Reminder that in 1850

Russia wanted to unite all of Europe against the Turks, but England and France said no because

>muh free markets

>Uniting against Turks in 19th century

we would have let you if the balkans would be stable

>Instead they united with the Turks against Russia
KEK

More like:

Reminder that in 1850 Russia wanted to conquer its first warm-water port that isn't blocked by a strait, but England and France said no because
>muh balance of powers

Reminder that there is no such thing as too many Pakistani rape gangs in England.

Crimean War actually had very little to do with the Turks, was much more about Russia trying to expand its navy access and the British/French responding for fears of a disruption of the balance of power.

Russia wanted to use nations with armies not consisting of Boris Borisovich with a shaska, one shoe and a turnip to get even more land, but England and France said no because

>muh russia being european
>muh russia being competant

>Russia
>European

>implying turkey was an existential threat to anyone in 1850
>implying britain and france should just let russia control the balkans and anatolia

>existential threat
What? What made you say that

They weren't called the "sick man of Europe" for nothing. They were holding the backwater shitholes of the Balkans and Middle East not to mention absolute failure at modernizing.

OK but who said anything about Turkey being an existential threat? Nobody implied that.

why would europe need to be united against an empire which could barely hold its own in battle?

To reclaim Constantinople and ethnically cleanse Anatolia.

To reclaim the lands Christendom lost. Obviously Turkey didn't pose a threat.

>go to war against a country to reclaim a city for a nation of hairy homosexuals

why?

>implying europe gave a shit about Constantinople
Maybe your poor Greek peasent cared but the concept of nations being ran by religion died in Europe in the 19th century, capitalism made sure of that.

>hairy homosexuals
What

It's a matter of principle, not a matter of how many people cared.

To free the Europeans being ruled by barbarians. The Turks loved massacring civilian populations in the balkans whenever that pesky issue of nationalism appeared.

You are completely wrong, religious fervor was quite strong in europe up until the end of WW1. General Allenby's conquest of Palestine and Jerusalem were HUGE morale boosters in WW1, and likely prevented them from an early defeat. Britain's defeat of the Ottomans was seen as proof that they were the morally righteous force in the war, spurring a large requirement drive. Also, free market capitalism was not really a thing in most of mainland europe until the very end of the 19th century. Not to mention in 1850 there were still several nations run by absolute monarchs, and in Britain the official church of england still played an important role.

>m-muh constantinople
>m-muh rightful Christian lands
Stay mad, Christcuck

trump is going to arm syrian kurds. turkey btfoed

>implying Russians weren't the new "Ottomans" who were trying to dominate Europe and the Middle East
>implying containing Russia wasn't the priority for any sane European power instead of Deus Vult fantasies

Balabce of power leads to perpetual warfare. Concentration of power leads to.....?

>Civil war. Everyone wants to be Emperor.

>yay, we contained Russia
>we saved Europe

Some day you will grow up and realise that the world doesn't work like that.

Russia wanted to seize the straits and threaten British and French influence in the Eastern Mediterranean. Why would you think that they would stand for that?

>trump is going to arm syrian kurds.
Really? Based desu.

>implying the US hasn't been doing this since Obama's first term