Originally posted by Shavixmir
Oh.
The Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, Russia...
It's quite an endless list.
Netherlands eh?
How do you explain the Eighty Years' War with Spain followed by war for independence and the succession of provinces that formed the initial Dutch Republic.
Spain then recaptured Flanders and Brabrant. Followed by the Thirty Years War in which the Dutch Republic made territorial gains in the Spanish Netherlands but not the entire territory lost before 1590.
The end result of the war was a permanent split of the Habsburg Netherlands into two parts that roughly corresponded with present-day Netherlands and Belgium-Luxemburg.
Germany eh?
Recent history for Germany: After WWII Germany lost East Prussia, Danzig, the most of Silesia, parts of Brandenburg and parts of Pommerania. Since that time the border was the Oder-Neiße-line. Only at the Oder estuary Germany lost land west of Oder with the economical important Stettin and the Oder Island Wollin and parts of Usedom Isle. So the annex ions weren't based on previous borders although East Prussia totally and Silesia in the greatest part were annexed.
France eh?
The borders of modern France are approximately the same as those of ancient Gaul, which was inhabited by Celtic Gauls. Gaul was conquered for Rome 1st century BC. In the 4th century AD, Gaul’s eastern frontier along the Rhine was overrun by Franks. Existence as a separate entity began with the Treaty of Verdun, with the division of Charlemagne's Carolingian Empire into East Francia, Middle Francia and Western Francia. Western Francia approximated the area occupied by modern France and was the precursor to modern France.
Belgium eh?
The part of the Netherlands that was not conquered by the Dutch stayed part of Spain. Later this part became the country Belgium. ...(see Netherlands above)
Russia eh?
Kievan Rus' arose in the 9th century then disintegrated into small feudal states. The state of Moscow reunified surrounding Russian principalities and by the 18th century, had greatly expanded through conquest and annexation. Russian borders were affected by the Peace Treaty of Nystad which ended the Great Northern War in 1721.
If you nominate more, please supply supporting facts to prove their borders were not founded by warfare…as otherwise this could become quite tedious for me. 😴
Originally posted by StTitoColonial powers dividing up nations is imperialism, not warfare. It's wrong, but we can't divide the conflicts of the world into warfare and good happy things where everyone's smiling.
colonial powers dividing up nations is warfare so that 'Most of Africa' statement is out.
Originally posted by StTitoPlease don't fan the flame of idiocy, by responding to his assinine drivel...he will think his 'baseless' ranting has merit. Best to leave him alone, perhaps he will read a bit of history before engaging his mouth.
colonial powers dividing up nations is warfare so that 'Most of Africa' statement is out.
Who knows? If he actually reads tribal histories it may cause his growing of an additional brain cell. The one he has must be lonely and would appreciate some company.
Originally posted by MacSwain[/i]Oh dear.
Netherlands eh?
[i]How do you explain the Eighty Years' War with Spain followed by war for independence and the succession of provinces that formed the initial Dutch Republic.
Spain then recaptured Flanders and Brabrant. Followed by the Thirty Years War in w
You mean the 80 years war against Spain. Don't you?
The peace of Munster, and accordingly the peace of Westphalia, which are...
"treaties."
Correct! Well done.
And who were present at the treathy of Westphalia? And what did they decide?
Oh yes! The independence of certain areas of the Netherlands from the Holy Roman Empire.
As for your: "Spain then recaptured Flanders and Brabrant. Followed by the Thirty Years War"
The thirty year war (Within the Holy Roman Empire) ended together with the 80 year war with the peace of Westphalia.
Do you really want me to continue to humiliate you, or are you going to shut up?
Originally posted by MacSwainAnd apparently you do think that imperialism and greed are synonymous with warfare.
Please don't fan the flame of idiocy, by responding to his assinine drivel...he will think his 'baseless' ranting has merit. Best to leave him alone, perhaps he will read a bit of history before engaging his mouth.
Who knows? If he actually reads tribal histories it may cause his growing of an additional brain cell. The one he has must be lonely and would appreciate some company.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Originally posted by ZahlanziNo country/state/civilization has a right to exist. Power is everything; always has been.
What prerequisites must a group fulfill to be considered a country?
Is Israel entitled to exist?
Is Kossovo entitled to exist?
Is Amerika entitled to exist?
etc.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Originally posted by scherzoI'm trying to think of an exception and not coming up with one. Did you have one in mind?
Is every state inherently a show of power?
Otherwise, yes - I'd have to say every state/country/civilization is inherently a show of power.
Take the Palestinians, for a quick example: Would their cause exist, would they have been assimilated into other countries and cultures in your area, had they not fought the Israelis so relentlessly? Perhaps they would still exist, just not to the extent that they still do today, had they not displayed the show of power that they have for the past 60 years.
Given this perspective, it's not hard for the objective viewer to understand why the Palestinians have had to resort to "terror" the way they have - it's all they could do to remain intact, hmm?