No.1741
Did Absolutist monarchies cause the french revolution and thus create the series of events to their own self destruction? Is there any worth in an Absolutist monarchy? How does /monarchy/ feel about the revolution in general?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1742
>>1741
Jews caused the French Revolution and absolutism is a meme just like muh dark ages
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1743
Seems that way, monarchs with less power stayed alive longer
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1745
>>1742
>muh jooz
Explain yourself.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1748
>>1741
As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn has said, it's not true that wherever there's smoke, there is also fire. Large fires can burn with little smoke, and large amounts of smoke can come from little ignitions. It's the same with revolutions. The continually oppressed North Koreans, so far, haven't revolted. Soviet citizens, under similar conditions, did try to rebel a few times. The Nazis had to deal with partisans and uprisings in many of the territories they brutalized.
The American War of Independence, on the other hand, wasn't fought out of desperation. The taxes the Americans revolted against were mild. That one was an ideological struggle. Same with the French Revolution. There wasn't a lot of oppression, people were discontent with their political rights but they had to eat, they weren't at risk of being tortured or killed, serfdom had largely been abolished, and nobles were actually on very friendly terms with the population in some places. In both cases, it certainly weren't peasants or wage laborers that did the revolutionary work, it were rich and educated burghers, aristocrats, and some of the clergy.
The same, by the way, is true for the Russian Revolution, although at least they were recovering from a far. Even there, the supposedly oppressed workers were the last to rise up, and contrary to popular belief, there weren't any serfs left to complain about their serfdom. Russia was also economically stronger than is usually let on.
>How does /monarchy/ feel about the revolution in general?
A nationalist, democratic, progressive chimpout. Helped drastically increase the size of the government and gave ideological legitimization to conscription. Severely fucked up France (I think it took fourty years before the volume of foreign exports in France reached the pre-revolution levels). Pushed secularism. I'm not a fan of it. It was the worst thing to happen to Europe since the Reformation.
>>1745
Seconding that.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1749
>>1743
Monarchs with less power did not need to be disposed of
>>1745
Freemasons (freemasonry is a jewish plot against humanity) did orchestrate the french revolution
>>1748
Partisans were terrorists. If your village houses and protects communist terrorists it deserves to be razed.
>it certainly weren't peasants or wage laborers that did the revolutionary work, it were rich and educated burghers, aristocrats, and some of the clergy.
It were the labourers in the cities agitated by the jews and rich liberals. The Catholic countryside did rebell against the revolutionary criminals and was genocided (vendee)
>The same, by the way, is true for the Russian Revolution
Yes. That one were also the jews
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1750
>>1749
>Partisans were terrorists. If your village houses and protects communist terrorists it deserves to be razed.
And if your invaders are not just invaders but fucking Nazis, they deserve to be shot dead by communists.
>It were the labourers in the cities agitated by the jews and rich liberals.
I'm not aware of many jews or liberals involved in the French Revolution. Unless you insist on applying the label liberal to totalitarians like Rawls.
>The Catholic countryside did rebell against the revolutionary criminals and was genocided (vendee)
We all know this, and no one disputed it.
>Yes. That one were also the jews
As in, every single jew on the planet? Poor jewish farmers? Rich people who happened to be jewish? Could you at least try to be specific? Names, places, dates, statistics, events…?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1751
>>1750
Ehh, are communists really the lesser of two evils?
And I’d argue that liberals were all over the French Revolution. The fact that there were totalitarians like Rawls among their ranks is simply liberals showing their true colors.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1752
>>1750
>>1751
>Rawls
I meant Rousseau. Not sure how I sperged that one up.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1754
>>1750
>And if your invaders are not just invaders but fucking Nazis, they deserve to be shot dead by communists.
kys
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1755
>>1754
Honestly I cannot stop thinking about this sentence. How does one become like this? Even the most deranged boomer cuck that watche FOX all day must understand that the people serving in the Wehrmacht were not 'NAZIS'. Truth be told not even actual National Socialists were 'NAZIS' like the ADL wants you to believe.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1756
>>1751
>Ehh, are communists really the lesser of two evils?
Compared with the Nazis as an invading force, and not as rulers of Germany, I would say so. Domestically, the Nazis were milder than most communist regimes, but abroad was a different story. If the Nazis had gotten hold in Eastern Europe, they probably would've started even worse eradication campaigns than Stalin did. After all, the Nazis killed between ten and twenty million civilians within twelve years, most of them abroad. At their worst, they absolutely could compete with Stalin and Mao.
I don't think that really matters, however. I never intended to defend the commies. I pointed out the partisans, the guy above sperged out and told me that the Nazis were in the right. Whether that's the case or not is a different discussion than the one the OP wanted to have, and yet he jumped on that one, single example and derailed his thread.
>>1754
If you love the Nazis so much, go back to >>>/pol/.
>>1755
>boomer cuck
>FOX
>ADL
Not a single of these references was necessary.
>NAZIS
You don't capitalize every single letter. No one does.
>the people serving in the Wehrmacht were not 'NAZIS'.
Some from the Wehrmacht were Nazis, some weren't, but even those were servants. And while the Wehrmacht wasn't as bad as the Waffen-SS across the board, it still had better and worse units. In France, Northern Europe and Africa, they were pretty civilized. On the eastern front, not so much.
Also, do I have to remind you that the Nazis waged a total war? They were very open about it, too. As far as I'm concerned, soldiers who leave civilians alone should be left alone by guerillas in turn, but when they make it an official policy not to leave them alone, then I'm fine with guerillas sniping them. You don't start a total war and then invoke rules of conduct.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1757
>>1752
>I meant Rousseau
And it’s on me for not just googling Rawls. No worries, friend.
And for what it’s worth, I’m not defending National Socialism. It’s an ideology born of the Enlightenment same as any form of modern politics. But the Wehrmacht most certainly were preferable to the communists. Empire-building is not inherently evil and the Wehrmacht did bring medical and scientific advancements to some of their conquered peoples or to the people whose countries they occupied during wartime, a la Romania.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1758
>>1756
>At their worst, they absolutely could compete with Stalin and Mao.
Does not allign with historical facts. Even if we assumed the holocaust actually happened. Which it didn't, of course.
>Not a single of these references was necessary.
I think they very much were. We need to remind us that even a boomer cuck libertarian Israel first ZOGbot could use the internet and infiltrate a community.
>but even those were servants.
Of their Fatherland. There's literally nothing wrong with defending your fatherland from bolshevist savages and American/French niggerhordes that want to rape your women.
Partisans killed innocents. Anyone supporting them was not innocent in return. The partisans did things that even jewish propaganda does not accredit to NAZIS.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1762
>>1758
>There's literally nothing wrong with defending your fatherland from bolshevist savages and American/French niggerhordes that want to rape your women.
By marching into Serbia?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1763
>>1757
>And for what it’s worth, I’m not defending National Socialism.
No worries, didn't take it at that.
>the Wehrmacht did bring medical and scientific advancements to some of their conquered peoples or to the people whose countries they occupied during wartime, a la Romania.
Thanks, gotta look this up. I knew they were quite civil in France or Denmark, for example, but wasn't sure about differences on the eastern front.
>>1758
>Does not allign with historical facts.
It does, even if you disregard the holocaust. Rudolph Rummel calculated the number of people they killed at twenty million, which is still fourteen million if we subtract the holocaust. Rummel certainly made miscalculations, but every other scholar that I consulted put the figure of people killed by the Nazis at several million, too.
>Of their Fatherland. There's literally nothing wrong with defending your fatherland from bolshevist savages and American/French niggerhordes that want to rape your women.
Well, like I said above, the Nazis had a weird way of protecting their country. They were building an empire, not protecting what territory they had, and they admitted as much. Look up the Lebensraum doctrine. While the war did become defensive eventually, it did not start that way.
>bolshevist savages
Funny you mention them. There was actually a big carryover of Marxists into the NSDAP, and Hitler had no problem allying with Stalin and submitting pieces of Poland to him. The Nazis weren't the big defenders.
>Partisans killed innocents. Anyone supporting them was not innocent in return. The partisans did things that even jewish propaganda does not accredit to NAZIS.
Let me remind you again: I wasn't even defending the partisans. This entire debate started because I said something against the Nazis and then you threw an autistic fit over how they weren't that bad. Do you Natsocs always have to be so damn defensive?
As for your argument above, that's a blatant double standard. The Nazis killed innocents, too, sometimes very brutally (I know, that was all propaganda), sometimes evil in more subtle ways. What would you call murdering the mentally handicapped?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1764
>>1762
Yes actually. The German minorities that were denied their right to self determination by the Americans in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia faced persecution and abuse. The invasions of Poland and Czechoslovakia in particular were nothing more than defence of German soil occupied by foreign forces. While there used to be sizable amounts of German settlements in Yugoslavia, and even some in Serbia in particular for that matter, that war was largely motivated by Italy's ambitions. And Mussolini was not a National Socialist.
>It does
You do not seem to be aware of the severity of communist crimes then.
>They were building an empire
Germany has always been an empire
> not protecting what territory they had
There were sizable parts of Germany that were occupied by foreign forces. A German Empire needs to defend the rights of all Germans, not just the rights of some arbitrary area drawn on some allied board. This was the conviction of the Germans of that era.
> Look up the Lebensraum doctrine.
This was not the motivation of your average Wehrmacht soldier.
>The Nazis weren't the big defenders.
They defended Germany from bolshevists and Germans from foreign oppression. That was part of the reason they became so popular. There was great injustice done to Germans mainly by the Anglos, but also by the French and the Slavs of course. And no one else was willing to right their wrongs. So the first group that attempted to was hailed as heroes.
>Do you Natsocs always have to be so damn defensive?
I am not a national socialist and the Nazis you think about are a post war myth.
>As for your argument above, that's a blatant double standard. The Nazis killed innocents, too, sometimes very brutally (I know, that was all propaganda), sometimes evil in more subtle ways. What would you call murdering the mentally handicapped?
I do not see how that's related. I suppose many evil things were done in history and many wicked policies implemented. But that does not change that every soldier killed while serving in the Wehrmacht was as much of a hero as one killed in the imperial forces in WWI.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1766
>>1764
>Yes actually. The German minorities that were denied their right to self determination by the Americans in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia faced persecution and abuse. The invasions of Poland and Czechoslovakia in particular were nothing more than defence of German soil occupied by foreign forces.
And all the while, Hitler talked about enlarging German "Lebensraum". You're substituting your defense for the war for the defense that the Nazis themselves used. Unsurprisingly, the conduct of the Nazis did not reflect the rationale you gave for it.
Just for the record, though:
>The German minorities that were denied their right to self determination by the Americans in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia faced persecution and abuse.
That is correct, and I'd have some sympathy for the Nazis had they decided to clean up this entire mess which the Allies made. They didn't, however.
>While there used to be sizable amounts of German settlements in Yugoslavia, and even some in Serbia in particular for that matter, that war was largely motivated by Italy's ambitions. And Mussolini was not a National Socialist.
Point taken. My general point still stands, however, that the Nazis had the intent of waging war offensively. And that is very important. The intent with which a war is waged changes both its conduct and how peace can be made.
>Germany has always been an empire
Not spanning nearly as far as the Nazis intended to, plus these empires were never ruled by filthy socialists. That the Nazis were tyrants, even domestically, is kind of a central point.
>There were sizable parts of Germany that were occupied by foreign forces. A German Empire needs to defend the rights of all Germans, not just the rights of some arbitrary area drawn on some allied board. This was the conviction of the Germans of that era.
Absolutely agreed, but see above.
>This was not the motivation of your average Wehrmacht soldier.
True. Like I said, I do not condemn the Wehrmacht as a whole, or every individual soldier. Some units were just soldiers protecting their Fatherland (especially when Germany was withdrawing), others had to know that they were participating in a more or less brutal war of aggression, and yet others willingly participated in massacres or knowingly enabled them. I still have little doubt that on some parts of the front, all soldiers belonged to the latter groups.
>I am not a national socialist
Okay, that's good then.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1767
>>1766
It doesn't seem like we disagree on an integral point here then. I'd still require you to execute a partisan terrorist before I'd trust you
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1770
>>1763
He's denying the Holocaust, you should really stop talking to people at that point. He's down the rabbit hole.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1771
>>1770
Oy vey shut it down
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1773
>>1767
I'm glad we could realize this agreement, then.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4903
what was the french revolution?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4949
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4964
People place far too much weight in the French Revolution. The madness of this modern world is plainly traced back to no other event than the Great War
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.