France

France was the leader in interwar tonk development. They just implemented that technology in a piss-poor manner because they didn't have the ground-breaking idea of putting a radio in every tank to aid in communication.

You have to start at 1815 because they were the dominant power of Western Europe for almost 2000 years before that. Lol try harder.

He was a good commander and fairly revolutionary in his logistics and some of his tactics. He was the first in a long while to institute a draft (maybe the first ever in western tradition).

Issue was that he was too ambitious. French revolution was a big mistake, tho.

Last I checked that's when the Romans and franks were raping gaul out of existence. France was relevent and powerful after that under charles martel and the carolingian dynasty, but by the time we get to them threatening to schism with the catholic church over owing their own knights templar too much money from borrowing to fuel an incessent desire to fight england they began to go back to garbage.

That's because the English were trying to claim the French throne.

Don't forget the colossal fuck up that was the Franco-Prussian War.

Napoleon had a sad life.

All his friends died and he ended up alone, surrounded by incompetent cowards for the rest of his life.

The French used to be tall, blonde and stronk warriors but over time turned into brown faggots

You fucking what m8? France tried to pretend that England was a French Duchy for centuries. If you're talking about Edward III then he was the last valid Capetian heir before the Valois fucks pushed their (unlawful) claim.

Napoleon was the last hurray for the french.

De Gaulle tried but he fought on the wrong side.

Everything later is just pure faggotry.

First, no, UK was.
Second, France interwar military industrial complex is a carbon copy of the US one today.
An insane amount of money was poured in, a few prototypes came out that were never properly developed or adopted, (((someone))) pocketing the difference.
That's also the reason for the Maginot Line. The army NEVER WANTED IT, except in the few places where it was geographically sound, they fought tooth and nail against any extension from the first segments.
The politicians loved it. All big construction contracts comes with kickbacks.
From 1922 to the war the french assembly was a SOCIALIST majority. And this is probably gonna be a shock to you, but socialists are the most inept and corrupt people on the planet.
They actively were sabotaging the army because they were sure the generals were dreaming at night to put them against a wall and shoot them all (to be perfectly fair, they probably weren't wrong).

Of course since you history books are written by socialists that tiny bit of information doesn't make it to the general public.

Don't forget that DeGaul was such a desperate publicity whore that the British military had to keep him out of the loop on all planning because anything he heard about became public knowledge a few hours later.

De Gaulle was such a publicity whore his ego was the main reason as to why the french army was such a clusterfuck.
Again something carefully let out of history books.
His most famous book was censored by the military. He published it anyway as a civilian publication. In it was how about what was needed was a 3000 tanks and 100k professional infantry lead by a strong command (which wasn't his opinion, but the opinion at large of the whole french command).
Of course the socialists politicians immediately took this as obvious proof that the military was planning a coup as such force would only answer to the generals, and De Gaulle being largely considered as Petain successor and the rising star of the army made fucking sure no firm order of tanks or actual reform would take place before it was far too late.
That was the reason why the book had been censored in the first place as the generals knew that publishing something like that, even if they agreed on the content, was pretty much a declaration of intent against the french parliament.

SAD!

Just look at the anglo butthurt.

Attached: 7f3d4c43e7daf6d1cab41ef250b8f5e73b8e82605d58c4d92a923c13389f8c10.webm (640x360, 11.43M)

So, which one of you faggots did it?

If starting today major fires erupted every day in allied countries, that would be a spectacular buildup to Adolf's birthday this Saturday.

Attached: 1415806904873.jpg (920x400, 77.09K)

Natgeo didn't think this through.

I was sure hitler's birthday always coincides with US secretary of state visiting Poland (^:

wait Irlmaier stop I need more time, not yet

This.

Let me regale you with a grand tale of French failure

Man, if the brits got beaten at Tralfalgar, Western and Central Europe would be united under a Napoleon empire in the 1810s.

I wonder what would happen then.

Would've imploded the minute serfs were losing their loyality to their local lord, and started to be pan nationalist.
Maybe it would've been so extreme that even Bretagne, Basque, Occitan and Flanders including the obvious parts that weren't franconized yet, which were subjugated just only over two decades ago, will see actual seperatist movements. They also will be succesful because of the clusterfuck that is the multikulti Napoleonic Empire, having rivals and butthurt former enemies surrounding it.

Wouldn't the pan-nationalists support Napoleon considering that what he wants for Europe, a pan-national empire?

If there is no actual power backing the separatists movement, they would basically the French resistance i.e. cucks.

No only their own linguistic borders, you got pan slavism or pan europeanism mixed up with the more narrow linguistic borders of Western Europe
The british survived and still remember the good old times, they will be ultra reactionary and want their empire back, even when they have been turned vassals to the French crown.

I can see the slavs being hard to convert, but french, german and brits all borrow bits and bits from each other. Napoleon himself is fluent in both french and german. And there was a precedent i.e. Charlesmagne.
What can they do? The brits are toothless without their navy.

The French and British fought multiple wars over the last 800 years, most famously the 100 years war. Not to mention hundreds of conflicts between the French and Italian/German states. Of course their loyality on both sides was primarly to their nobles, but even then one could see that one is different than the enemy.
Only with the real take off of newspapers this feeling got a confirmation by revolutionary pan nationalist voices.
And all the nobles of Europe were able to speak French, that doesn't mean that the people, now motivated by this pan nationalist dream will take this as an argument to stay with the French, on the contrary, they will think of their 'oppressors' as foreign, as French, as the enemy.
Support seperatist movements, that have sprung up all over Europe, with funds, arms, munitions, mercenaries, provisions, instructors, officers, etc.
Their motivation is to keep the French occupied with quelling those uprisings all over their Empire, it will have a domino effect, even if they instantly take action. It is the time of fast information, of course not as fast as our times, but surely faster than the times before.
Even just printing newspapers and leaflets, speaking of the utopia that are nation states, then distribute them would make a huge impact.

You mention newspapers meant to disrupt, but this same newspaper can be used to bolster the argument for Napoleon as the pan-nationalist unifier?

Of course, the brits, french and germans regularly engage in wars, but when one is soundly defeated by the other, I fail to see any argument for uprising considering the whole France and Germany used to belong to the same Frankish empire.
It's not different to the allies support to the various partisan and resistance movements in WW2 then, except it would mean less considering warfare back in the 1810s still relies on linear formation and cannons.

Unifier of what? Europe? Nobody wanted pan europeanism.
In the 19th century, the Frankish empire was dead for 1000 years already.
The Austria Empire almost collapsed because of the 1848 revolutions, if they wouldn't have had support by Russia and Prussia.
Now imagine uprisings like the Hungarian revolution or San Marco, but everywhere over Napeleon's empire, including people supporting those seperatist movements and no outside support by all great powers, because they don't want to protect the status quo before the revolutions like they did in our timeline.

But they wanted pan-nationalism?
But it served as a precedent.
Why wouldn't they? What makes Napoleon rule different than say the Austrian rule or the Prussian rule?

You forgot France being killed by Germans in 1870. Their upstart manlet emperor, got captured only 5-6 weeks after the start of the war and ended their Empire.

Attached: 55E268EE-CA0D-4AAA-BFBF-2B9B260EF537.jpeg (206x244 132.66 KB, 20.31K)

Pan-nationalism is not pan-europeanism, you inbred vietcong. Pan-nationalism reffers to the pan-german movements that sought to unite germany into a nation state, to similar movements seeking to unify Italy, to pan-slavism and others. Seriously, educate yourself.

The kraut already explained pan-nationalism, you don’t understand the concept it’s ethnic nationalism regardless of legal borders. Pan-German nationalism was the desire to unify all Germans across all countries. Pan-Scandinavian nationalism is the desire to unify all Scandinavians regardless of country. It is not multi-culturalism and is not pan-European thought. The nationalism part is not in regards to established nations but is for actual nationalism. Napoleon annexing Wallonia and the Dutch lands and North west Germany is not a unification of ethnicy and not pan-nationalism, no one saw him as a unifier just because their nobility spoke French, the concept of German nationalism goes back to Friedrich the Great (who considered French the patrician’s language and only used German to speak to his social lessers) where peasants saw him as a pan-German leader like Arminius, although that was mostly the view of Protestant Germans.
You must note the time between the Frankish empire and Napoleon, 1000 years. Do you really think the average person even knew about the Frankish empire in the early 1800’s? Even today with access to history resources a google search away the vast majority of people don’t even know the general history of the last 50 years let alone 1000 years ago. My parents don’t can’t even remember Czechoslovakia broke apart yet you think the average peasant in the early 1800’s knew about an Empire from 1000 years ago? Let alone thought an empire that had been dead for 1000 years was a valid reason to unify or fight for a French leader? That thought is retarded at best.

oh shit! CHECKED
I wish Bismarck allowed the annexation of Austria proper and Istria instead of sperging out and threatening suicide. I understand his concern over alliances but surely they could have figured something out? As far as I know the Brits weren’t hostile to them before the Reich surpassed them in Industrialization and Wilhelm II’s fleet. I don’t see why Italy or Hungary couldn’t have been an ally, and they couldn’t have been an worse ally then Austro-Hungary was. Though Mediterranean access would have split the German fleet and we all know how well they did in WWI when confined to just the Baltic and North Seas, though German Mediterranean sub warfare would have been interesting.

Should have read this before posting this Gook is clearly room-temp IQ and semi-illiterate.

Bismarck actually allowed a group of former Hungarian revolutionaries serving in the Prussian army towards Hungary in 1866. It's too bad that for Bismarck, the possibility of another Hungarian revolution was but a boogeyman to be used against the Austrians so that they could sign the peace treaty faster. It's also a shame how Deák and his retarded passive aggressive tea party only used the Austro-Prussian War and the effects of the battle of Könniggrätz to push for the Compromise of 1867 instead of using his reputation and influence to restart the revolution.

*to march towards

Napolean was fucking russia up. If he had bunkered down for winter at the last town he conquered instead of going for Moscow he'd have been fine. Those nutcase russkies fled moscow and burned it. Who the fuck would have predicted that?

It can mold into that when Napoleon propagated that France and Germany used to belong to the same country.

And pan-Frankish nationalism was the desire to unify all frankish across all countries, thus Napoleon can do that.
Was the first Reich multicultural because it contains both celts and germans, as well as slavs?
Was the 2nd Reich multicultural because it contains slavs as well as african colonials?
Was the 3rd Reich multicultural because it also contains poles, french and slavs?
Why not? The northern french are basically germanic in blood.
Or people can see him as a unifier because he's the next reincarnation of Charlesmagne.
And you bring up Arminius, who was even further than that, yet still brought up by German nationalism.
Yes they do, everyone know Charlesmagne due to the greatness of basic education, given to even peasants (except maybe in Russia).
Well, the Arminius argument holds, if the german nationalists can hold up Arminius, Napoleon can hold Charlesmagne.

And ironically enough, Prussia in the 1800s were ga-ga on Charlesmagne.
cpb-eu-w2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.bristol.ac.uk/dist/c/332/files/2016/01/Paulus-2017-From-Charlemagne-to-Hitler.pdf

Like Hitler said, the Habsburgs were the worst thing to happen to Austria, while I respect the nation and their accomplishments as emperor of the HRE, I can’t help but think Austria and Europe would have been better off with the Großdeutsche Lösung. Although as I said without much for allience prospects WWI might have occurred sooner and resulted in a much worse off Germany.

A Mutt conflating ethnic nationalism with patriotism, shouldn’t surprise me but still, I’m shocked you can be so dense. Inb4 Spergook on VPN.

Frankish as a group of what? The people that used to live under the Frankish state? You purposely ignored all definitions of pan-nationalism to prove you have a fraction of an IQ point. Here in the colonies it’s evidently hard for many people to understand but ethnicity is not dependent on state. You are not American ethnically because America is a state and American only is a title for residents of the state. German is a name for a peticular nationhood and ethnicity of which you can belong to either or both, but to be a German national you do not have to be an ethnic German (of which even that is a grouping of various more distinct groups which can be further refined).
Germanic ≠ German
Or people saw him as a representation of a school girl in a certain Asiatic art style that would be formed in over 100 years. But they didn’t, because no one did.
Knowing the name and claim to fame of a historic figure doesn’t mean you know the political climate of the era. Most people today don’t even know what WWI was besides “Germany vs. Britain, France and America.” I could well be wrong, but I highly doubt the average person knew more than just the name and perhaps a single fact or two about Charlemagne. Literacy rates in 1820 were ~40% in France and nearly ~60% in Germany, So it’s possible.
Debatable, I can’t say for certain. Yet knowing about a 800 year old state doesn’t mean anyone would want to recreate it. Since your grammar is similarly bad to spergook’s, I’ll ask this: does France owning your country 80 years ago mean that if France invaded today any sizeable group would support France over your government? I’d reckon the answer is an outstanding no. So now pretend France and your country have bad relations and now that they controlled you nearly a millennium ago. Regardless you can come up with all the what-ifs that you want, but your opinion is plain conjecture, and your understanding of the concepts of pan-nationalism and ethnicity seem to be zero, worse yet you have nothing to back up your claim, you didn’t even bring up German mercenaries.

He admitted to being vietnamese in the other thread.

Spergook has used a burger vpn for a long time, I always go by flag and I usually don't pay attention to typing, but spergook always makes the same mistakes, though I usually just assume it's a publicly educated burger.

Where did I say that? Was it patriotic for germans to remember Charlesmagne? Or is it nationalist?
As europeans of western Europe.
True, which is why there are germans in France and french in Germany, ergo, it's possible to merge the two states.
That's not how nationhood works.
Yeah, because he didn't do it, not because he cannot.
The political climate of the era definitely knows of Charlesmagne, simply as the founder of the 1st great.
Apparently, they want to follow Arminius in creating a national german state, but they don't want to follow Charlesmagne in re-creating the 1st Reich.
No, because there's no historical precedence of such thing. While, the 1st Reich was the union of France and Germany.
I bring up the historical precedence and specific propaganda that Napoleon can use. You are pretending german does not know of Charlesmagne in the 1800s.

It's me, spergook.

My work computer's IP is banned so I use a VPN.

HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES

Stopped reading there; what's more interesting is how you are able to use a computer on your own.

Attached: bd8f792a6c8a9a45e60e0230d2d79fb8eee16ad8f02827d7c4c82e1e3dc256f0.png (1190x906, 178.45K)

Why?

Didn't you say ethnicity trounces statehood?

The last Habsburg ruler worthy to respect was Charles V.
Not necesseraly. Hungary liberated with the Austrians being bogged down with Prussia would had surely been an uncompromising ally to Germany (Deáks argument to staying with Austria was the looming Russian menace and their pan-Slavic efforts) and Italy could had probably been won for the German cause by ceding the Italian-majority parts of South Tirol, Istria and Dalmatia to them. Now what happens with Bohemia and Galicia is a different matter. The Czechs could had probably settle with their independence, but what do you do with Galicia? Give it to Russia to calm down their possible concerns for destroying the Habsburg Empire? Make it into an independent Poland (I don't think the Russians would be too happy about it).

Would Hungary have been able to pull their weight by the late 1800's or would it have been a defensive ally favouring Hungary more than Germany? I know the ethnic mess of the A-H empire in WWI didn't turn out great for you guys all the time, but I honestly can't say I know about Hungarian strength at the time.
South Tirol was nearly entirely (90%+) German Speaking in 1918, so I'd imagine it was a similar situation 70 years prior. Though I'm sure Dalmatia would have been negotiable, I wonder if German access to the Adriatic and thus Mediterranean sea would have been an interest or negotiable for Germany, and memes aside I wonder how loyal or competent of an ally Italy would have been. Though the threat of the alliance might have been worth more than its military value.
Is Slovakia split between Hungary and Czechia? Either way were Bismarck still Chancellor, and didn't jump out of a window in autistic protest, I'd say appeasing Russia would be the most likely bet.
I don't think before WWI the Reich cared much at all about an independent Poland.

Well, that kind of depends on what kind of border you are going to split the Habsburg Empire along. If you go along with the ethnic makeup as much as you can, then you get Austria, the German-inhabited parts of South Tirol, Sudetenland and German-inhabited Burgenland given to Germany, Czechia, Hungary (and Szeklerland?), Croatia and Slovenia becoming independent, the Serbian-majority Délvidék going to Serbia, the Polish majority territories becoming Poland and the Ukrainianif this is a legit existing nationality, not to mention the question of Ruthenians-majority territories becoming Ukraine as shown on pic1 (couldn't find a better map of ethnic makeup, and I know its not from 1866-1870, you could also ignore Bosnia, as it wasn't part of the Habsburg Empire between 1866-1870). In this scenario you get a bunch of small nation-states, most of which would had ending up being the bitchboys of Italy, Germany or getting eaten up by them or Russia. Or you can go on a more sensible route (pic2), give German Austria and Slovenia to Germany, make Czechia independent with Sudetenland included, create the independent Hungary with its traditional borders and give the Italian-majority parts of the former empire to Italy. With this, you get a Hungary that would be forced to either go on a Switzerland-esque route of giving its nationalities territorial autonomy, or go full magyarization on them, potentially ending up with rising tensions if not outright civil war in it. If the Swiss route works, then you get a Hungary that would probably be strong enough to pull its weight well into the end of 1800s if not up until today as the Carpathians provided (and it still does today to a certain degree) a good amount of raw resources, while the fertile lands of the Carpathian Basin gives more than enough food for the residents of the territory. Now what about Czechia or the Slovenes under German rulership is certainly unknown before me. Not to mention how would you give the Serbian-majority lands to Serbia, when they were still Ottoman vassals in 1866.
Giving the entirety of Dalmatia and Istria to Germany could serve as an obstacle to a German-Italian alliance though, not to mention what the Croatians would say to it in case they become independent.
There could be literally no reason for Italy to be hostile to Germany in case they get their fair share of territories. Competence might be another question, but I'd still have a united nation state as an ally over an "empire" with a patchwork of different ethnicities, religions and cultures inhabiting it.
Then again, depends on what kind of goal you want to pursue. You either make Slovakia independent, cede it completely to Czechia or leave it with Hungary. I don't know hopw you're with it, but the last time I saw, Slovaks weren't entirely happy with being in the same state as Czechia…
That's where the Galician question comes in. You either make them split between Poles and Ukrainians and amke them an easy feast for the Russians, or create the free Poland on its entirety, probably ending up with the same results, or you just give it to Russia and
a)appease their hunger for a while
b)give them additional Poles to be tied down with, as Poles had a habit of rising up against the Russians
It maybe didn't, but the Poles already wanted to become independent both from Russia, Germany and the Habsburg Empire by the mid 19th century.

Attached: pic2.png (1024x792 472.91 KB, 466.84K)

Might I step in and ask what happened to this French thread?

Shouldn't we discuss what Napoleon should have done to maintain his empire?

Why did the French lose the colonial game in the new world?

The hell you even talking about? The reasons for split were economical. There wasn't some sort of a big uproar over how the federation should be ended, there wasn't any kind of refferend, it was just our politicians sitting together and going "splitting the country would help the economy" and so they did that.

Their continuous lost against the English.

After Napoleon defeat, France effectively becomes England's pet.

This is some big talk from an American. You aren't exactly military geniuses either.

If a country has such a weak cohesion that it splits apart because of economic reasons, there isn't really anything to hold them together anyway.

There wasn't anything pulling us apart either, though.

The Slovakians were unhappy because the obvious economical disparity between the Slovakian and Czech territories and what they claimed to be "Praha sucking away the money from Slovakia". Not to mention the fact that if we don't take the linguistical similarities into consideration (Slovakian language is basically 90% Czech) the average Czechs andseem to have as many in common with the average Slovak as the average Anglo has with the average burger.

France was constantly at war with everyone from the 1600's to the last stands of 1800's.
As such it never experienced the European population boom.
France in the 1600's had a QUARTER of the European population. In mid 1800's UK had more and the future German states twice as more.
And the subsequent revolutions of the late 1700's and 1800's made it so it only experienced the second European population boom very marginally.

If french demography had followed the European trend it would be a 400M people country today.

Kinda amazing that Napoleon fought of what? Seven armies with such population count and hasty mobilization.

And Czechs were long complaining about "money pipeline to Slovakia" as the perspective was we're sending shitloads of money just to bring our eastern neighbours into modern age. But if you consider some idle complaining over a cup of beer to be in anyway significant, you might be retarded. The only party actually fighting for Slovakian independence got 9% (and that's counting JUST Slovakia, not Slovakia + Bohemia). Election results had the leading party in Bohemia and Slovakia unable to find a compromise they'd both like, so they simply ended the federacy. None of this had support of the public - neither party included dissolution of czechoslovakia in their election program, neither party conducted any sort of poll or refferend among the people to see what they'd like. It was purely the decision of the politicians, independent on the opinion of the people.

He did also have a fair bit of canon fodder from the puppet states.

That's AFTER he won against the initial waves and gained some puppet states.

I still think a Napoleonic Europe would have been a better Europe.

To win against Napoleon, England sold itself to kikes, specifically the Rothschild.

The UK could had sold itself out to the Rotschilds even if they lose the war to Napoleonic France (you know, because in this case, they just lost a war and they have to recover from it somehow). Unless the UK gets invaded by France, but I just can't see a possibility for it after the battle of Trafalgar in 1805.

The truth is that Napoleon was also indebted to the Rothschild, and perhaps the Napoleonic war could be a called a Rothschild war. But Napoleon has more backbones than the elites in UK at the times. Wellington is just another general, he can't decide politics.
True too but at least their influence on the world would be greatly lessened, assuming Napoleon doesn't become the next Rothschild puppet.

Pretty much everyone was indebted to the Jews by the 1800s in Europe.
That might be true, but Horatio Nelson certainly did have some kind of a political influence the moment his fleet effectively destroyed the French fleet, denying Napoleon the chance to land his army in England.
For that, the very least Napoleon should had do is to banish the Jews (and with them the Rothschilds) from the entirety of Europe, and that is where the conquest of the UK comes into the question.

>Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, KG, GCB, GCH, PC, FRS was an Anglo-Irish soldier and Tory statesman who was one of the leading military and political figures of 19th-century Britain, serving twice as Prime Minister.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (700x500, 551.38K)

Is it just me, or does Napoleon look like a soyboy?

Duly noted.

I've never seen a map before with South Tirol being ethnically Italian, It was majority German speaking so I figured it was ethnically south German, interesting to know that's not the case.
With German backing I'm sure the latter would be possible but that could be the spark needed for WWI if Russia defends Romanians in Hungary.
I meant Dalmatia would be something that can be given up in negotiations, but German interests might want Mediterranean access, so Istria might be debated between Italy and Germany.
Well Italy switched sides pretty quick in WWI for the promise of Dalmatia and Tirol, even with the promise of a wealth of potential colonies, if they stayed with the central powers.
I'd imagine Czechoslovakia would be the best option as it's yet another buffer between Germany and Russia, and a unified nation would be stronger and more coordinated in a potential war than two smaller nations, though Czechoslovakia would have to be German puppet to ensure they don't ally with the Russians for pan-slavic purposes, likely placing a Hohenzollern on the throne. Though what the people themselves would do is another matter since a loyal monarch doesn't mean a people loyal to a German alliance.
That'd be the solution I think would make the most sense.
And giving them Galicia would either cause unrest in Russia from Poles having a free nation and wanting to join or Russia eats Galicia immediately and WWI breaks out and Germany pretends to support their Independence again.

They couldn't decide on whether they wanted to focus on colonizing or remaining a European military power, England had the benifit of not having any enemies which could invade them so they could focus on colonizing and their navy to protect trade and thus gain more money to put into a navy, rather than focus on a navy and Army at the same time. The Seven Years Wars was basically the end of French colonial power and their dual focus was a big lead up to the French Revolution.

Didn't Napoleon land troops in Ireland? I think I read that once, could be bullshit though.

Then why didn't Wellington do something about the Rothschild?

France used to be the greatest, but them jews made the French Revolution (the base of all commie/democratic revolutions) and killed all the meds. The french became as cucked as the north europeans.

He actively rallied against Jewish emancipation while in parliament.

Goddamn, another war time commander got cucked by peaceniks.