You'd think all casualties and property damage would always weaken the country.
But for whatever reason, it seems like civil wars almost always make the countries stronger, why?

>>17834598 (OP)
It depends who wins. If the good side wins it is a good way to stabilize the country and apply good policies.
The best example is the Spanish civil war, if comtards won Spain would be poorer than Syria and thanks to Franco the country developed at an incredible pace and managed to remove all militarized civil unrest in one swop

>>17834598 (OP)
A decisive end to a civil war hopefully also means an end to civil unrest and internal conflicts in the country, along with centralization under new leadership. This means that a nation's manpower and resources can be pooled towards other projects instead of being spent fighting itself. Imagine you have a nation with 100 people in it, but it is divided into four factions at 25 people each, each with different political goals. After a civil war that kills 5 people from each faction one faction manages to take control of the entire country - there are now only 80 people left, but they are all politically, economically and militarily united when this nation wants to build infrastructure or project its power onto other nations. As an absolute number 20% of the country died but the winning faction went from commanding 25 people to 80 people, an increase in 320%.

>>17834598 (OP)
I think part of that may just be civil wars are naturally seen as turning points in a nation's history, so if that country then went on to become more powerful its natural to attribute a cause and effect when there may not have been one there, and the civil war actually slowed down the processes that were at work. But on the other hand civil wars do present a potential opportunity for true radical change that may not really be possible by other means.

Look at a country like Morocco though, that was such a historical underperformer given its position and resources which should have made it more relevant and powerful than it was. But its history of constant civil wars really held it back.

>>17834603

Franco rebelled against liberal democracy. Comtards came in later it was was essentially an internal coup in the Republican camp.

>>17834603
Tito did the same thing

>Do civil wars make countries weaker or stronger?
If they go on for a long time they are very damaging to the economy infrastructure,almost a zombie apocalypse, however, removing large amounts of bad people may make the nation stronger for future generations.

Basicly short term bad, long term good

>>17834800
Yes the liberal democracy led by a Marxist socialist party in which the leader said all the following things before the elections
>Para que no se repita otra vez la jornada del 14 de abril, en que el pueblo vibró con entusiasmo, pero no de justicia, es necesario que estos hombres [de la derecha], puesto que son ellos mismos los que plantean categóricamente el dilema, conozcan sobre su carne lo que es el impulso de la justicia popular y sus fallos inexorables.
>Llamarse socialista no significa nada. Para ser socialista hay que serlo marxista; hay que ser revolucionario. [...] La conquista del poder no puede hacerse por la democracia burguesa... Nosotros, como socialistas marxistas, discípulos de Marx, tenemos que decir que la sociedad capitalista no se puede transformar por medio de la democracia capitalista ¡Eso es imposible!
>Si triunfan las derechas, no nos vamos a quedar quietecitos ni nos vamos a dar por vencidos... Si triunfan las derechas, no habrá remisión: tendremos que ir a la Guerra Civil.
Clearly a very moderate social democratic party as fucking morons like Preston like to claim, kek. It is a good thing all of these things are recorded in videotape because if not you absolute morons would have destroyed the historical reality of the country

>>17834598 (OP)
Civil war was one of the main reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire. Civil war was one of the main reasons for the massive decline in Byzantium in the late 11th and 12th centuries. Civil war in 13th century Germany destroyed royal power and left it a declining power and turned it into the memes spammed by people on the HRE

>>17834856
>Tito did the same thing
Yugoslavia was a shithole compared to Spain.
Tito was a corrupt motherfucker and slightly better than other commtard psycopaths like Stalin or Ceacescu while Franco created an utopian society in 30 years

>>17834598 (OP) Bad times makes people stronger. They're put to the test.

>>17834882
>Civil war was one of the main reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire.
Hope you are refrencing the 5th century civil wars in WRE, and not 4th century because it had recovered from them

>>17834598 (OP)
This is population culling. Disease, external war, jackbooted tyrants, religious differences, class strife and natural disasters cull the herd. Necessary and if not enough death turn the weapons on your family.

>>17834880

Leader AFTER the civil war started.
That's the point.

Once the civil war started, the radicals couped the moderates in the Republican camp.

>>17835085
I am. The only major civil wars I can think of in the 4th century that came to blows was the wars of the Tetrarchy, Procopius' rebellion against Valens and Theodosius' war against Eugenius

>>17835101
>Leader AFTER the civil war started
You fucking moron, in the quote it even says
>if we lose the elections
Largo Caballero the leader of PSOE said all of this before thr election. This is what I meant, retards like you read a propagandist like Preston without a critical outlook and fail to even understand the real situation of the second republic before 1936

>>17834598 (OP)

>>17834701
>But its history of constant civil wars really held it back.
I think the important factor here is 'constant'

>>17834598 (OP)
because a lot of civil wars gradually tend to be between centralizing vs decentralizing forces
if the centralizing force wins, much of the decentralizing forces are removed, making way for greater centralization, ie, override and overrule of the provinces that allow the state to be stronger.
if the decentralizing forces win, there's greater autonomy to the nobles/aristocrats/provinces away from the central authority, which usually weakens the state, or leaves it at prey to external factors

If you have a civil war between forces for different methods of centralization, it's all just about the political method and application, usually as a method of replacing a present system that is viewed as inefficient or insufficient. It gives a chance for a whole new set of reforms, radical or otherwise, to be put into place, in attempts to change the systems, for better or worse. The fact that it was done by war and not by some peaceful transition usually means there's good odds that a purge/mass exile/cabinet stacking can remove members of the old regime in order to gather support force/force through the new changes, preventing any lingering, retarding factors that might've existed in the previous administration

Of course, there can just be purely ambitious forces in a civil war who just want to seize power for themselves and them do fuckall with it and make more problems for another civil war, but they can sometimes gather power amongst themselves for some level of stabilization. Centralization can also turn into hedonism and nepotism, as absolute power can corrupt, which then leads to an inefficient or insufficient system; this cycle, if perpetuated, does little to benefit a country because long-term stability is needed for centralization to take time and effect, and can also lead to decentralizing forces due to the failures of what a centralizing power can look like

>>17835582
Would Rome have been more decentralized if Pompey won?

Also, regarding centralization vs decentralization, English civil war was kinda strange. Considering the civil war was against absolutism, but the Cromwellian dictatorship ended up being even more totalitarian than king's absolutism.

>>17835670
that's a good thought, because Rome wasn't entirely "decentralized" nor "centralized" at the time, as power was in the Senate, but, more importantly, through its separate power blocs.
Caesar was definitely pushing towards eliminating a lot of red tape and inefficiencies towards a more centralized model, whereas I believe Pompey would've retained most of the same institutions on behalf of the aristocracy, more than any direct assumption of power. He held most of his authority and influence through his coalition of senators more so than Caesar had through his military governorship
I suppose that places a third kind of placement in civil wars, particularly if there are representative systems in place, as just more of a potential "status quo" faction that doesn't seek any change, especially reactionary against upstart centralization/decentralization factors.

As for English Civil War, yeah, they'd fit more in a "centralization vs centralization" conflict as I mention in that second paragraph, as it's about who/what is controlling the institutions of the state. That Parliamentarians ended up being super hard in their centralized dictatorship over the King's centralized absolutism is also a biff about the generalities

>>17834886
Then why isn't Myanmar conquering the world by now?

>>17834598 (OP)
>why
reduce conflict
kill the loooosers
etc

>>17834598 (OP)
>kills a significant percentage of manpower
>destroys the land, capital and labour wealth of the nation
>likely invasion/intervention from outside powers
>intelligentsia is annihilated
>guaranteed decades of civil unrest to come
>etc.
but it's so heckin' cool and manly so it's actually a positive!!!!!!

>>17836702
You gotta clear the deadwood out, or the fire will be worse