Why are liberals so good at winning wars? They won the revolutionary wars in france and america, the 1848 protests, both world wars and the Cold War. The only exception I can think of is the Bolshevik revolution, but they had an extrodanarily incompetent administrator.
Pic not related
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>1848
They got BTFO all across the board actually
If you have freedom to criticize your superiors and not get arrested or shot over it, you can get rid of the problems in military logistics, strategy and tactics that are usually the small things that decide wars.
Conservatives can win revolutions too.
Look at Nationalist Spain and the Islamic State
There is no good or bad at fighting wars, just armies and nations with favourable or unfavourable conditions to particular conflicts. Winners are those who are best adapted to the conflicts they enter into.
In these particular conflicts, with the exception of 1848, an altogether mixed bag, they just happened to be in favourable circumstances and happened to support favourable policies.
>ISIS
>winning
They're losing territory, but their ideology is winning big time.
Only if you mean Wahhabism, which is spread by other entities as well
The thing about the Spanish Civil War is that the liberal powers of Europe, France and the United Kingdom, refused to invervene, while the conservative powers, Italy and Germany, did.
Semi-related question.
Was Caesar a leftist of his time?
>populare
>Seize the property of rich people and give it to plebs
Yes
Because culture and beliefs generally swim left over time. The right can only at best halt or manage to shove liberalism back briefly
The way I see it, conservatives hold onto traditional values and norms, whether they be good or bad. For many in times periods of great civil upheaval, they saw no benefit to hold onto the status quo, thus went the way of the left to change what they didn't like.
I'm an idiot, but this is how I interpret it.
>>Look at Nationalist Spain and the Islamic State
the population does not like these for more than one generation, especially when the local population has access to images showing how liberal people have comfier life and have fun.
liberalism is the only system which is endorsed generations after generations, precisely because liberals have managed
-to create the federal education for the plebs by taking money form the plebs
-punishing people who do not act according to liberalism
-making this punishment a progress for more liberalism
Because conservashits are old dumb people while liberals are the true masses
>1848
>liberal victory
Lay down the liquor my lad
>American Revolution
Actually conservative, the only radical aspect was the lack of effective centralized authority for the first nine years or so
>French Revolution
If you consider political terror imposed from the capital city onto the rest of the country and the subsequent backlash and the rise of Nappy to be liberal, then yes.
>1848
Led to another Nappy in France, massive кэк in Hungary, and not much of a difference in Prussia.
>1848
You mean the time when the crowned heads of Europe literally GAVE EACH OTHER A HAND TO DEFEAT LIBERALIST NATIONALISTS IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES?
Much like all independence wars were won thanks to euro powers cuking each other.
France and Spain helped America
Britain and France helped the spanish colonies
the most recent world war was won by the right.
Because rich people who know
theyre gonna benefit from it
funds liberal groups
Napoleon was liberal compared to the Old Monarchy and the reactionary powers of Europe (Britain, Austria, Russia, Prussia...) that fought him to restore monarchy and feudalism in France
Pretty simple. Most liberal wars start from the common populace, meaning that they know the terrain and weather. This means that they can utilize guerrilla warfare.
The nascent movements put down publicly in 1848 went underground, which ultimately contributed to their success.It also gave them a practical demonstration of how reactionary post-Vienna governments would react and so they shifted to a slower, long-term strategy. The amount of legislatively-functional monarchies in Europe suggests that this worked. While this doesn't refute what you said in the immediate sense, I thought it was worth noting.
The one in France succeeded
>applying the labels of the modern right and the modern left to Revolutionnary France
Yuck.
And more appalling even is that were you to truly have to categorize the revolutionaries as either right-wing or left-wing, you'd notice that they betray quite a right-wing philosophy:
>most revolutionaries are Parisian bourgeois
>hope to end some corporate monopolies of the State and nobility on some market with the Revolution
>hope to whisk away a class of incompetent tax-grubbing NEETS (nobles)
>wish to de-escalate the monarchy from an Absolute monarchy to a Parliamentary monarchy
The one in Denmark too, it was the end of absolutism.
>The nascent movements put down publicly in 1848 went underground, which ultimately contributed to their success.
This is why Germany by 1914 was a peaceful, democratic society that effectively implemented liberal nationalism. Or wait, no, I meant by 1939. Oh wait, fuck.
I didn't use left or right at all, I only said liberals
'cause bourgeoisie has got the money