World War

I guess the Cold war is an okay example but what about USA and Afghanistan / Syria /Lybia, etc? Those countries were prosperous and had a bright future and now I'm pretty sure they hit rock bottom and won't be the same ever.

Conflict is not always the answer. Especially a world war as you stated, you can achieve progress by a diplomatic conflict, economic conflict, not only by fighting wars.

It's still a military-related conflict.

But one with a good outcome, imo. They ended communism, leaving room for progression. I'm on Franz's side on this one.

>But one with a good outcome
Not for us.

For everyone but Russia it was a good outcome. Russia should have been destroyed after the cold war. The mistake was only dividing it into the USSR republics.

It's all about perspective.

Attached: The Actual Cold War.png (979x821, 289K)

>Russia should have been destroyed after the cold war
Can say the same about Austria and WW1.
>The mistake was only dividing it into the USSR republics
Russia was divided into republics since the fall of the Empire.

Sure. The 'Good' is subjective.

>Can say the same about Austria and WW1.
That is what happened to Austria. What we not call Austria is only a tiny sliver of what was once Austria.

>Russia was divided into republics since the fall of the Empire.
I mean the constituent Republics of the USSR. The Russian Republic that became the mosern Russian Federation should have been split up. Russia would be more prosperous if it was not an empire because it would be able to spend on its people.

>What we not call Austria is only a tiny sliver of what was once Austria.
Because it was divided the same as USSR was. Not totally destroyed.
>I mean the constituent Republics of the USSR
It was divided this way because the constitution allowed it.
>Russia would be more prosperous
Without any natural resources? Doubt that.

I know it seems contradictory but natural resources are actually bad for Russia because it allows for governments to gain income without the need for listening to the people. There is something called the resource trap which basically means that governments are more despotic the more resources they can access in their territory because they have less reason to consult the people. A country reliant on taxation for income is a lot more subservient to the people it rules.

>natural resources are actually bad for Russia
Since all our industry was destroyed, that's the only source of money we have.
>without the need for listening to the people
What exactly do you think people would say?
>governments are more despotic the more resources they can access
Russia basically has the same government as 500 years ago.

Yes because Russia fell into the resource trap. The only country I can think of with huge amounts of natural resources which avoided the resource trap is Norway.

>The only country I can think of with huge amounts of natural resources which avoided the resource trap is Norway.
UAE is trying to ecape it as well.

Wow, I'd never expected that from an austrian. What a surprise

Attached: 1533999995081.jpg (1291x1345, 299K)

>what about USA and Afghanistan / Syria /Lybia, etc? Those countries were prosperous and had a bright future and now I'm pretty sure they hit rock bottom and won't be the same ever.
The Gauls were pissing about in the woods for hundreds of years and subjugated by the Romans, but a few hundred years later France become one of the strongest military empires on earth and Rome was a shadow of it's former self. Same goes for many other civilizations. The middle east was once at the forefront of science and progress, I don't see why it couldn't happen again.

checked

Attached: impressive.png (457x303, 186K)