Would Europe have been a better place if France couldn't form a nation-state?

>Europe after 1815 was under French dominance

>Europe before WW1 was under French dominance

I mean France was a powerful country for most of its existence but come on...

Are you the guy from Orleans btw?

>Europe after 1815 was under French dominance
It was

>Europe before WW1 was under French dominance
Before and After WW1*

>everyone French who disgree with me is this one guy
No

>vilification of Nationalism and Eugenism
>implying that this is a bad thing
i have nothing in my life so i have to claim pride in my """"""nation""""""" and """"""""race""""""""

fuck off hans

>Europe after 1815 was under French dominance
It wasn't, France was unable to realise its claims on Wallonia and during the Rhine crisis in 1840/41.

>France was unable to realise its claims on Wallonia

What are you on ?

We defeated the Dutch Army and could have annexed Artois-Picardie if we wanted to do so

>i have nothing in my life so i have to claim pride in my """"""nation""""""" and """"""""race""""""""

This is what brainwashed redditors relay from their paid shill overlords

Not a nationalist but this is basic bitch liberal rehearsing

Non-Liberal here
Nation and race are retarde concepts designed to put nazicucks into submission under their manlet leaders

>WE turned the tides in a civil war of a European secondary power
Pat yourself on the back!
Last time I checked Artois-Picardie was a part of France all along, what the fuck are you talking about?
Anyways Talleyrand's partition plan was not accepted and the final treaty was something completely different.

Wallonia (G*rmanic name) is false contrusct

It is composed of Picardie and Artois

>G*rmanic
Wew nice meme m8!
Last time I checked, it was pretty real.
Still the point is standing, the French partition plan was never realised, so still no dominance.

It's like Upper and Lower Egypt, tards don't know that it's because of elevation, not north and south.

Yes.

Noice
Can you develop and give some arguments that isn't "fuck the french"?

France indirectly caused WW2 so no France means no WW2

Nice meme

Its not a meme. If the treaty of Versailles was built on Woodrows 14 points instead of Frances lust for revenge then Hitler would have never come to power, WW2 would have never happened and communism would have stayed in Russia.

If germany didn't fund Lenin's return from exile and communist revolution in Russia, communism would never have happened in Europe

We were not discussing Germany, were we?

Would Europe have been a better place if Napoleon succeeded to cross the English Channel and land 100,000+ soldiers near london?

Obviously not

This transgression might as well be weighed into the peace treaty calculus, and it seems reasonable for France to want to curb its militaristic, interventionist, and highly industrialized neighbor. Feelings aside, Germany deserved Versaille

Germans suffered just like everybody else, why should they get it worse because of the actions of their former government?

Why though, imagine if europe unified during the industrial era
>no communism
>nationalism not tarnished in western society for all eternity
>unified European rule able to colonize the pre-industrial rest of the world
>no century of wasted capital and manpower squandered on imperial wars in europe
>unparalleled prosperity arising from repatriation of nobility's holdings due to the French Revolution
>meritocratic utopia riding a wave of en-masse education, artistic and cultural splendor, timed with industrialization and expansion of colonial base to include basically the entire non-european planet
Sounds awful

Very good goy, too bad you won't be able to join ZOG.

Haha, memes

>Without competetion between nation states under a centralised Paris government Europe would not become a second China, self-fixated and stagnant.

Europe was best when Russia is her Defender.

>nationalism not tarnished in western society for all eternity
Why would i want to be a french nationalist?
>no century of wasted capital and manpower squandered on imperial wars in europe
Instead the capital might have been wasted on wars outside of Europe, nobody knows what would have happened.
>unparalleled prosperity arising from repatriation of nobility's holdings due to the French Revolution
That sure worked well in the USSR
>meritocratic utopia riding a wave of en-masse education, artistic and cultural splendor, timed with industrialization and expansion of colonial base to include basically the entire non-european planet
Globalism is good?

China wasn't colonising the world though. Technology wouldn't advance as fast but it would certainly work out better than them.

Not just Europe but the entire world. Britannia delenda est.

>China wasn't colonising the world though.
Because they did not have to compete with anyone and instead fixated on internal stability.
The main reason for African colonisation, was that the European powers just didn't want the next guy to grab the land.

No because England, Germany and Spain would steam role them

China had no expansionist aspirations and stagnated because it was a land of farmers for thousands of years. Napoleon's europe would probably have resembled Rome, a technologically advanced world hegemon spreading its tentacles over the rest of the world and raising up its peoples in an European image. Without real interstate competition, the colonizer can engage in mutually-beneficial nation-building like Rome did, which might create a more stable world without as much resentment. And the task would take hundreds of years, binding the self-attested guardians of civilization to educate and elevate an eager world, while it leaves behind markets for more profitable consumer goods

not him, but I would argue China didn't colonize the world because they didn't have reliable firearms.
So if Napoleon managed to unite Europe, the Europeans would already have firearms and could conquer rest of the world with ease

lol you are pretty idealistic
an united Europe would exploit the shit out of the rest of the world

It's pragmatism. Everyone would benefit more (colonizer included) than in a world with competing colonizers goofing to undercut and undermine each other, and militarily/politically backing rebellious colonies once they become powerful enough to raise a challenge. Colonizers are compelled to keep colonies relaticely more disadvantaged if competing world powers can put their thumbs on the scale. And we end up with a world where people decry the evils of colonization instead of celebrate its civilizing effects

Goofing = looking
Relacitely=Relatively
Phoneposting was a mistake

>The Roman Empire experienced expansion after the competitors were gone .

If you have an entire continent, which is being ruled with ease by a single power, than the populations must be without any will of independence. Their inovations would spread and new people with higher ambitions will get wind of it and use it to higher effect (like the relation of the Germanic tribes vs. the decadent late Roman society).
A world of peace is toxinc to every human society.

Only in a world of scarcity :^]

I hesitate to hinge so much conjecture on a generalisation about human nature

Napoleon wanted an Europe under French rule but with each nations preserving its own identity, it would have been in practice a bigger version of the Kingdom of France

The idiot that made the map probably thinks it has to do with north-south instead of altitude.

Why did the population of Mesopotamia adapt so easily to many different rulers?

>under French rule
See the problem?

eh, i doubt that. Europeans would just exploit the colonies even more efficient, steal all their resources and use them as export markets for European industry

>than the populations must be without any will of independence.
it seems to me you have fallen to the nationalist propangada

It would've been much better, especially for folks like the Albigensians who were basically genocided by the conniving and cruel eternal Parisian.

Give me an example of a superstate, where the ruling class cannot be exchanged by a foreign people with a handstrike, while the population holds still.
The opposite was the case for Mesopotamia, the Roman Empire and China.

Really? I always assumed it was because one was upriver and the other downriver.

so it is better to be opressed by people who happen to speak your language?

You know that history is not only about opression, right?