It was Otto Von Bismarck, the Iron Chancellor that said "if the Dutch lived in Ireland, they'd feed the world; and if the Irish lived in Holland, they'd drown."
Which makes sense since they had the biggest corporation in the world, ever
It was Otto Von Bismarck, the Iron Chancellor that said "if the Dutch lived in Ireland, they'd feed the world; and if the Irish lived in Hol...
That's why they need moronic omnipotent troony hiveminds to threaten, terrorize, abuse, and harass people to prevent themselves from being conquered in the video game imperator rome, moron. Your actions and behavior make it abundantly clear that the dutch are a worthless race that would require constant divine intervention to prevent themselves from being absorbed into an empire of their racial superiors
>Beat the Spanish, largest empire on earth
>Beat the French
>Beat the Germans
>Conquer England
>Beat the Norwegians, Swedes, Danish
>Build Poland, St. Petersburg, New "York".
>Make frens in Asia.
If you aint Dutch you aint much
Trvth nvke
>Beat the Spanish, largest empire on earth
Thanks to the English and French
>Beat the French
Literally when?
>Beat the Germans
At football?
>Conquer England
It's not a conquest when 90% of the population is behind you
>Beat the Norwegians, Swedes, Danish
Small irrelevant country beat small irrelevant country, wow sugoi
the cope has arrived
>It's not a conquest when 90% of the population is behind you
English call it an 'invitation' out of shame. It was a conquest and the English ruler was replaced with a Dutch ruler.
whose wife was the legitimate heir of the deposed english ruler, and the conquest somehow ended in parliament having much greater power than the monarch, and the monarch powers sharply trimmed back.
the 'glorious revolution' was certainly more complicated than a simple conquest
Benjamin Disraeli explains all of this in Coningsby. You're just refusing to read:
>'I repeat it,' said Coningsby. 'The great object of the Whig leaders in England from the first movement under Hampden to the last most successful one in 1688, was to establish in England a high aristocratic republic on the model of the Venetian, then the study and admiration of all speculative politicians. Read Harrington; turn over Algernon Sydney; then you will see how the minds of the English leaders in the seventeenth century were saturated with the Venetian type. And they at length succeeded. William III. found them out. He told the Whig leaders, "I will not be a Doge." He balanced parties; he baffled them as the Puritans baffled them fifty years before. The reign of Anne was a struggle between the Venetian and the English systems. Two great Whig nobles, Argyle and Somerset, worthy of seats in the Council of Ten, forced their Sovereign on her deathbed to change the ministry. They accomplished their object. They brought in a new family on their own terms. George I. was a Doge; George II. was a Doge; they were what William III., a great man, would not be. George III. tried not to be a Doge, but it was impossible materially to resist the deeply-laid combination. He might get rid of the Whig magnificoes, but he could not rid himself of the Venetian constitution. And a Venetian constitution did govern England from the accession of the House of Hanover until 1832. Now I do not ask you, Vere, to relinquish the political tenets which in ordinary times would have been your inheritance. All I say is, the constitution introduced by your ancestors having been subverted by their descendants your contemporaries, beware of still holding Venetian principles of government when you have not a Venetian constitution to govern with. Do what I am doing, what Henry Sydney and Buckhurst are doing, what other men that I could mention are doing, hold yourself aloof from political parties [..]
The aloof thing basically means you should refrain from supporting conservative parties (those who don't know the Venetian system is in place now and try to uphold the old order)
Only she wasn’t. That was Prince James Francis Edward Stuart. Who was disinherited along with all the Catholic Stuarts by act of Parliament after the invasion. It is plain as day that this is a case of the crown being usurped by a foreign army.
The Stuarts were opposed to a Central Bank. That's the real reason.
>It's not a conquest when 90% of the population is behind you
Alexander the Great, btfo'ed by a Chadder sipping on sugarwater.
>beat the Germans
>at football
Yeah, but also picrel
B A S E D
A
S
E
D
>Conquer England
You guys love this lie, eh?
>stadtholder of the Netherlands is invited by the Protestant majority and establishment of England to become king, since he’s half Stuart through his mother and because he’s married to his cousin, the daughter of the second-last Stuart king
>arrive to basically no resistance because they were literally fricking invited
>”We conquered England!!!”
Well, the Soviets were invited to Afghanistan too and yet it was called "invasion".
Nobody’s disputing that the Dutch arrived with an army. But they did not ‘conquer’. William and Mary were invited so they showed up. As for the Afghanistan example, I am one who agrees that is mislabelled; most people have no idea that the Soviets were invited.
In this ridiculous hypothetical, is Mark Rutte being formally invited by the British Parliament? Because if so, no, we very much would not call that conquering.
The Dutch conquered England without any fights, the method recommended by Sun Tzu
Oh yeah, I forgot about that time that Sun Tzu wisely and shrewdly recommended being invited into a country in order to become its head of state — the ultimate conquest.
You didn't actually read Sun Tzu lmao, fricking booklet
>2. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
>6. Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.
>7. With his forces intact he will dispute the mastery of the Empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete. This is the method of attacking by stratagem.
Yeah, anon, still none of this applies to William and Mary, who again, were literally fricking invited to assume the throne. Their would-be opposition folded in on itself before they could even dare to oppose the force, and assuming a throne from a man who practically fled it without resistance is in no way representative of ‘conquering’ anyone or anything.
Not only would Sun Tzu say that England was conquered, he would also give compliments about the tactics and strategy. You seem to think that bloodlines are the end all be all when the rulers were weak puppies, akin to a Venetian Doge
>a man who practically fled it without resistance is in no way representative of ‘conquering’ anyone or anything.
this was extremely common in mongols vs indian battles and also in muslim khanate inner conflicts
So when the Dutch government and monarchy fled for the Germans, the Germans did not truly conquer Holland? moronic takes
Were the Germans invited? No? And did the Dutch put up a significant resistance? Why yes they did. So they were soundly and most certainly conquered by the Germans.
I love how you denialist morons (I include you
) are conveniently ignoring the whole invitation element. Talk about cope — you’re full on attributing a conquering to someone who was literally invited to take the throne.
>b-b-but they were invited!!!
By a renegade chunk of Parliament who were absolutely done with James being a C*tholic cuck. Cope all you want, because at the end of the day Marlborough and the boys "invited" the Dutch to come and overthrow their monarch. Just because James couldn't do shit to stop his nephew from throwing him off the throne and he immediately fled, making it a relatively bloodless conquest, doesn't make it any less of a conquering action. Why else do you think the pro-Stuart's and Jacobites continued to resist for literally decades after? Just for fun?
>Marlborough and the boys "invited" the Dutch to come and overthrow their monarch.
Ah yes, the Dutch, who so famously influenced and greatly reshaped British society governmentally, legally, linguistically, and so forth when their half-Stuart head of state and his Stuart wife were given the throne which they essentially didn’t even need to take due to the lack of resistance against their arrival. So conquered we were by the Dutch — so much so that their influences upon us were profound and are still felt today! Not like those pathetic Normans who actually won not just one but a series of battles against the Anglo-Saxons and who then imposed their laws, customs, and so on upon them, completely changing the face of the nation. And the Spanish in South America — they didn’t conquer, either. They just showed up and the painted rag-wearing stone age natives just accepted them as their rulers. But those Dutch, aye, that’s a group of conquerors. They conquered England, when they rolled up with invitation and a ton of local support and won the crown through battle by… conquest!
>Why else do you think the pro-Stuart's and Jacobites continued to resist for literally decades after? Just for fun?
Anon, resistance by some to the new administration does not make the new administration’s introduction to the throne automatically a conquest. That is absolutely moronic thinking. Tons of rebellions and uprisings have occurred against legitimate governments, so the point/argument you’re trying to make is completely invalid.
>cope, cope, and more cope sandwiched between a bunch of non sequitirs to try and disguise how painfully obvious his coping is
kek
Ironically, it is you who us coping, with your desperation to believe that the Netherlands ‘conquered’ England.
That’s certainly something of significance, but other countries also began adopting these in the same era, and it wasn’t because the Dutch sent an invasion force to them and made them do it. Important as such a thing may be, it still pales in comparison to the influences of the Normans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Romans, etc. England has been conquered numerous times — the Dutch showing up and then doing virtually nothing of significance afterwards does not make the cut.
>twisting himself into a knot over one word
>n-no you!
Sure bud
>That’s certainly something of significance, but other countries also began adopting these in the same era, and it wasn’t because the Dutch sent an invasion force to them and made them do it. Important as such a thing may be, it still pales in comparison to the influences of the Normans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Romans, etc. England has been conquered numerous times — the Dutch showing up and then doing virtually nothing of significance afterwards does not make the cut.
Yes it was. Same way the Dutch bank was created because of immigration from merchants from Italy.
Liar
Not a single lie was told, anon. Keep huffing that copium though.
the dutch conquest completely changed the fabric of the British monarchy and ensured that Britain stayed protestant
And by the “Dutch conquest” you mean the invitation of Protestant Stuart royals from Britain back to Britain.
Not just protestant, but also relevant
The Bank of England was founded in 1694, and modeled after a Dutch bank, I'd say that is pretty significant..
>t.
If Mark Rutte would come to England with an army, and become the Prime Minister, yes we would call that conquering in 2024
Well he's probably going to be NATO boss soon so you better watch you mouth Nigel
>Build Poland.
I hate that you are absolutely correct.
Dutch-Polish frenship, now Poles are building in The Netherlands
Only to then get replaced by morroccans without a single shot being fired. Sad!
England
literally never happened
Don't bother. The Dutchmen and those who support them with this claim cling to it like flies on shit. I hesitate to even recognize it as an invasion, let alone a 'conquering'.
Samegay
It's funny because the (You) is showing on only one of those for me.
>That's why they need moronic omnipotent troony hiveminds to threaten, terrorize, abuse, and harass people to prevent themselves from being conquered in the video game imperator rome, moron.
Dutch colonialism was often based on mutual cooperation. The Japanese, despite their policy of isolationalism, accepted trade with the Dutch and even a permanent Dutch colony because the Dutch did not try to convert the Japanese to Christianity, unlike the Portuguese and others.
They also had colonies in India in relative peace. They did not fight the Indians for it, they conquered one from the Portuguese and were given permission for another one by local Indian rulers.
Strange evolution of Godschizo.
The VOC was israeli
Just about anything in the west is israeli
What’s up with Finland’s boarder? Things getting froggy soon on both sides?
ENOUGH of this semantics bullshit you homosexuals
Let's discuss the effect it had on England and her colonies
Well for one it basically turned England into the first truly "Liberal" (in the historical/academic definition) state. A system which it then spread to the whole world through not just it's colonies, but through its rivals copying it. Which is pretty damn important considering basically all the world is today running on that system.
>1688 Marlborough throws off the C*tholic collar on British liberty
>in the following decades his best men shepherd the fledgling colonies to success
>literally less than a century later Lawrence Washington's half-brother throws off the British collar and inaugurates a new empire enshrining those very liberties in reality
Fricking kino
>this is what whigs actually believe
A damnable history of betrayal and treason. It's a miracle Britian lasted as long as it has with these monsters anywhere near power
>lasted as long at is has
Because all the countries that remained under the thumb of the C*thtard church have done so well in comparison, yeah?
What do Catholics have to do with it? Wh*gs will betray their master no matter which altar he prays at and sacrifice in horrible wars as many lives as they can get their gremlin-hands on to bring about their cherished "liberty", which is nothing more than the abnegation of all that is holy or good
Bismarck senpai noticed us ^_^
Tbh, the main problem was the Irish were always bickering and infighting, and so the anglos israelite them. A united Ireland would have thwarted the anglo, just like the dutch did.
Also, the gemans were infighting too most of the time, but managed to survived because other powers wouldn't let others take advantage or german weakness, or that much advantage, that's why France went took as Alsace but not more.