Beat this. (You can't.)

>it's another "let's pretend we're occupying France like we always wanted" map

This man speaks the truth

The US owns the entire western world, we occupy you with our troops and export our culture and economic system. Just because we don't officially rule each country doesn't mean they aren't just puppets to us.

You seem to be forgetting the biggest one of all. How convenient.

desu I agree with you mate.
Id just argue that it isn't an empire proper, nor is it even de-facto in that sense.

It's a unique situation in which most of the world lies in your sphere of influence and could theoretically be subjugated.
However taking into consideration your string of alliances and whatnot it is simply a much more soft-power type situation.

Not genuinely imperial. Keep dreaming burger

>most of the world lies in your sphere of influence and could theoretically be subjugated

Nigger amerifats can't even subjugate a single country of starving third world peasants.

>the briton is responsible for america's accomplishments

So this is the power of LARPing?
Anyone who settled america would've had an extremely successful colony, your incompetence made it the number one destination for all kinds of immigrants who wanted to escape the Old World in its totality.

Before the mid 1800's (long after america's independence) they weren't naught but a meme.

Mhhhh try again sweetie

"Look at the map of the world, lads. All the pink bits are ours. Britain is top nation."

This. Germans are who made America a great superpower, not faggot Anglos.

I must have missed the memo where they called themselves "Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika"

Argentina and Chile are dog shit compared with Canada and Australia

I am an Spaniard myself

...

I must've missed the memo that they were called the
>Dominion of British America

>muh language

just let it go m8

So Argentina is called the Dominion of Spanish Argentina?

The Anglo shall take credit for his achievements

...

Nicely done.

Spain is dogshit compared to the UK, though, and never helped out its colonies like the UK did. (Rather it was the other way around, with Argentina sending food aid to Spain in the 1950s)

Ironically the UK helped Argentina more than Spain did by integrating it economically into its Empire.

Conquest ain't the same as creation, jackass.

>Sure you've got the most prosperous societies in human history - HK, Singapore, the USA, Aus, NZ and Canada but we have 2 countries that are barely prosperous even by South American standard.
The key difference is there is a strong correlation between how much of an impact the Brits had and how well the countries are doing.
Of-course India and the Sudan aren't successful, their people didn't embrace British values in the slightest (many define themselves by their aversion to the British), they were conquered people and were never demographically colonized.
Even the fucking Falklands are doing better economically than your proudest colonies, Chileans migrate there for work.
GDP p/c is higher in Oman than Chile and Argentina btw, idk what you've based this on.

Like it or not the British Empire has been the greatest catalyst for increased human welfare in history.

>South Korea was created by US
>but Japan isn't

Argentina and Uruguay are relatively prosperous, but even more importantly they were among the wealthiest countries in the world until very recently, with a similar GDP per capita to the USA or Australia, for the past decade they've been coming off a period of stagnation and economic crisis.

It's not that the Spanish culture is incapable of creating wealthy societies, but that Spain completely left its colonies in the cold and they had to fend for themselves. These countries managed it by adopting Anglo capitalism and integrating with the British Empire up to WW2.

Agree with the last sentence of your post though.

Agee with you lad.
If Napoleon hadn't railed his mighty baguette in our Imperial Rear it could've all worked out better for all involved.

>ywn be an aristocratic yank with glorious ancestry from all old world empires
>ywn be able to meme your way into being an anglo-franco-teutonic spaniard

why even live

Or maybe genociding natives isn't such a terrible idea after all

You are like little baby, watch this

Cuba, the graveyard of empires

>The british isles have always had a larger population than Spain, still does not deny just how effective the spaniards were.
AHH I didn't even read that.
Why do people never appreciate what underdogs the British were.
If the Brits could match the populations of major european powers man for man, they would have never lost a war.
The reason their population caught up is they were the first to industrialize, owing to the fact the industrial revolution happened near enough entirely because of them.
Fuck, we would have probably terraformed a few planets by now.

>Argentina and Uruguay are relatively prosperous, but even more importantly they were among the wealthiest countries in the world until very recently, with a similar GDP per capita to the USA or Australia, for the past decade they've been coming off a period of stagnation and economic crisis.
WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT AHHHHHHH
People thinking that Spanish contributions are in the same league as Britain's is fucking terrifying. You don't seem like a dumb guy but you say these things that can't be reconciled with basic numerical literacy and a fleeting understanding of human history.

You know this information is on the web right?

Welp lads
Can't really spread anymore memes about.

I guess I conceit to the Anglos, god no wonder your empire was so large

Atleast neither of us are the french

>If the Brits could match the populations of major european powers man for man, they would have never lost a war.
>"I, I swer if [....] then [...]!!!!"

Brits lost tons of battles while outnumbering their opponent, and generally took part in coalitions wars on the most numerous side
In WW2, Brits had a large population, yet they still got their ass handed to them in 1940 and needed the US to save them

>Atleast neither of us are the french

You can thank us Anglos for that, spic

Rude

>and never helped out its colonies like the UK did.

>Rather it was the other way around, with Argentina sending food aid to Spain in the 1950s

lelwut, as an Australian, I find this funny.

The Conquest created an absolutely new political, social and economic order. French became the language of the ruling class and official documents and literature for several centuries. England became tied into French dynastic politics. So, no, you're wrong.

th-thanks for civilising us

RREEEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHH!!
Is the whole point of this thread to raise my fucking blood pressure?
That's not remotely true, I don't expect I can find more graphs to shatter your absurd delusion of what history is you battery licking shit devil.
>Brits lost tons of battles while outnumbering their opponent, and generally took part in coalitions wars on the most numerous side
That's the problem with you fedora wearing stat-lets, you're one wiki screenshot away from a hearty guffaw at the expense of the British Empire. You don't know anything about modern history, let alone Britsih military history if you think that they were typically on the losing side or that they generally had the numbers.
>Brits had a large population
The graph is right there you fucking spastic. Brits have never had a large population, but for a brief moment during the industrial revolution, their population has never even been in excess of 1% of the global share.
>yet they still got their ass handed to them in 1940 and needed the US to save them
Christ almighty, everybody got there ass handed to them by the third Reich.
The very existence of the USA bears testament to how formidable the British are.
>Settle on the eastern seaboard, formerly inhabited by neolithic tribes
>Within the span of two lifetimes the inhabitants of New England are among the wealthiest in the world.
>Some ethnically British Virginian slavers revolt.
>2 far better provisioned and more populous empires than the UK send fatal amounts of support to empower these rebels
>The UK is also contending with wars in India and against the Dutch
>This whole affair lasts the better part of a decade and never poses an existential threat to the UK
>The independent USA still considers itself profoundly British and immediately seeks to normalize relations.
needed the US to save them...
Imagine how quick WWII would have been if NA was composed of loyal British colonies not fat-tongued mongrelized half-wits such as yourself.

No problem my friend. Have a crumpet, you're all skin and bones

>That's the problem with you fedora wearing stat-lets, you're one wiki screenshot away from a hearty guffaw at the expense of the British Empire. You don't know anything about modern history, let alone Britsih military history if you think that they were typically on the losing side or that they generally had the numbers.
Not an argument

>The graph is right there you fucking spastic. Brits have never had a large population, but for a brief moment during the industrial revolution, their population has never even been in excess of 1% of the global share.
Fact: in 1940, Britain was the third most populous European country, after the USSR and Germany

>Christ almighty, everybody got there ass handed to them by the third Reich.
Nope, only France and Britain did

>The very existence of the USA bears testament to how formidable the British are.
More like the opposite
>Genocide a bunch of natives and take over their lands
>Two centuries later, local farmers don't feel British anymore, so they mount a ragtag army and decisively defeats Britain on the battlefield (lmao)
>Barely two centuries after independence, the resulting country becomes an unprecedented global superpower (anthough in the same amount of time under British rule (1607-1776), literally nothing good had happened in the 13 colonies which had remained a total backwater shithole)

America is a proof of British incompetence

No cause it's Spanish

>>The very existence of the USA bears testament to how formidable the British are.
>More like the opposite
Why is this so true?

>the thriteen colonies
>backwards shitholes
Yeah, who the fuck would buy tobbaco?

beautiful

Stupid Anglos, France, Spain, and Portugal dominated colonialism. The greatest empires were Latin and it is A KNOWN FACT.

>beat a bunch of savages
non of that is impressive except for india, middle east and north africa

>implying North Africa wasnt just as shit as Sub-Saharan Africa at war (pic related, shit was even more pathetic than Rork's Drift)
>implying the same doesnt go for the Middle East

Only India was kinda decent in the list, and even then it wasnt that impressive

>Not an argument
How is that not an argument?
>Brits lost tons of battles while outnumbering their opponent, and generally took part in coalitions wars on the most numerous side
Is only true if by tons of battles, you mean the absolute minority of engagements and by generally you mean occasionally.
>Fact: in 1940, Britain was the third most populous European country, after the USSR and Germany
...
I guess you are being liberal with the word large too then.
>Nope, only France and Britain did
...really? You can't think of some other countries that incurred casualties against the third Reich?
Britain didn't lose WWII and contended with the the third Reich by itself, the only country for which this can be said. This was while fighting Vichy and Italy and with the Soviets co-operating with the Axis, even considering joining the tripartite pact, sure the US can claim victory too but they " lost tons of battles while outnumbering their opponent, and generally took part in coalitions wars on the most numerous side"
It's funny that you have decided to obsess over 1940 though.

The US have military bases in France?

>taking more than 100 years to build an empire

get on my level

>Genocide a bunch of natives and take over their lands
The British were fairer with the Natives than other colonial powers and certainly more than the independent US, see the Royal Proclamation of 1763 - literally one of the reasons the revolt started.
I don't know why I'm surprised you're this wrong but I am.
>mount a ragtag army and decisively defeats Britain on the battlefield (lmao)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Revolutionary_War_battles
Again, you must be very liberal with the word ragtag, weapons were as good as any, this was a British dominion after-all, officers were British trained veterans of the seven years war - it was the support of 2 empires and then some that was decisive, the British won the overwhelming majority of battles despite smaller numbers, literally my point.
The war was won by John Adams grovelling in the courts of Europe, as for "decisively defeats Britain on the battlefield (lmao)" a good amount of those victories are due to guerrilla fighting - oh and attacking soldiers while they sleep on Christmas day.
>Barely two centuries after independence, the resulting country becomes an unprecedented global superpower (anthough in the same amount of time under British rule (1607-1776), literally nothing good had happened in the 13 colonies which had remained a total backwater shithole)
It's not at all unprecedented, the UK literally set the precedent and desu the USA's influence is not commensurate with the UK's during the Pax Britannica.
Colonists before the revolution enjoyed the highest standard of living in the world.
To pretend the US is more successful for declaring independence is ridiculous, several former British colonies with far less material wealth perform as well economically.
So amazingly, you're wrong on all accounts, kys.

>Military bases opened with the approval of the host nations is totally the same thing guys

Why do you think so many Italians, Spaniards, Irish, Germans, Anglos immigrated there?
It was one of the top 3 wealthiest countries in the world. Even up to the late 1960s it was on par with Western Europe, and ahead of Italy and Spain. It was like a Spanish-speaking Australia.

But I didn't say it was a Spanish achievement. Argentina did extremely well in the 19th century and up to WW2 because they embraced Anglo free trade, replicated US institutions, and voluntarily integrated economically into the British Empire, having received by the 1930s more British investments than actual dominions like Australia or South Africa, and becoming the largest exporter of beef and wheat in the world.

My point here is that it's not culture or the presence of magical Anglos, but stable institutions, rule of law and free trade what creates prosperity. The British tended to leave behind these things in their colonies while the Spanish only left behind corruption and monopolies.

Argentina did well because it rejected the legacy of the Spanish and sought to emulate the policies of the USA and the British Dominions.

Why is this map using modern borders? I'd be more interested in seeing how it looked back then

And likewise it did bad in the post-war when it embraced protectionism, economic nationalism, and fascism-lite in the form of Perón.

Ironically Argentina now is returning to the free market, free trade policies of the past as the US starts closing up its economy with Trump.

*wrecks british economy*
*leads to britain's inevitable collapse into america's vassal state*

...

>Why do you think so many Italians, Spaniards, Irish, Germans, Anglos immigrated there?
Because they were war criminals.

>The British were fairer with the Natives than other colonial powers
Actually Brits were the worst to the natives after Spaniards
French, Dutch and Ssedes treated them much better

>Again, you must be very liberal with the word ragtag, weapons were as good as any, this was a British dominion after-all, officers were British trained veterans of the seven years war - it was the support of 2 empires and then some that was decisive, the British won the overwhelming majority of battles despite smaller numbers, literally my point.
>The war was won by John Adams grovelling in the courts of Europe, as for "decisively defeats Britain on the battlefield (lmao)" a good amount of those victories are due to guerrilla fighting - oh and attacking soldiers while they sleep on Christmas day.
Muh excuses
France and Spain joined late, and there was barely any guerilla action in that war

>It's not at all unprecedented, the UK literally set the precedent and desu the USA's influence is not commensurate with the UK's during the Pax Britannica.
Lmao look at that delided faggot
The British Empire was a paper tiger, an empire of dust
At its height it was barely powerless in Europe and could barely withstand the might of lone Germany in WW1 despite being helped by France and Russia
Don't compare that joke to current America, an unrivaled military power that could take on the entire world combined and win

>and desu the USA's influence is not commensurate with the UK's during the Pax Britannica.

It's actually thousands time greater
At its strongest point, the British Empire couldnt even make English the international language
In 1914, British diplomats had to use fucking French to communicate with Germans because until Post-WW2 US dominance, French was still the international language and no one could speak English outside of Britain, the US and the irrelevant shitholes that composed the British Empire

Trying to compare the minimal British influence outside of British lands in the 19th and early 20th century to current unrivaled US influence all over the planet is ridiculous

Hilarous coming from a country that regularly boast about a map of "countries Britain has invaded" in which half are actually colored because alliances and shared training are counted

I'm not a burger, but I'd must say that the US is an empire, and by that I mean:1) they can directly influence every and determine (not control though) every situation in the globe; 2) they made everyone dependent on them, from Europe and Asian island for protection, to China, which without the US market, it would be dead, because China is mainly an export economy. Everyone depends on the US, so no one as any control on them, but not vice versa; 3) they have can project power around the globe, thanks to the US Navy control of the oceans.

Similar characteristics can be seen in all the empires that ever existed, from the Roman Empire to the British Empire and now to the US.

I don't know man, Italians struggled in Africa

You're chatting out your arse, you've demonstrated you don't know what you're on about.
>delided
>France and Spain joined late
Not really, and certainly not compared to the USA in both world wars it claims to have won.
>At its height it was barely powerless in Europe and could barely withstand the might of lone Germany in WW1 despite being helped by France and Russia
>to show how powerless Britain was during the Pax Britannica I'm going to talk about Britain after the Pax Britannica.
BRAINLET
>Don't compare that joke to current America, an unrivaled military power that could take on the entire world combined and win
>within living memory lose to Cuba, Vietnam, Somalia & the Taliban
The US isn't even in a position to secure it's southern border during peace time without risking civil war. Why on earth do you think the US would beat the world.
>inb4 because they spend an enormous amount of money on weapons they're never going to use.
Compare this to the UK who fought over 50 wars in the century between the final surrender of Napoleon and the outbreak of WWI, of those only 2 were defeats and in both cases a second war against the same belligerents resulted in British victories.

>this meme again...

Yet France was created by germans.

>they weren't naught but
Amerifat edgumacashun

Don't lad, francboos don't do logic and this bizarre pride where they inherit all of Europe's achievements is all they have.
It's cruel to mock the cheese niggers

The German people came to existence at roughly the same time as the French people: When the Frankish Empire collapsed in the 9th century

It appears that you're confusing two very different terms, German (Deutsch) and Germanic (Germanisch) due to their similarity in English language

Hurrr durrrrr

>Anyone who settled america would've had an extremely successful colony

If it's all about geographic determinisim, how do you explain Australia (a LITERAL DESERT) being a successful colony/country then?

It's all about whites
Not about Brits

Yea but the Germans really got put in their place by the Anglos eventually, you don't see anyone speaking German in the States like they did in the early-18th Century anymore outside of Amish and Mennonite communities

>all about whites
>argentina is just as successful as australia

That's an insult to niggers

>argentina is white

Well memed

i was agreeing with you beaner, you are all nigger mongrels because of slavery

Degenerate spaniards fucked all their nigger slaves, in America we had the one drop rule