1. Your country

1. Your country

2. When is the last time your country had a civil war?

3. Are you happy with the result?

>1. Ireland

>2. 1922 - 1923

>3. No, the bad guys won.

Australia's in a quasi civil war atm over the use of Cannabis. It's to be decriminalised->legalised over the whole country but their is a couple dinosaurs responsible for many many peoples suffering, medicinally, economically, self-actualisationally.

DUDE

also

>not the emu war

Philippines
Right now.
No.

Don't forger the drug dealers!

>Veeky Forums - Current events & humanities

Non-English speakers should stick to their own shitpost containment boards.

Meme by overreacting president.

Might as well start a war on drinking.

1. New Zealand

2. Closest we ever came was some decent sized wars with the natives

3. Very

Kinda paid off in the end. The Warrior culture is fucking awesome.

It mostly manifests these days in beating your wife and kids, but sure. Maoris do make pretty much the best natural soldiers in the world though

Meh, that's mostly due to the shitty conditions.

I've met Maoris who are pretty based, and don't do that shit.

Even though we won the cultural victory in the end, it would have been more satisfying to crush Franco and his army of monkeys in the battlefield, instead of simply reversing and undoing everything Franco fought for.

Finland
1918
Sure :D The Reds lost. Less killing would've been preferable.

Yeah of course there are lots who are cool, but there is definitely a cultural aspect where its considered sort of ok to be violent with your family. Islanders have a similar thing, ive brought this up with maori mates and they tend to agree

1. Germany
2. 1918-19
3. Yes of course.

Yeah, same things for most people who live in low income places.

Being an Aussie who's travelled the world and done research on this shit, it's pretty prevalent, and not limited to one group of people.

But I won't dispute you on the fact that culture does play into it.

I thought the Freikorps were an unsanctioned militia.

Where did they get a tank?

Socio-economics definitely plays a role. I dont know how it compares with abos and such for you guys, but here at least the cultural side of it is an officially recognised problem, there have been whole government campaigns to try and address it

>Netherlands
>never had a civil war, unless you count the Dutch revolt.
>no

Spain
1936-1939
Why yes of course, last 3 civil wars were won by the wrong people though

The Belgian Revolution was a civil war, and a very successful one from the secessionists perspective

>petite bourgeois liberalism wins in the end but anarchism never recovers
fuck this gay earth

russia

1917-1922

no the whites shouldve won

You could argue that SA vs. KPD during the early 1930's was also close to being a civil war

British
1642-1651
Roundheads vs Cavaliers
Not really.

>1. USA
>2. 1861-1865
>3. Yes. The Confederates were meme-level retarded and Dixieboos are still butthurt to this day.

Happy for every "republican" Franco killed on and off the battlefield.

Get fucked nun rapists.

>implying nuns aren't gagging for thick atheist cock

1. USA
2. 1860
3. meh, too long ago but the south would be better off today if it seceded

1. Finland
2. 1918
3. Yes

1. Japan
2. 1868 – 1869 (Boshin war)
3. Yes. Samurai were bunch of assholes.

I refuse to believe Veeky Forums is this international. stop roleplaying as asians you faggots.

1. Australia
2. 1932
3. Yes I am happy with the result, the Emu's winning represents that Australia itself can fuck anybody's shit up. Including Australians.

Nah the Black army should have won.

1.USA
2.1860-1865
3.Yes, even with the morality of slavery taken completely out of the question, the Union prevailed for the right reasons.

×Spain
×1936-39
×Fuck Yeah, good guys won and commies were removed.

>Started in the 40's and 60's.
>Current events.
K.

1. Brazil
2. 1889
3. No. Disgusting macacos destroyed our progressive monarchy and instituted a century of irrelevance as a favela state

>Sweden
>1542-1543
>Yes, because if Småland became independent, it'd jsut become Danish again.

There was the revolution of 1932 so 1889 wasn't the last time we had a civil war
it was however,the cause of the country's regress and current situation,that's for sure

Asians are probably just halfs that have a GI burger parent.

My ocuntry didn't have a civil war because it didn't exist yet but during WW2, a civil war ravaged in what is today Slovenia. The result was the lesser ot two evils winning. I'm not really happy but it sure could be worse.

1. USA
2. 1861-1865
3. Yes

Unilateral secession is illegal.

1.argentina

2.1868-1880

3.kind of. the autonomists were only slightly better than the liberals.

US

1861-1865

Yes, the Lost Cause is a plague to American history and the studies of it.

>Sweden
>Technically the War of Sigiusmund 1598-1599
>Yes it ended the Polish, albeit short-lived, rule over Sweden

Why are American southerners still allowed to fly the flag of an illegal terrorist insurrection?

Isn't this treason?

Blame the Germans and Italians, its pretty much their fault.

T. Kraut

It's very quickly falling out of favor because of that little bowlcut shithead who shot up a church, but before then it was tolerated because of free speech. And because the US took a completely different tack on rapprochement after their civil war than pretty much any other nation on the planet. Even with Reconstruction in mind, the US was a hell of a lot kinder than other countries were.

1.Germany
2.1918-19
3.Yes if we ignore the historical context, no if indirect consequences matter

China
1946-1949
Just kill me

USA
1860s
yes because I live in Wisconsin

While I personally hate seeing the flag flown I believe it should be allowed because of the 1st Amendment. In some ways it's used to represent the "good" parts of the south but really it's just a way to express racism, hatred, and treason.

Appearantly the three year war counted as a civil war. Anyway, it was alright and the krauts got buttfucked, then 1864 comes around and the Prussians and Austrians gang up for round two.

Forgot, Denmark 1848-51.

That's probably the reichswehr.

1.US
2.1861-1865
3. Reconstruction was horribly manged. Otherwise fuck the South.

1. European Union

2. 1939 - 1945

3. Not really.

Portugal

1828-34

Yes. It was a civil between absolutist monarchs and liberal monarchs. Liberals won.
Shame that basically the country never really recovered into the industrial revolution afterwards.

that's not a country

1. 1918
2. Finland
3. The bad guys won but by historical hindsight it was better because of leninism being a thing.

>
>
>

1. Macedonia.
2. 2001, but it was just an insurgency.
3. No. NATO forced us to back down under threats of air strikes just as we surrounded literally the entire insurgent leadership. Afterwards we were made to sign an agreement that basically gives Albanians affirmative action even though Macedonians in Albanian majority areas are treated as second class citizens.

Rest in peace Generalissimo Fransisco Franco

>we should be allowed to oppress our citizens because another country oppresses theirs

Where did l say that m8? I just don't like any kind of affirmative action, that's all. I'm all for equal opportunity. But l guess it beats the alternative - at least we're not shooting at each other anymore.

I just wish things were better for everyone around, but we're condemned to being a shit-tier country even by Balkan standards.

Vietnam
1955-1975
Pic related

>Canada
>No real civil wars, maybe the Riel Rebellions of the late 1800s or the October Crisis in the 1970s.
>No strong opinions either way. The Metis got fucked over even more because of the rebellion and the FLQ needed to be taken down.

Freedom of speech. Same reason why Black Panthers and stuff can carry banners calling for a a black only country inside America. Personally I think the confederate battle flag is pretty good looking. Probably one of the best flags in history.

The stuff with Dylan Roof will probably be temporary and it will be mostly forgotten as a talking point in American politics and society soon. At least if he gets the death sentence.

tfw Colombia signed a treaty ending our 50 year civil war two days ago. W-we did it g-guys.

>Unilateral secession is illegal.
Your country was founded on unilateral secession you retard.

FARC will never be defeated

Por la nueva Colombia, la patria grande y socialismo

1.Việt Nam
2.Maybe but's it's complicated 1956-1975
3.Yep because if not best case scenario is Korea the shittier version and worst case get our southern asses handed to us by the Khmer Rouge

No one cares about it except delusional southerners and equally delusional liberals who think it actually has political symbolism

Doubt the Khmer Rouge could have taken on the ARVN. Cambodian government was disgustingly incompetent and corrupt at war. I can't imagine the dejection felt by low level officers trying to fight a war when half their troops are conscripted children, your food ration and ammo is being sold to the enemy by your superiors who also insist on bombarding the enemy on exactly hours every day so they can take the rest of the day off. They defeated themselves more than Khmer Rouge did.

Empire of Tamriel

4E 201-Still going on

Nords are retards

1. Finland.
2. 1918
3. Yes.

>terrorist

wew

probably because it became a symbol of the south in the popular mind. There are tons of regional flags around the world that started out as separatists flags.

White scum

>Brazil
>1932
>No

I'm not even a paulista but the State known as Brazil is a monster that has no rhyme or reason. It was kept together during Empire times by force. A brazilian from the south and a brazilian from the Amazon share nothing except maybe their support for Flamengo (and that's if you're from Santa Catarina).

>b..bb.but our slaveowning founding fathers didn't commit treason BECAUSE they were slaveowners so it's totally ok

From a country across a fucking ocean, not literally right below us

really? that's the shitty excuse you're going with? At least the confederates tried to argue a legal president for secession unlike the founding fathers who went full on MUH NATURAL LAW.

precedent* fuck

>being anti-treaty in 2016
>believing an option other than partition was possible
>being salty even though Dev won politically in the end

USA
April 12, 1861 – May 9, 1865
Hell no, and sorta yes. If the south and north had remained separate, would have been shit.

Best possible scenario was for the greys to win, then states rights would actually be fucking respected. In addition to the removal of niggers.

technology and trade > agriculture any day of the week pal, we'd be like second rate china if the south had won.

State rights are nice and all but go look at europe pre-EU- squabbling does not serve a nation well.

Nigger, the EU is trying to combine a bunch of countries with millennium of squabbling and pointless wars, at least the american states had only a few decades at most, most of which was easy to forget peaceful politics shit.

And yeah, I'm more into doing what the motherfucking OG's who started this bitch told us to do, which is, states rights.

>the motherfucking OG's who started this bitch
which were weed-smoking freemasons
and if you're such a fan of states rights how about you first and foremost remove the Army, Navy, Chairforce and Marine core.

No, of course you won't advocate the removal of the military because one, the teet that taught you to get angry at the federal government is the same one that taught you to love and cherish the american military.

Second, because it would be fucking stupid to do that because we're the biggest military power on earth and for the most part that's all we have over everyone. Literally Mr. World Policeman.

desu standing armies are a bad idea to have if you want to try to have liberty and a state at the same time. the provisions for militia in the constitution/bill of rights do enough to make an army anyway, i'd reckon. At least they do enough to defend against attacks on American soil.

standing army isn't bad, it's good to pick up the poor, stupid, good-hearted people in our country and turn them into fantastic citizens. I just want funding to be diverted out of the military during times of peace, and focus more on R&D.

>USA
>1861-1865
>Yes. Anyone who says otherwise should just go back to /pol/.

>the provisions for militia in the constitution/bill of rights do enough to make an army anyway
What about the provision in the constitution for the government to maintain a standing army?

Anyway, your idea is bad since it would become a logistical nightmare in the event of an invasion. Imagine dozens of civilian contractors selling hundreds of different types of weapons to 50 different state militias, each which require their own supply train of ammunition and parts. When one state's supply train breaks down, other militias can't help them because they use different weapons using different ammunition with different parts bought from different contractors. That's not even taking into account how awful cross-militia strategic and tactical coordination would be.

>Canada
>Not much of a civil war, but the October Crisis in 1970
>No, the damn Anglos won again.

>Venezuela
>Federal war 1859 - 1863
>Just a bunch of warlords killing themselves for the power
The story would be the same

Fuck off commie

1- Argentine

2-1811-1880

3-No, the Unitarians Won.

Burger.

1861-1865

Yes and no. The North won the war but lost the peace by botching reconstruction. The result was extreme poverty and a mockery of constitutional rights for the next century.

>trusting communists

For real though, I have this suspicion that it will fall through and the Colombian government will go for the Sri Lankan solution.