Yuropoors, who is more evil?

...

>Germany - waged war against the USSR
>subjugated half of Europe to communism

>Britain - actual ally of the USSR
>a-ok

UK is mastermind evil.
Germany is cartoon evil.

Imagine being this butthurt that you actually have these images saved onto your computer, just waiting to be used anytime anyone mentions the Uk

Friendly reminder that you’re living in an Anglo world. While the German is now confined to the dustbin of History, Anglo genetics, culture and politics have spread all throughout the globe, and have now become the global default

Cry about it all you want, there’s nothing you can do to reverse history

France. The root and cause of all misery in the world.

Burgers are more evil than any euros desu.

Did they even teach you anything about Ribbentrop-Molotov pact in your shithole?

I wonder (((who))) burgers are descended from and why they are so evil.

Germans? Most burgers are of Germanic descent

UK- Queen's Evil
Germoney- Racially Evil
France- HON HON HON Evil

>France. The root and cause of all misery in France

FTFY.

Bongs.
Krauts are just a parasites on this earth but bongs are definitely the Devil.

noone of them were evil (well, outside of Nazis/Hitler), they did what they were able to because they were in position of power to do that
make any random country superpower back then and they would end up doing some bad shit too

Germans were more evil only if you were polish
UK was evil if you were african, native american, african, chinese etc
so i would say UK

>make alliance in order to backstab
>get oil
>do backstab
>this is comparable to lend-lease

My god its magnificent.

Ahhh yes... the famous 1/64 Bavarian (shit tier) descent...

>le evil germans

plot twist the english are also german

Daily reminder that Britain did NOTHING wrong.

>Germans were more evil only if you were polish
>polish
That's a funny way to spell "all their neighbors"

Germanic doesn't mean German you mong.
>Germans are also Indians!

>and they're both humans

Steady now, I don't think ANYONE would claim a German is human.

> Ribbentrop-Molotov pact
a mutual trade and non agression pact?

>lend lease
actively arming and supplying the communists in their takeover of europe and ironically the country you supposedly started the war over

>i-it was all the germans fault

It's even worse.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide

>From the Chinese point of view, as well as reports from contemporary Western observers, German, Russian, and Japanese troops received the greatest criticism for their ruthlessness and willingness to wantonly execute Chinese of all ages and backgrounds, sometimes burning and killing entire village populations.[104] The German force arrived too late to take part in the fighting, but undertook punitive expeditions to the countryside.
This is about the Boxer Rebellion.

Great job Anglo! Helping push diversity all around the world since 1868

But this is also true

>a mutual trade and non agression pact?

> According to the protocol, Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland were divided into German and Soviet "spheres of influence".[90] In the north, Finland, Estonia and Latvia were assigned to the Soviet sphere.[90] Poland was to be partitioned in the event of its "political rearrangement": the areas east of the Pisa, Narev, Vistula and San rivers would go to the Soviet Union, while Germany would occupy the west.[90] Lithuania, adjacent to East Prussia, would be in the German sphere of influence, although a second secret protocol agreed to in September 1939 reassigned the majority of Lithuania to the USSR.
So they didn't teach you anything?

>Implying evil isn’t mostly just a subjective experience that varies wildly depending on what background of the person is
>Implying acting in your national self interest is evil because “it’s not fair” on other people
>Implying we care wether or not people think we’re evil
>Implying demonising nations and empires as evil isn’t just a petty way to get back at them because you feel jealous

There is no such thing as evil. Only the conqueror and the conquered

>an agreement stating the geographical common sense

woah such evil revolutionary this is here

up next the sino-anglo """"treaties""""

>So they didn't teach you anything?
all us anglos get taught about ww2 is muh blitz muh blitz muh blitz

>t. "proud Irish-American"
Off yourself.

>stating the geographical common sense
>In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to...
Are you pretending to be retarded? It's a pact dividing East Europe in spheres of influence between Germany and the Soviet Union.

It seems to have something to do with suffering. If you wantonly cause suffering, you are evil. If you cause suffering incidentally, then you are callous. If you plan your actions in such a way to minimize any possible suffering, you are humane. And if you refrain from actions that cause any suffering, and work to alleviate the suffering of others, then you are good.

>Implying evil isn’t mostly just a subjective experience that varies wildly depending on what background of the person is
No. That evil is mostly just a subjective experience that varies wildly depending on what background of the person is was exactly what I was implying.

>There is no such thing as evil.
Which is why I asked OP to define evil for this debate to happen.

Nobody likes the guy that runs late and then acts all uppity

Of course there is more.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo–NKVD_conferences

>Germany received one million tons of cereals, half a million tons of wheat, 900,000 tons of oil, 100,000 tons of cotton, 500,000 tons of phosphates and considerable amounts of other vital raw materials, along with the transit of one million tons of soybeans from Manchuria. These and other supplies were being transported through Soviet and occupied Polish territories, and this allowed Nazi Germany to circumvent the British naval blockade.[117] The Soviets were to receive a naval cruiser, the plans to the battleship Bismarck, heavy naval guns, other naval gear and thirty of Germany's latest warplanes, including the Me-109 fighter, Me-110 fighter and Ju-88 bomber.[117] The Soviets would also receive oil and electric equipment, locomotives, turbines, generators, diesel engines, ships, machine tools and samples of Germany artillery, tanks, explosives, chemical-warfare equipment and other items.[117] The Soviets also helped Germany to avoid British naval blockades by providing a submarine base, Basis Nord, in the northern Soviet Union near Murmansk.[118] This also provided a refueling and maintenance location, and a takeoff point for raids and attacks on shipping.[118]
>just trade agreement
>muh lend lease

Wherever I am, I must correct people who say burgers are German.
>This is a load of shit and you know it.
>Back in the eighties, British was the single biggest census category, bigger than both Irish and German, at over 25%. What happened since then? Did we have a huge influx of Krauts and Micks? And huge expulsion of our Brits? No, we added the "American" category. And many old settler-descendants, ones who had been here since the foundation of this nation, checked that.
>Also, even then, I'd estimate that an even larger portion of the populace who are mainly British-American check an other box on the census. Why? Because they feel closer to some more recent member of the family. For example, if one has a German grandmother, and otherwise stretches back to 1680 with only British roots, that person would be likely to check German, since that's the closest contact to foreign culture he has, as British-American culture simply evolved into American culture.
>For example, my mother is 1/4 Swedish, and is otherwise completely old-stock English-American, but she checks Swedish on any census.
>Personally, I'd reckon we're over a third primarily British, and over half, just counting whites.

Really? Not saying you're wrong, just curious.
Guyana? Burundi? Suriname? Djibouti?

>Guyana
Why do you think Guyana is today split in four parts?

>most
You mean a whopping 15%?

Given how diverse America is, "largest ethnic group" does not mean that much.

>niggers, chinks, and redskin are more valuable than Poles
into the trash it goes.

German ancestry is grossly exaggerated in America, same as Irish ancestry. You faggots are mostly British, deal with it.

Anglos killed niggers and Chinks, Germs killed Whites

Well, that tells us people want to be anything but anglo.

It's not really, there's French Guiana, Guyana, and Suriname. Then also bits of Brazil and Colombia

Yeah you're right, it's split FIVE ways. You still haven't answered the question of (((who))) is behind this state of affairs.

Dude, I know exactly what my ancestry is, and there isn't a speck of German in there. I cited a hard number: 15%. I have no emotional attachment to that figure, that's just the fucking number, and the point of my post was that it's really rather small. Maybe you failed to understand that? I think I was pretty clear.

If you don't think it's likely 15% of Americans have partial German ancestry then you know nothing about the history of European immigration to the Americas in the 19th century (and not just to the US, either). I agree that ethnic Brits outnumber ethnic Germans - when I said "largest ethnic group" I was replying to his image, not stating my personal belief. That said, there's no way British-Americans constitute 33% of the US population and half of the entire white population, that's a ridiculous overestimate and I very much doubt you can cite any serious source that'll back that up.

On a sidenote, it's also beyond me why Euros get so triggered at Americans who claim significant German or Scandinavian or Italian etc etc ancestry. There was heavy European immigration to the US for a whole lotta years, so like it or not, tens of millions of Americans have significant non-British European ancestry. CULTURALLY, obviously British influence dominates, and despite what Europeans seem to think, no Americans really deny that. Contrary to the memes, it's not really a nation of larpers. Very few Americans identify as anything other than Americans, which is an Anglo identity.

>partial
That's the reality but it's not the claim, is it? When someone says he's "German-American" or "Irish-American", he is >implying at most a 50/50 split, and in practice he is essentially identifying AS German or Irish, regardless of the presence or absence of German genes. Why do they do this? Because LARPing as British is distasteful to Americans, so they find that 1% non-British dna and claim THAT as their ancestry instead.

>That's the reality but it's not the claim, is it?
Yeah, it is, dude.
>When someone says he's "German-American" or "Irish-American", he is >implying at most a 50/50 split
No, they're not. Usually they're >implying that the LARGEST PROPORTION of their ancestry is German or Irish or whatever (and do please note that "largest proportion" is not the same thing as "majority"). Sometimes they're mistaken, but often that's true.
>in practice he is essentially identifying AS German or Irish
No, he's not.

No, stop - stop fucking arguing. Stop doing that "LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT YOUR COUNTRY" shit. Personally I never actually say "I'm Swedish-American" or whatever. I've lived abroad for the past few years and so it would be fucking stupid to respond with my ancestry when obviously people are asking where I'm from, and I know from experience that non-Americans misinterpret that shit, but I do understand what Americans mean when they say "I'm German-American", and you obviously don't. Europeans rarely do. They're not identifying as German. At all. It's an ethnic claim, full stop. They're saying "my family was originally from Germany, generations ago." They don't add "BUT I'M AN AMERICAN" because it's understood and doesn't need to be stated.

In practice, most people, excepting a very tiny minority of ancestry wankers, identify more with the college they went to than their European ancestry, and fully know that.

>Because LARPing as British is distasteful to Americans
Are you out of your mind? Americans are fucking crazy for British culture. Or rather, an ultra-chic idealization of it that they have in their heads, which doesn't bear much resemblance to the real thing, but still.

It tells us that Americans are "muh ancestry" fags who think that ethnic Yankees(British colonists) are boring.

>That said, there's no way British-Americans constitute 33% of the US population and half of the entire white population,
British majority. People from 51-100% British. And I think that it's very likely, though I have no real sources to cite, because there hasn't been a large-scale census that actually tests DNA.

...

Reminder
English are the protagonists of history

You think that 1/2 of white Americans have in excess of 50% British ancestry? No way, dude. Self-reporting is iffy, but even if you assume that literally all of the self-identified "Americans" are in fact British-Americans, and throw in a couple extra percentage points to account for people who are genuinely confused and think they're ethnically German when most of their ancestors were Brits, you still only get like 25%. That number is probably inflated, too, because many of the people who identify as British-American likely have less than 51% British ancestry - talking a plurality but not a majority, you know.

Honestly - and this is ironic, given the mutt memes - I think you're seriously underestimating how mixed all the European populations have become in America. There are still recognizable divides; driving through the midwest, you do in fact see a lot of tall Germanic-looking types, and some people whose families are clearly Slavic. But I'd bet you the number of Americans who are >50% ANYTHING is relatively small. I've had a DNA test done (my parents were interested, I personally don't give a shit) and it looked something like ...
>28% British Isles
>25% Northern Scandinavian
>17% French
>15% Iberian
>15% Ashkenazi Jew (don't tell /pol/)
It's not like I have DNA studies of any size to back me up on this either, but I'd bet I'm fairly representative (of the degree of mixing, I mean, not the actual proportions). Large-scale European immigration started fairly early and while certain ethnic enclaves kept mostly to themselves, most did not.

I think you're nuts. I've had a DNA test, too, and I'm 80% British, with the rest being split between general western Euro and general eastern Euro.
And I think that's about indicative of the level of mixing in America.
And I live in a area that's supposed to be completely German, and my family has been in this area going back a few generations.

Absence of good? :D

Germany: did bad things mostly INSIDE of Europe
UK: did bad things mostly OUTSIDE of Europe

The answer is obvious.

Okay. Now define good.

when I nut and your mother keeps the succ

Yeah, I think you're nuts. How could you possibly think you'd be representative? Do you understand the level of European immigration the country experienced in the 19th and early 20th century? I don't think you do. The population of the US was a little under 10 million in 1820. Over the course of the next century, tens of millions of European immigrants arrived, and immigrants from Great Britain constituted about 10% of them. The birth rate in the early US was high, but not THAT high. A lot of Americans - maybe even the majority - have a few ancestors who were here pre-1820, but 50% of their ancestry? No way.

Indeed, people underestimate just how big the Great European Emigration was, not just in size but in scale. We are talking about an average of 1 million European immigrants per year for over a century, back then the population was much smaller so these numbers are even more significant.

Isn't it amazing how a group of sound lads managed to subjugate the entire world simply by bantering some nations into submission?

It's like it wasn't even fair. Squad of board lads get on a boat, drunkenly land somewhere half-hungover, banter the local Sultan into yielding his 2000 year old, ancient, mystical land into the hands of people who literally don't know or care where they are.

How did other, more organised and driven, nations not totally outdo us?

England, they have always acted as muscle for the Jews throughout history

Germany then.

fug

spain, there is no where that they went that they didnt plunder and ruin, the british for all their faults built the US colonies, canada the aussies and NZ and either improved or at least didnt ruin most of the rest.

the spanish took gold and brought slaves, there is a reason latin america is so horrific compared to north america

It's sad when you realise its true.

Absence of evil

Germans are just self destructive
Brits are greedy and step on their own feet

The average Spanish colony is wealthier and more developed than the average British colony. As always, the Eternal Anglo tries to pretend that British mistakes like Pakistan, India, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Burma, do not exist.

>Germans are just self destructive

Yes, but in a suicide bomber sense. They also destroy things around them, like how they are destroying Europe by flooding it with refugees but also themselves.

>horrific
>t. Someone who has never really been to South America

desu, I'd rather live in Argentina or Chile than in America. Good living conditions, no nigs, higher life expectancy, lower crime rates.

America has two of the world's most dangerous cities inside its territory

Pre-Rothschild = Germany/HRE
Post-Rothschild= UK

We looked after the white ones.

>literally all but one of the other cities are in Latin America
>most of the Latin American cities are significantly more violent than the two US ones
Do you not realize how that image completely undercuts your point?

I only see 3 out of 11 South American countries represented there. Unless you don't know geography.

>no nigs,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_of_Argentina#Luxembourgers

The Anglos of course, they are the source of all recent cancer in this world.

Why would you hate tiny Luxembourg user? Out of all the countries in the world to hate... seriously?

The poster you replied to said "Latin America," you're the one who came in and made it about South America specifically. Of course there are corners of Latin America that are peaceful, many of which are in South America. Generally when people talk about how troubled Latin America is they're talking about Mexico, Central America, Venezuela or Brazil.

But it is clear from that image that Latin America is, on average, more violent than the US, despite the fact that e.g. Argentina is a fairly nice place.

Veeky Forumstorians, who is more evil?
/int/ or /pol/?

Based UK

Bith anglos and krauts are germanic. So they're both the incarnation of evil

The worst part about /int/, replacing the banter with "you have lots of muslims/niggers", comes from /pol/