>nation in decline. >invade neighbors to annex land and revitalize economy

>nation in decline
>invade neighbors to annex land and revitalize economy
>it all goes wrong and hastens your decline
What are some other examples of this? Uganda invading Tanzania comes to mind.

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Rome in the end

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Weren't they the ones getting invaded?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I believe he might be referring to the same thing as me - 55529429

        Byzantine empire = Eastern Roman Empire.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          the roman empire's leadership structure persists even to this day as the catholic church and eastern orthodox church

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I don't think that it's close. Byz did fight all it's neighbours at one point. But where often at the defending end of it, rarely they attacked, even when they did it was often a retaliation. They often went overboard in pushing strifes for too long, gaining mortal enemies in the process. But their main downfall was that they were too rich, even at their worst, they still had powerful trading networks, so everyone wanted a piece of that.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Fuck off, dumbass plebbitor tourist.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dacia was a mistake

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The problem was Roman civilization was entirely built on looting richer nations. It's how they paid their soldiers. When the loot ran out, collapse was inevitable. There was no other way to pay their professional military.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's why it took them 350 years to collapse after they stopped conquering (450 if we only count countries richer than Rome)?

        https://i.imgur.com/6e6nP6G.jpg

        >This is a reading with a lot of hindsight. Before the revolutions of 1848 France was still seen as a great power and basically evberyone shat their pants that another Napoleon would show up.
        It's probably why France ended up in the Franco-Prussian war with ZERO allies. They believed their own hype.

        they ended up with no allies because of Napoleon's inconsistent foreign policy

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >That's why it took them 350 years to collapse after they stopped conquering (450 if we only count countries richer than Rome)?
          You don't understand what happened.
          The Roman army was paid wages, but these were pretty trash and how they really made money was through looting. This worked fine when they were up against the Italian states, Carthage, Greece, and to a lesser extent Persia. All of them had material wealth in the form of gold. Very good loot for a soldier.
          But Spain, Gaul, Dacia, and ESPECIALLY Germania didn't have that in large supply. What it had instead was land, and while Spain and Gaul had very good land, Germania and Dacia did not. So there was a slow decline in loot. First the Roman army enriched themselves with the spoils of the Mediterranean. Then they contented themselves with good farmland in Spain and Gaul. And then there was nothing left. So expansion stopped and the whole system began to eat itself. The army was always demanding higher and higher wages, and supported usurpers who promised them this. Eventually it just became an all out brawl and the position of Emperor lost all real legitimacy, it was just a throne for a warlord. Then the empire was divided in two, the rich eastern half survived (because it could pay its soldiers off of trade wealth) and the poorer west fell (because it couldn't pay very well, and the army just nope'd out). But the ultimate cause was they ran out of places to loot.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you know that there were whole generations of roman soldiers who earned nothing but their basic wage throughout entirety of their service and basically nothing bad happened? Antonin Pius, ever heard of this guy? He had no problems with army revolts or warlords or whatever. If it worked as you think it did, the entire roman army system would collapse in 20 years, not 350 for fucks sake
            >main loot roman soldiers had from spain and gaul was land
            you can't loot land you moron, if there was no gold soldiers were just taking slaves for themselves, or even farm animals, which was their usual loot during campaigns against richer states too, not everyone had the opportunity to loot a palace
            army veterans received plots of land, sure, but it was mostly during the late republic when giving it to ex-soldiers was crucial for the army to work, imperial system worked differently
            Spain and Gaul were both conquered in the republican times too, so it makes no sense to say
            >well, first they conquered rich greece and then just poor spain and then nothing
            spain was conquered around the same time syria was conquered, gaul shortly after
            >the army was always demanding higher and higher wages
            yes, after they were spoiled by emperors like Karakalla and other usurpers
            competitors for the throne were outbiding each other and tried to bribe the biggest number of soldiers they could, it didn't just randomly start happening

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Absolute meme.
        The Roman military during the height of the empire was geared around conquest. The reforms of Diocletian and Constantine changed the military structure to a force that is more about defending what you have instead of conquering new territories so it wasn't an issue anymore.
        What you described was one of the reasons the Crisis of the 3rd Century has been triggered though we can blame the Severans for fucking up the army/economy relation.

        The Western half broke apart because everyone who saved Rome was betrayed.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not really. The closest we get is Justinian and Trajan, but those were the zenith of their power. Justinian got fucked by the bubonic plague and Trajan's conquests in Mesopotamia were abandoned for administrative purposes, it was simply way too much of a hassle for an administration that was already stretched to breaking. But the Dacian gold-mines bankrolled much of the empire for a relatively long time, although it too was abandoned for being completely exposed to attack. Rome's decline was very much gradual and over a long period of time, west as well as east. Even after the Fourth Crusade, Byzantium still survived as kingdoms in exile and endured for almost two more centuries after Constantinople was retaken.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      At least Rome was the most prosperous nation in the world for thousands of years.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Argentina and the Falklands

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I agree on the first two points but did it hasten Argentina's decline?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The defeat lead directly to the collapse of the military dictatorship.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The opposite is also true. It kept Thatcher in power in the UK and showed that they still had a pretty decent military.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >and showed that they still had a pretty decent military.
          There seemed to be a contemporary surprise that this was the case.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > There seemed to be a contemporary surprise that this was the case.
            There was, and not a small amount. The brits hadn't been in a major conflict for some time and as that article suggests, they were perceived as nothing like the great power they had once been. Some regard it as the first modern war. For example televised reporters as part of frontline combat units, but the military keeping a tight grip on opsec and what they could report. It set the blueprint for what happened in the first gulf war.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >For example televised reporters as part of frontline combat units, but the military keeping a tight grip on opsec and what they could report.

              Interesting you note that because there was plenty of the former in Vietnam, but the military and government couldn't keep a leash on the press there which allowed them to romp around the country and report as they pleased.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are the three at the base of the ramp insurance against a cheeky Argentine intercept while the deck is covered in cargo? Could they even have hit it if they did a one way trip, bombed it on empty tanks as it entered the theatre then ejected?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Most of the Uk government wanted to hold peace talks with Argentina. It was only Thatcher who refused and insisted that they took back the Falklands with a military expedition.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      *Malvinas

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >*Malvinas
        Hhahahahahahahahaha. In your dreams, Gaucho boy.
        >I know it was bait but it gave me an excuse to break out the redcoats. And we do love our redcoats

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Wait, when the fuck did the Brits invade Mexico?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            French intervention in Mexico, we were backing the frogs because the Mexican fucking shits weren't paying their debts and also fuck republicanism and democracy.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >frogs did it so actually, we did it
              impressive mental gymnastics
              I'm not even gonna ask about finland or latvia then

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Landed troops in Veracruz alongside along with Spain as a tripartite action with France so yeah we did, just peaced out early because Juarez agreed to pay his bills.
                Finland/Latvia are probably WW1 aftermath asspulls though, unless you want to count English contributions to the Northern Crusades, but going by that logic you'd have to count the rest of Central Asia too for all the times we re-directed a tribe of Horse-Spawn to screw with the Ruskies.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            When did Britian invade Mexico?

            Mexico? Brazil? Argentina? I'm British - all the same to me and we've invaded them all - it was just a slur against south Americans

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              That's a really stupid fucking way to back out of a statement. Are you one of those "chavs" they talk about in the news?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Britain is not a country. Scots, Welsh have also been invaded by the English. And the English have been invaded by the Danes

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It wasn't the cross of St George flying over 2/3rd of the world.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >the cross of St George

              Languages of Scotland
              Main : English (98.6%)[1]

              Scotland is a colony of the English, the worst thing about it is that they're still a colony of the English in 2022

              >2/3rd of the world

              99% of it was empty unhabited desert and the rest was inhabited by spear throwing tribes

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Bullshit.
                The original national groups were split between the highlands (pictish then gaelic) and the lowlands (kingdom of northumbria). The english language, in one form or another, was always the native language of the richer, more important southern half of the country, not a foreign import.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Somebody tell him how they got colonized by Irish Gaels first long before the Angl*s showed up.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I read some post a while ago that anglos are kind of white mutts that just absorbed other whites into them over and over, getting insanely good at warfare and domination. seems kind of right actually

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Scotland isn’t a mono-ethnic country, never has been. Lowlanders were once welsh, east highlanders gaels and west highlanders and islanders a mix on Picts and Norse.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wales isn’t a country it’s a principality. And the Scottish king united the crown with England not the other way around, you seething historylet.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          When did Britian invade Mexico?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            They were a part of the coalition that invaded Mexico in 1859, though the credit for that usually goes to France.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's oversimplifying things somewhat. There was no "collapse". The war ended on June 14th 1982. The military held elections in December 1983 and relinquished power in March 1984, nearly 2 years after the war. There were no riots, looting, uprisings or whatever during those two years- it was a completely peaceful transitional period. Things happened this way because the Junta was already on it's way out by late 1980.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ottoman Empire, WWI

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    USA, Afghanistan

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      cope

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Afghanistan is next to the United States

      u wot m8

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The whole world belongs to America

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      USA, Iraq

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Unironically this.
      I know you think I'm some reactionist American hater, but honestly, it is true.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        cope

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Unironically this.
      I know you think I'm some reactionist American hater, but honestly, it is true.

      I'd completely disagree. It was the literal opposite. At the time the US had a booming economy, global respect and influence, and that nothing could go wrong trying out a little nation building venture.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >and *thought that nothing could go wrong

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nah USA's real decline was the 2008 crash.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Iraq was a much bigger blunder.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        And the US is still the #1 economy after Iraq and Afghanistan. The US was easily able to fund those wars and only left when it was obvious there was no end game and not through loss of men or equipment.

        Saying the US empire is in decline is rather stupid. It is just as strong as ever (hell even stronger now that they have about 30 years of experience in actual war over almost every other major country).

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >gigantic social polarization
          >politcal extremisim
          >country is 50% non white with various ethnic groups now vying for power
          >rampant drug death, suicide and crime

          Oh yeah, the u.s is heading for a big fall, just like rome.

          Echos in eternity

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Now that Black folks are allowed to be free men, America will fall to ruin
            > Now that Black folks are legally equally to hWhites, America will fall to ruin
            > Now that nothing even happened but I don't like looking at latinos, America will fall to ruin
            > A-any second now!
            Two more weeks

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Things are fine, until they arent

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well until they aren't fuck off.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                no.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >won the Iraq war
        >removed a regional threat against US allies like Kuwait and Israel
        >a blunder

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >nation in decline
      In 2001? Nope
      >invade neighbors to annex land and revitalize economy
      Definitely nope
      >it all goes wrong and hastens your decline
      Maybe

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Burgermutts are hilariously easy to trigger on this board, kek

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Look I'm being fucking stupid

        Yes anon you are indeed stupid.

        >HH-HUUURRR WHA-WHAT...Y-YOU REPLIED!? WHY ARE YOU SO MAD DURR!?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Funny how the burgers left after they can synthesize their drug.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'd say more like covid. changed demographics of all major cities forever. Whites who could afford to leave left, and now the cities are moron.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The US was not in decline at the time of invasion, rather still riding high on the Francis Fukuyamapill, so it doesn't really fit.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    1) Byzantium under Justinian 1st and after. They destroyed their economy, eventually leaving the door open for the newly islamic arabs to conquer them.

    2) Sassanid persia, who were worn down trying to conquer Byzantium in same timeframe.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      3) Iran / Iraq war might qualify, since Saddam invaded Kuwait to avoid paying off his debts to the Kuwaitis from the cost of the war with Iran.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >and I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling Anglos

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Americans
          >Anglos
          When will this meme end
          You have more beaners than Englishmen

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you assume we're the ones calling ourselves angloids

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >mention anglos
            >ASSUMES americans
            >then say they are not anglos?
            I was more refering to the coalition of the western world, mostly comprised of... Anglos

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think the Americans generally call themselves "Anglo". It's butthurt people on /int/ who do this. They're also the ones who think Mosley represents "Anglo perfidy" when probably he was isolationist anyway.
            t. English

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              We don't, that's why we have so many plastic paddies and so many appalachian scots that aren't appalachian or scots, their families internalised not being english so hard that their descendants pretend to be celtic instead. Self-described WASP's are few and far between.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >and I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling Anglos

              >Americans
              >Anglos
              When will this meme end
              You have more beaners than Englishmen

              I always took "anglos" to refer to the Anglosphere, as in English speaking nations, The UK, USA, Canada and sometimes Australia and New Zealand, though most of the time I take it as just UK and USA in a military context.

              It's a very dated term now, that probably wouldn't have included the US up until WW2 and more recently it probably doesn't include Australia and New Zealand

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              It’s funny that idiots take a fascist to be the symbol of those dirty anglos who brought down the führer’s glorious 1000 year reich. Angloposting is probably seething brownies and Russians.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There are more Germanic people in the U.S. than there are Englishmen.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >and I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling Anglos

        Saddam's big mistake there was not cutting Kuwait out of the herd first. No one else in the region liked the Kuwaitis but once he invaded them every other fat gulf state wondered who would be next.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      all things considered, Justinian was a pretty damn terrible emperor with great PR
      the Ostrogoths were the biggest Romaboos around, they could have been managed easily through diplomacy rather than the disastrous attempt at conquest and would have, with how Romaboo they were, almost guaranteed have provided assistance to Byzantium in their struggles against the Sassanids and Arabs

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    In many ways, the Napoleonic Wars. France was definitely declining at the start of the Revolution, between famine and atrocious inflation. (interestingly enough, the first hot air balloons were invented in France at this time, shortly followed by the first inflation fetish art)
    Napoleon revitalized France for a few decades, but constant war finally ground it back down.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is a reading with a lot of hindsight. Before the revolutions of 1848 France was still seen as a great power and basically evberyone shat their pants that another Napoleon would show up.
      Nobody could predict that France would be generally unstable and mired with infighting.
      France still had a huge population after the napoleonic wars, a lot of colonies and the second most literate population after britain. They were by no means on the decline.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >This is a reading with a lot of hindsight. Before the revolutions of 1848 France was still seen as a great power and basically evberyone shat their pants that another Napoleon would show up.
        It's probably why France ended up in the Franco-Prussian war with ZERO allies. They believed their own hype.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          In fairness Prussia should not have won that shit, on paper. It was France's war to lose.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah but Bismarck played 5D chess during that time. He made sure Germany will have no enemies, a lot of defensive pacts and provoke france into attacking them making them the bad guys.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            And then that gimp-armed looney trashed it all. If Bismarck went to hell, watching Wilhelm II on constant repeat would be his punishment.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              He got baited into this shit war by austrians. Bismarck always kept them at some distance

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >A Bavarian is halfway between an Austrian and a human being.
                Otto knew.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >They believed their own hype.
          Because they were the hype.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        But another Napoleon did show up! Too bad for the french it was Napoleon the third not The Napoleon.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >shortly followed by the first inflation fetish art
      That’s bullshit, but I believe it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      > Napoleon revitalized France for a few decades,
      Kek, no. He fucked it with his stupid embargoes and killing off his conscripts.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >france goes from having famine crisis to having abundance of food in few years
        >b-but he fucked it
        Libertarian cope, Napoleon saved France from the verge of economic collapse and made it an economic superpower in Europe

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          He also was bad at making friends and dragged France through too many wars.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Militarily your right, but economically he was great. He was able to pay for the army by raising taxes and increasing productivity, he also paid his soldiers less and relied on looting to help flip the bill. He made profit off his wars, his only major mistake was taking on Moscow. He should have negotiated and appeased Russia and keep most of his gains. Greed and pride were the downfall of Napoleon

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >his only major mistake was taking on Moscow
              >forgetting Iberia
              Pleb.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              The Bongs were funding all of Europe to keep fighting Napoleon. Even had he done that, he'd have had to fight somebody else, like Prussia.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Soviets in Afghanistan

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Isnt this the backstory to ace combat zero? Will russia go full belka and nuke itself?

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ukraine invading Iraq in 2003.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Also Georgia invading Iraq in 2003.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >A nation humiliated by the nearby power.
    >Launch wide military reforms.
    >Batter the enemy in round 2.
    What are some other examples of this?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Germany, decisive winner of the Franco-German war (1914-1940)

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the Franco-German war (1914-1940)
        wait did I jump timelines again?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Keep that multiverse shit to yourself, this timeline is confusing enough as it is.

        Russia, decisive winner of the Russo-German war 1914-1945

        Yea, but did they learn anything though? Without US gibs their vaunted armies would have starved on the way to the front.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >not 1870-1940

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Then what happened

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Russia, decisive winner of the Russo-German war 1914-1945

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Japan

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      2nd mongol invasion of Japan. The first time they would have been conquered if the mongols hadn't been unlucky and lost their invasion force in a storm. The second time they were getting btfo before they lost their invasion force in a storm. After the first invasion the Kamakura Shogunate marshalled enormous resources to fortify the coast of the entire country. Though this actually led to that regime's decline.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Great Britan, decisive winner of the British war of independence.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Azerbijan

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      China

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Prussia 1806-1814/15
      France in the last third of the 100 Years War
      The Parliament during the ECW

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    croesus attacking the persians

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nazi Germany

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Seleushits attacking rome after the punic wars because the Oracle of delphi told one of it's famous prophecies that can go either way.
    Hilarious how the Seleucids disintigrated once Rome beat them hard on the head.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I thought it was Lydia vs Persia

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Austria-Hungary invading Serbia is probably the mother of them all.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Problem with that campaign was really the poor diplomatic understanding of the austrian foreign minister and the head of the austrian general staff was a deluded nutcase.
      Switch either with someone even semi competent and we could a have avoided a lot of disaster right away.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      should've waited 50 years and just nuked those balkan morons

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Paraguayan War, which also included the demographic destruction of the nation in a war of suicide under a tinpot dictator.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The Paraguayan War

      Came here to post this. That was the hilarious tragic comedy of that century.
      >be Lopez
      >start a war on a militarily inferior opponent
      >that's too easy so open two additional fronts
      >get completely bodied (it wasn't that easy after all)
      >refuse to stand down, continue wasting your people in a guerrilla struggle for years
      >lose two thirds of your country's population including over 90% of its men
      >lose 40% of your territory
      >lose your own life, having personally overseen your country's near total destruction for no real reason
      It's a fucking miracle Paraguay still exists on the maps.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Russian Empire collapsed in 1991 with the collapse of the USSR. This is just their death throes before they bunker down and die slowly and quietly.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    1995 Belkan War.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Unironically, the perfect comparison is the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Russians wanted a quick victory to establish buffer states in Asia and to "raise the spirits" in Russia itself and divert the attention from internal problems. What was meant to take a month or two, turned out to be an 18-month-long war that ended in humiliating defeat. Tsar refused to back down early on, despite seeing that things are not going his way. This resulted in the First Russian Revolution of 1905 and weakened the state in the eve of World War I.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    A near perfect example I've realized that I haven't seen a lot of other people point out is the Serbian campaign in WWI.
    Austria-Hungary expected a quick victory, Belgrade was right next to the fucking border, and yet their senior officer corps were virtually decimated within the first months and they needed to wait for German and Bulgarian support to take Belgrade right alongside the fucking border.
    Austria-Hungary had been considered a world power and yet it got bogged down in Serbia, a comparably small nation, and it's professional army was destroyed.

    That said, this analogy is worrying given the fact the Austro-Hungarian Army managed to keep fighting for three years after it's professional destruction using conscripts, even though they were suffering domestic issues same as modern Russia, which could suggest how this war could drag on much longer. It being the opening of a World War is also worrisome.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Really the Serbian campaign is strongly recommended reading.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      As an Austrian I hate Hötzendorf so much. Fuck this retard. Eugen of savoy and thegethoff really were a fluke.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Serbs put up a hell of a fight in WWI.

      https://i.imgur.com/oXZSYYT.jpg

      Really the Serbian campaign is strongly recommended reading.

      https://i.imgur.com/nKvgaAz.jpg

      Is there a guide somewhere that explains how to interpret these types of maps?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The Serbs put up a hell of a fight in WWI.
        hahaahahahahahah

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    USA invading vietnam. Hell, the Russian-occupied terrotiry of Ukraine on your map even has a similar shape to Vietnam

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      USA, Afghanistan

      USA, Iraq

      >nation in decline
      Where is the decline and collapse in those situation?

      USA is in its strongest position currently since the end of the cold war.

      >China's eating itself and its economy imploding
      >Russia is in the process of seppuku
      >Word realizing the only airtight economy in the world atm is that of the US.
      >US position in Europe and Asia at its peak.

      buttmad as fuck lmao

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Are girlbutts really as wonderful as they look?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          more so when they are sitting on your face

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Better, soft, smooth, biteable, kissable, huggable. Bloody awesome

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >USA invading vietnam
      wut
      >French were there first
      >they ask for help
      >USA obliges
      >French get their ass kicked, leave
      >USA stays because communism is bad

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        USA stayed because Henry Kissinger was a fucking moron

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >is a fucking moron

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Literally Nazi Germany.

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Roman Empire with the British Isles?

    I know it's more complicated than that, but Teutoburg Forest can't take all the credit.

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I can't understand how the fuck we're losing.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Civilization-wide skill issue.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Indeed.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Neither could anyone else initially. But then we all saw how shit your soldiers were, how poor the equipment was, and how stupid your commanders were. Now you're a joke and we cant understand why we were so worried about you

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    neighbors to annex land and revitalize economy
    there is nothing in eastern ukraine that could help russian economy

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >What are some other examples of this?
    Us, right now.

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    in decline
    neighbors to annex land and revitalize economy
    No way that would revitalize economy. Even if it worked as intended, with "Keef in 3 days" it would still harm the economy more than help, due to now having to spend money to pacify ukrainians, deal with even more sanctions and so on.
    It was purely to boost Putin's ratings so he would be the the "führer" beyond any doubt and become the great tsar in the history.
    Do you remember the putin memes before? Where they glorified him riding a bear and shit like this? That was part of the shill campaign to set up foundation.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Even if it worked as intended
      If it worked as intended, Ukies would've welcomed their "brothers" with open arms and Moscow wouldn't have sneeded to spend anything on pacification. Putin's hopes/expectations were off the damn charts, and it's obvious that all of his advisors were telling him what he wanted to hear. And he believed them.

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Iraq invading Kuwait, 1991.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'd go further back and say Iraq invading Iran.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Iran was a pretty dumb move, but the Gulf War was the real nail in the coffin for Saddam. Iraq 2003 was just a mercy killing.

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >loses 1/10 of country
    >revives aid from the entire western world
    >8 months later still missing 10th of country
    >b-but we're winning
    the absolute state of ukies

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >loses 1/10 of country
      what happened to "lost 20% of their country"
      lmao fucking losers

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >sucker punch someone smaller than you
      >someone hands them a knife
      >with a black eye, they stab you over and over
      Russia sucks so fucking much its unreal lmao, this must feel like real pain in their gut whenever they hear the bad news.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >8 months of supposed ukraine counter attacks
        >russia still holds most the initial land grabs
        your analogy is shit, it's be like someone punched you repeatedly but you got one or two hits on them and exclaimed that you beat them up

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >went from "kyiv in 3 days" to losing what you took in less than a year
          i dont understand how anyone can think that russia is winning.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          What happend to Kiev and Warsaw in two days vatnik?
          Kind of funny reading those with hindsight.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >russia still holds most the initial land grabs
          Ignoring all the stuff in the north and east of course.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      1/10?
      Wasn't that number a bit higher before?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >"Russia could take 100% if the gloves come off!!!!"

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      |_T_|T_

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      By your logic France lost World War 1.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        By your logic France won World War 2

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Has the opposite ever happened where a declining nation successfully invaded a neighbor and revitalized themselves?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No because material things are a temporary solution to deep rooted problems.

      In a strictly scientific take. Nations rise and decline based on how much energy they can extract from the environment and put to useful ends. Energy in the sense of people doing real work to create things and maintain things. So food, land, oil, gold, etc can all translate into energy surpluses. But part of getting energy is also creating systems that are more stable and lead to long term growth. If you fail to have something going for yourself that is sustainable your energy surplus eventually runs out and instead of fixing work ethics and setup or expanding into new avenues of creating energy dying nations stagnate and cannibalize themselves as rapacious disconnected elites no longer invest in the nation but instead try to loot as much of it for themselves as they can.

      Russia might be going through a real time collapse but if the USA doesn't fix it's shit we'll be headed the same direction in short order once cheap oil runs out.

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How big shock do you think it'd be to USA if Trump was elected a 2nd time?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      They won't he's already playing a loser by saying that the US needs a strong leader, not essentially him.

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Saudi monkeying around with Qatar/Yemen might be the slow burn version.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wdym?

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    iraq

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    1914 russia (again)

  35. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >bunch of boring guerilla war and cold war bullshit for decades
    >nobody knows if anyone remembers how to fight
    >britain and US have to sail across the world to fight their respective foes
    >britain decisively smacks down argentina
    >US obliterates iraq so hard it's scary
    >russia literally has to drive next door to beat up their tiny neighbor
    >war drags on for months
    >they're getting their top of the line shit straight up jacked
    >their gains have almost all been taken by counteroffensives
    >they've started threatening to use nuclear weapons in an offensive war against a minor nation without nuclear weapons

  36. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Minus the decline part(debatably), ukraine war is really reminiscent of the second jap-chink war or really any war where the aggressor expected a quick victory requiring limited commitment of forces but the war drags on and in the end consumes more resources than the aggressor would've been comfortable committing in the first place. That russian tv commenter really hit the nail on the head when he called the invasion a colonial war, because it follows the pattern of a lot of 19th century military blunders like the early parts of the first boer war

  37. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Japan in WW2

  38. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Very surprised that the Ogaden War, the Somalian invasion of Ethiopia, hasn't been mentioned. A very large part of why Somalia is so fucked today dates back to that war.

  39. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    America. Afghanistan.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *