Russian history

Not the same country.

Might as well be

>How come Russia has never been able to conquer Europe

cossacks in Paris, 1814, colorized.jpg

the rape of Berlin, 1945, live-action.mp4

will probably have to whip collective ass of europe third time pretty soon

this, look at all this wasteland in Siberia

Replace Russia with literally any country in your post and some pseud faggot like yourself could make a compelling case. kys faggot.

it should be

Yep and all of USA is a desert with cactuses

>will probably have to whip collective ass of europe third time pretty soon
>This is what Ivan believes
Face it Ivan, Rossyja is just a paper tiger now.

It is like this for 3 days in summer.

She always wants to be the best girl but always get superated by someone richer than her

>Russia
>Mongolia

Your right, Mongolia is SOUTH of Russia.

Yeah this is dumb because russia is fuckin yuuuge. The climate of moscow is supposed to be nearly the same as the US great lakes region which ain't so bad.

>frozewn wasteland
Is that why millions migrated to Western Siberia in 1800s?

>says increasingly nervous European for 789th time in the last two centuries

t. I know nothing about the world.

absolutely gorgeous. makes me want to burst into song

>As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

shots fired

lincoln was kind of a dick

It's not just Russia. Is literally every society that isn't western empire.

Walloons are French.

Autocracy simply can't compete with political pluralism.

You can make all of the excuses you want, but that's the core of it.

and a tyrant

>literally have slavery
>cry when you get busted for treason

The only mistake Lincoln made was not having enough body guards that he could follow up his conquest with a full scale genocide.

>lowest form of bait
>assume someone calling Lincoln a tyrant is partial to southern ideology
>not knowing that the civil war was almost purely economic
>literal quotes of Lincoln saying he didn't care about the negro
user? why do you have reddit spacing?

Blocks of text are ugly. Do you want me to do a block of text? Here's what it would look like if I didn't hit the enter key.

The Civil War was triggered by the economics of slavery. Northern whites feared that if the slaveowning states could take over the republic, the model of free, salaried, labor would be destroyed by the plantation model and they'd end up like the Roman middle class did during the late Republican period.
Southern whites feared that if the industrial north continued to amass power, the abolitionist movement would eventually have enough political and economic capital to abolish slavery nationwide.
As the union continued expanding west, the political question of whether the new states would be free or slave eventually turned this conflict into open warfare.

>The Civil War was triggered by the economics of slavery.
So it wasn't a civil rights issue after all. Glad we can nail that one down.
>Northern whites feared that if the slaveowning states could take over the republic, the model of free, salaried, labor would be destroyed by the plantation model and they'd end up like the Roman middle class did during the late Republican period.
I believe it had something to do with being able to leave the republic that didn't fairly represent them and trading with europe instead, which would have bankrupted the US.
>Southern whites feared that if the industrial north continued to amass power, the abolitionist movement would eventually have enough political and economic capital to abolish slavery nationwide.
Slavery only accounted for a small amount of the economy in the south. Manufacturing had already began to move south by the mid 1860's. You're literally talking about the 1%. The southerners were more pissed about unanimous northern votes outweighed them.
>As the union continued expanding west, the political question of whether the new states would be free or slave eventually turned this conflict into open warfare.
Only there was already legislation stating that new states would go 50/50.

Northern whites opposed the expansion of slavery because they thought it would undermine their social status.

They invaded the south because they felt that a permanent division of the country would destroy America.

Remember, this was at a time when European powers were still the HNICs of the globe, and not that long after Gran Colombia balkanized into a bunch of shitty little rump states.

To quote Sherman

> If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling.

>Slavery only accounted for a small amount of the economy in the south

There were three billion dollars worth of slaves in the South in 1850, in 1850 dollars. Which is why they explicitly mentioned slavery in almost all of the instruments of secession, and why the confederate constitution banned any state of the CSA from abolishing slavery

>Only there was already legislation stating that new states would go 50/50.

I want to find whoever taught you history and get the board to revoke their teaching licenses.

The collapse of the Missouri Compromise is what caused the Civil War. They teach this in every American history class in the country.

>user lies on the internet
>user thinks this is going to continue the conversation
I want to find whoever taught you anything and sentence them to death.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas–Nebraska_Act

Prove me wrong, nigger.

>The Kansas–Nebraska Act divided the nation and pointed it toward civil war.[65] The Act itself virtually nullified the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The turmoil over the act split both the Democratic and Whig parties and gave rise to the Republican Party, which split the United States into two major political camps, the Republican North and the Democratic South.
>The Act itself virtually nullified the Missouri Compromise of 1820

>turned this conflict into open warfare.
The declarations of secession and firing of cannons on federal government forts in the south turned this conflict into open warfare.

Ftfy rebel scum.

>being able to leave the republic
The Constitution is the highest law, and governs all actions of the federal government, and between the federal government and between all states.
There is no constitutional article that provides and procedure or mechanism slowing a state to be separated or leave.
Secession is illegal because it is unconstitutional.

>How come Russia has never been able to conquer Europe?
ISHYGDDT
Americans stopped us half through by offering some of their drinks.

Russia is in a far worse state after adopting political pluralism though

That's because Yeltsin crushed every independent institution in the country.

Russia never was and never will be as powerful as it was in the USSR

In Eastern Europe only communism would work because corruption is so big that it cripples the countries

>thread is called "Russian history"
>Americans still find a way to argue about their civil war

Communism was what created this corruption.

End of communism is what created it, thats why after 89 every EE country turned into a mafia ridden shithole where everyone was stealing everything.

except Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians, former Yugos, Estonians, Lithuanians and Latvians are all infinitely better off now than they were under the yoke of the Russians.

The only nations that haven't noticeably improved are Belarus and Ukraine. That these happen to be the two most influenced by the festering boil of a nation people call Russia is of course pure coincidence.

How is hungary better? Public transport vehicles are still from the soviet era

> GDP per capita
> civil rights
> HDI
> infant mortality rate
> actual self governance

Are all relatively improved. How are they not better?

>poverty
>unemployment
>shitty educational system
>corruption is through the roof
>trash infrastructure
>censored media
>journalists, protesters are imprisoned for nothing

wow what an advancement wow

I'll happily agree that Viktor Orban is a terrible, corrupt leader, responsible for making the nation objectively worse, and that I am mystified that Hungarians would elect a buffoon like that.

None of that, however, changes the fact that Russians poison every European nation they touch with precisely the kinds of issues you just brought. Besides, Orban is literally the kind of Russian pawn that has already turned Belarus and Ukraine into shitholes. You are only proving my point.

Things gotbshittier for 70% of the population and we are stil Russias slave, nothing changed for the better

a parameter like infant mortality rate would indicate that things got better for the majority of the population after the fall of communism.

I'm from an EE country, so let me explain. To get a preferential treatment you couldn't just pay more money like you do in in capitalism, so you had to utilize some hardcore nepotism.
You couldn't get a permit for a summer vacation in Yugoslavia? That's okay, your friend's cousin is the guy who issues permits, he can help you out.
You needed a kidney transplant and the waiting list was too long? No worries, your dad is an old buddy of the hospital director, you'll get to skip a patient or two.
There's a massive lack of consumer goods? Well turns out your brother works at a [butcher shop, printing house, TV factory] so you can get access to shit other people can't.

And this wasn't some secret, shady shit, this was completely NORMAL, everybody was doing it. We had a saying, "Who isn't stealing from the state is stealing from his own family". And that sort of mentality lasts to this day, we lack that sort of civic pride and good goy taxpayer mentality like they have in Germany or Sweden, we're deeply individualist people (it's ironic that communism breeds individualism and selfishness in the end) and we see the government as nothing but bunch of crooks and cunts who want to fuck us over. And often we're right, because those fuckers have been sitting in the government ever since communism, and they got those positions through nepotism. Other people beyond our family might as well not exist, we don't give a shit if somoene dies in the streets as long as we're not related to them. When we see a politician stealing money we get angry, not because it's immoral, but it's because we aren't in his position. Nobody gives a shit about the laws and rules, everyone does whatever he wants as long as he can get away with it.

Communism is a complete catastrophe and it won't go away until the people who grew up with it die out.

Or maybe medicine evolved?

Thats just the EE mentality and not communism fault

They conquered all the way to Paris

>Thats just the EE mentality and not communism fault
This mentality didn't exist before communism.

> maybe medicine evolved
It undoubtedly did, but even accounting for that, Hungary in the 80's was in the shitty USSR tier, whereas nowadays it is much closer to Western Europe in terms of mortality rate. The relative improvement can't be explained by medicine alone.

> this is EE's fault, not communism.

Because all the non-EE communist states where such roaring success stories of civic virtue?

For example hungarys history is full of corruption and betrayal

Kazakhstan is more powerful than all of ee combined for example

>betrayal
For religious/ethnic/feudal reasons. Other countries at the time were no different.

>Kazakhstan is more powerful
Kazakhstan is a shithole propped up with gas and oil money that has two real cities and the rest of the country still lives in fucking yurts. Be my guest if that's your idea of success.

> Kazakhstan is more powerful than all EE combined for example

lolno, but even if they were, there would be a pretty obvious reason for that, and it wouldn't be their impeccable political and economic structure...

If they have oil why wouldnt they export it????

you were making the point that their "success" was tied to some intelligent form of governance, at least that's how I understood it.

Having an economy that's 90% resource extraction has fuck all to do with good governance, though. Any lucky fucktard can do that.

Doesnt chabge the fact that they are more.seccesful than ee countries who still use soviet trains and metro trains

First of all, they aren't. They are behind most of EE on almost every socioeconomic parameter.

Second of all, seeing as that "success" is entirely tied to resource extraction, it can be inferred that the EE countries would be precisely as successful if they had the same luck.

They do export it. A lot of the "Russian" gas and oil that Eastern Europe imports is actually from countries like Kazakhstan. Also implying Kazakhstan is not corrupt as fuck is pretty laughable.

...

looks like a healthy, modern and complex, skill-based economy.

Precisely the kind of thing that Russians cannot into.

Yep. It's proper industrialized country but that guy seems to imply it's a shithole compared to fucking Kazakhstan of all places.

this picture is accurate af
t.russian

10th amendment.
Secession is legal because it's not explicitly made illegal by the constitution.
Nice try tho

>rape

would have saved us the trouble of everyone being butthurt over attacking a ((((neutral)))) country

What shots? You just said the same shit that every halfwit has been saying for the past decade.

Wrong, poles are BASED and keep out Muslims. I swear I'm moving to Poland if our American government fucks us to be with our white brothers