractive for Russia (who had suffered huge demographic problems and needed influxes - resulting in their "annexation" of South Ossetia/Abkhazia, and the propping up of ethnic Russian states in Ukraine), many African countries, and China (who still has dick waving contests with its neighbours regarding both disputed Indian clay, and the SECS).
>>462429
Crimea happened just last year
why is it called clay?
>>462451
There was no "Battle of Crimea" happened at 2014.
>>464886
I like that flag. Not as weeby as you'd think
>>462429
The Turks still occupy north Cyprus to this day
>>469529
They sent in sleeper agents, and after that an invasion force. Just because there isn't a battle doesn't mean there isn't a war happening.
arable land isn't as valuable as it was.
It didn't. Systems of domination and control evolved. The European world empires didn't fall apart just because some Africans went to university and suddenly the whole thing was untenable. Instead of "national" or "imperial" interests, there are "business" or "strategic" interests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francafrique
It was capitalism really. War for territory still continued but gradually fell as not owning a territory did not lock out of access to their resources because of global trade. Now, the West really has no need for more territory because we don't have to physically go there to get the resources.
>>469898
and constantinople
>>470700
Are you a child?
>>466718
>Woodrow Wilson promoted self determination for nations
When will this meme die?
In the age of colonialism you had to develop the occupied territory as part of white man's burden. Nowadays if you want resources, like iron, diamonds, etc. just name your price and illegal laborers will go get it for you for pennies a day.
The corporations have divested themselves from marginal forms of production, but at the same time this has given the informal economy and poorer classes access and empowerment. Rules against illegal logging means that illegal loggers are just random locals, who keep their own profits.
The black market is the best engine of the economy.
>>464861
You mean the episode of Family Guy where Peter creates America, right?
:^)
>>470720
>In the age of colonialism you had to develop the occupied territory as part of white man's burden.
This didn't actually happen.
It hasn't. It is much easier to establish economic ties with a less prosperous country where you get the better of every deal than to try and forcibly conquer an area that has access to much of the same weapons you do and that has ties to other countries that will attack you economically or physically.
Also the Middle East is filled with people fighting for actual territory, Russia took over the Crimean Peninsula, and China absorbed Zimbabwe.
>>470650
>no gun fires
>no casualty
>just a referendum
>still call it "war"
>>462429
It's got more to do with the structure of the global economy. Economies in the developed world lean, to paint in broad strokes, towards the tertiary sector. It's harder to extract an immediate and significant return on the investment involved in military conquest if you were to invade the UK for example (ignoring the issue of the UK's nuclear deterrence, ofc), since so much of the wealth generation is tied up in the City of London. The process of invasion would disrupt the financial sector hugely and makes it an unattractive prospect. This is amplified by the fact that attempting to invade the UK would be extremely difficult and costly given the immense power that state has at its disposal; not much incentinve to do so unless you can be sure of a guaranteed and sizeable payout.
However, in the developing world, particularly those economies focused around Primary Commodity Exports, there is a much greater impetus to invade. Gold/oil/diamonds/coffee/chocolate is still going to be there in the ground whether you invade or not - the act of invading will have minimal effect on the availability and value of the resource. So greedy nation-states are more happy to make the investment in time, financial capital and human lives that an invasion involves since they are guaranteed a high-value, immediate payout. The primary examples of this would potentially be Liberia, under CHarles Taylor, getting involved in the Sierra Leone Civil War, and the Congo Wars, in which various neighbouring states took chunks out of the DRC while it was destabilized.
This thesis is laid out in the admittedly slightly short-sighted and simplistic Collier and Hoeffler's Greed vs Grievance article. That is in relation to civil war but the logic can be applied to inter-state war and, anyway, as shown above with the SL and DRC case, the line between civil war and interstate war is often blurred.
>>470818
Cont.
The point being war for territory does still take place, it is just not as widespread as swathes of the earth's surface become dominated by post-industrial activity.
There are other factors, of course. It's no longer considered fair game by the major powers for nation-states to just take what they can from their neighbours; the mixed success of UN peacekeeping missions, as well as the First Gulf War is testament to this. This is an instituional argument more than anything else.
Could also argue that between 1992-2005(ish) the pre-eminence of the US/NATO meant that the power(s) with the ability to sway results in international conflict were keen to maintain the status quo - and so by and large opposed invasions of any sort - and there was no balancing power bloc to oppose them. The rise of China and the emergence of the Russian Federation to take up the mantle of the USSR might change this (maybe Crimea and Donetsk counts as a war for territory? Or is it a war for populations? I'm not sure..)
>>470858
Cont.
Just thought, also the diplomatic stand off over the Spratly Islands and the potential South China Sea oil reserves is a good example of a 'war for territory' in the making. Additionally, China's construction of artificial islands adds a whole new, bizarre element to the formula. Watch this space, but I don't think the era of Great Power conflict driven by desire for territory is behind us, even if it is more likely to occur among lesser powers.
>>470729
Oh come on. Even Belgium developed roads and infrastructure in the Congo. You can make the case that colonial powers did little to invest in human or social capital, but natives use the same roads as coal trucks.
>>470729
Yes it did. Examples:
Dutch Ethical Policy of 1901 in the Dutch East Indies/Indonesia - irrigation and transport infrastructure substantially developed. System by which surplus agricultural output could be redistributed to regions in famine also implemented. Also facilitated migration of workers to areas where need was highest.
The British spread medical science throughout the Empire, particularly in the C20th (post-war especially), as penicillin became mass-produced. Even before that in the early C19th the British vaccinated Company Rule India against smallpox.
The French mission civilastrice often involved attempting to introduce mass education for native populations. The Americans did a more effective job in the Philippines, establishing secondary schools and scholarships for Filipino students to study at colleges in the States.
Just a few examples off the top of my head. To go around spouting bullshit like "the colonial powers did nothing to develop their colonies" is stupid and suggests that more reading should be done.
>>470952
>indians
>who had been using a primitive method for vaccinating against smallpox for centuries.
>>470729
Of course it happened. Less in terms of hospitals and schools (though that did happen to an extent in some colonial states) but as far as infrastructure like roads and railways it was impressive and ambitious. Of course most of those roads and railways went straight to the coast to export easily but hey.
>>470970
lol. yeah buddy. but they didn't have Weberian bureaucracy or a competent national administration. It's all very well having some form of rudimental innoculation - less effective than Jennerian vaccination by the way - but it's not much good if you don't have the apparatus to implement it effectively and efficiently across the entirety of EIC India.
Have you got anything to say for the other two examples I gave, by the way?
>>469529
You're right.
The battles you're looking for took place about a hundred or so miles north-east.
>>470950
>>470952
>>470976
Economic development has a more specific meaning than literally just building roads somewhere. These roads primarily served as conduits for the export of cash crops and raw materials from European-managed and owned plantations and mines, not to connect major population centers (which, incidentally, is the reason the British and French relied so heavily on a native tax "service.). You may as well claim that planting a flag in soil is a form of benevolent development.
The Ethische Politiek is the closest thing that came to this and was a miserable failure for the three decades it was held as official policy.
>>471289
> Economic development has a more specific meaning than literally just building roads somewhere.
Not really. If it promotes economic growth and activity then it counts. The intentions of the colonial power is irrelevant, tho as the Ethical Policy and other 'civilizing mission' policies demonstrate, they did on occasion act with benevolent intentions.
> These roads primarily served as conduits for the export of cash crops and raw materials from European-managed and owned plantations and mines.
I suggest you read Gregg Huff and/or Hla Myint on vent-for-surplus, the expansion of the frontier and extensive growth. Further, in many sectors, indigenous (or, at least, non-European) enterprise boomed as a result of colonization opening up territories to international trade. Look at Chinese owned tin mines and rubber plantations in British Malaya. The winners here were the Indian and Chinese and the smaller indigenous entrepreneurial class. I mean, let's not forget that European colonizers were often coming across *non-monetized* economies. Are you going to argue that the introduction of money did not aid economic development in these territories? If so, I don't think I can carry on the debate as it's not worth having.
On top of all that, the development of a global and even more so regional economic trade links allowed for specialization and the division of labour. To keep with the SE Asian context, Burma, Malaya, and the D.E.I could devote more labour and capital to oil, rubber, tin extraction because Siam, Burma, and Indochina became 'rice engines' to feed them. I don't think we need to go into any discussion of comparative advantage for me to make my point.
You also haven't addressed the points I made regarding immunisation programmes.
