How evil was the British Empire?
How evil are Anglos today?
>>1340269
I think the number of illegals is slightly exaggerated but yes they are still evil just like their eternal teuton brothers
>>1340269
How the fuck did Anglos kill 70,000 in WW2?
Germans aren't Anglos.
>>1340269
These numbers seem ridiculous...
When did Anglos kill 54,000,000 communists?
>>1340318
>>1340294
>>1340289
keep shilling, Anglo
>>1340269
british empire was the paragon of morality. who built the train tracks in india? the brits... makes you think...
>>1340269
Ah yes.
Hello German anglo spammer.
Still mad the UK are bringing down your third attempt at European hegemony?
>>1340688
>German
>>1340688
Hello there, insipid cunt. I see you're parroting again. Mad that you still can't keep Germany down after neutering them twice by orders of magnitude?
>>1340796
And yet now the Germans are trying to bring down Europe again
>>1340589
The Indians had no need of train tracks.
>>1340589
All the train tracks led to the coast so they could extract wealth from India. It was funded by a salt tax that banned Indians from making salt.
>>1340808
>the indians had no need to cross enormous differences incredibly fast
lazy cunts
>>1340812
They pretty much produced everything the needed with their own regions. England wanted arbitrage to make mullah which is why it dismantled all their factories and moved it to england
anglos on suicide watch
>>1340589
>Conquer a civilization that roughly is on the same level as Europe
>Leave it as a place who don't even got the access to Toilets
People really unironically believe the UK did a lot to help the Indians?
>>1340842
>le kd ratio meme
how does it feel to lose the war?
>>1340269
A lot
The british empire exists thanks to """"""Sir """""" Francis Drake, beloved by his Queen, he was a pirate, the best pirate tho.
Say what you want about everything else but the opium trade was pure evil.
>force Indians to grow opium instead of food, starving about 10 million of them to death in the process
>illegally sell it to Chinks so they can get more tea
>rape China when they try to put an end to it
>twice
>>1340897
how does it feel to be so shitty at war you need other countries to bail you out every time?
It happened in the Seven Years War, Napoleonic Wars, and both World Wars
>>1340935
That and they starved them out. Millions died in India early on just because of rationing, especially in World War II. More Indians died in World War II than actual combatants from starving to death. It was towards the end of course, but up until the end they were bleeding regions dry for what was left of British colonialism.
>>1340589
They built the trains in India to extract diamond and gold.
K E K
>>1340688
>Ah yes.
>Hello German anglo spammer.
I love that guy
>>1340829
t. Gandhi
>>1340269
>150 million native americans
>implying there were even that many ever
>implying that most of them hand't already died by the time the british landed
>>1340269
>63000000 abos
'wut
>>1341063
t. Churchill
>>1341186
>filthy traitors in god tier
Evil by modern standards, middle of the pack by standards of the day. You only really get arguments over this when you point out that the Empire of Britain lasted longer than the Empire of Japan.
Anglos the race aren't evil. A race can't be evil.
>>1341186
Too bad Scotland is leaving, Ulster Loyalists maybe ousted and Ireland may become whole again, the Old empire is on its way out mate, enjoy your delusions because soon you gon aks money for dem programs.
>>1341207
are you drunk?
>>1341186
>STAY MAD, HANS
>QUEEN = SAVED
>The House of Windsor is the royal house of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. The dynasty is of German paternal descent and was originally a branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, itself derived from the House of Wettin, which succeeded the House of Hanover as monarchs in the British Empire following the death of Queen Victoria, wife of Albert, Prince Consort.
After all your posturing you faggots are still worshiping a Kraut.
>>1341213
England JUST voted for it. Were you not paying attention?
>>1341223
england just voted for scotland to leave? you really are pissed...
>>1341213
Are you English?
>>1341225
https://www.sundaypost.com/news/political-news/end-uk-new-survey-shows-59-support-scottish-independence-brexit-vote/
https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/348523-scotland-independence-vote-salmond/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/second-independence-referendum-last-thing-scotland-needs-david-camerons-spokesperson-a7105736.html
>>1341225
England voted to leave the EU, Scotland voted to stay. Do you think Scotland's decision should be forced on England?
>>1341199
We are talking about the british empire, it was evil by standars of any time.
>>1341207
Not our fault Ireland decided to leave us.
>>1341255
Bad, but not as bad as the belgians, Krauts, Portuguese, Spanish, French etc
Dutch were probably less bad
>>1341252
>the uk voted to leave
Sure, but the Scotland part voted to stay. Did it not?
It's cool, you are in favour of regions being able to vote for independence, so you won't have a problem with Scotland voting again in a few years.
>>1341263
Who else could be at fault? Why didn't Essex try to fight for independence?
>>1341286
You have to admit a large part of that is just because they were so successful. They did more evil in total, but Belgium produced evil at a higher rate of speed.
>>1341294
>Sure, but the Scotland part voted to stay. Did it not?
Nope.
>>1341294
>You have to admit a large part of that is just because they were so successful.
Sure, and they were successful because the strategic position, If the turks had those islands we would be talking about some other kind of evil, different but sucessful IMO .
>>1341298
This is not an accurate map of the election results?
>>1341319
It is.
>>1341322
But you say that Scotland did not vote to remain in the EU?
>>1340269
>2.5 mil from atomic bombs
less than 200,000 died from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Was there some nuclear war I never heard about?
>>1341329
The constituencies in Scotland were amongst those in which a majority of voters were for the United Kingdom remaining in the EU.
>Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
I don't see shit about Scotland in here.
>>1341345
If you look closely, you'll also see that the referendum is not binding. Parliament still has to vote on it.
You don't need to squint to see that all constituencies in Scotland want to remain in the EU, while many of those in England do not. So Scottish and English people want different policies. Should the will of the people in England overrule the will of the people in Scotland?
>>1340269
These numbers are inane bullshit. No doubt the British killed hundreds of millions but there seems to be a very loose definition of "anglo" here. Also, 70,000,000 Anglo kills in WWII? That's the high estimate for all the deaths in every theater of the war. Whoever made that is a dumbass.
>>1340326
Crypto-turkroach detected
>>1341334
>Was there some nuclear war I never heard about?
That depends on how familiar you are with the Hyper-War.
>>1341358
>Should the will of the people in England overrule the will of the people in Scotland?
Well if history is any indication. . .
>>1341358
>So Scottish and English people want different policies.
Leapt into a rather broad statement there, haven't you?
>Should the will of the people in England overrule the will of the people in Scotland?
In this case, we're talking about whether or not a majority of the voters in Scotland should be overruled by a majority of voters across the entire UK.
>>1341404
>Leapt into a rather broad statement there, haven't you?
I have described the situation revealed by the election, and by the general election, and by the Scottish independence campaign and election.
>In this case, we're talking about whether or not a majority of the voters in Scotland should be overruled by a majority of voters across the entire UK.
And who could we ask about this, except the Scottish voters? So they need another election to determine if they want to stay in the UK or the EU. England can be as independent as they like, so should Scotland.
>>1341417
>I have described the situation revealed by the election, and by the general election
Babby's first democracy?
>and by the Scottish independence campaign and election.
Which it seems increasingly likely you're just a shill for.
Tell me more about your fanciful "will of the people", please, and about how you're not just acting like a petulant child throwing a tantrum over not getting his way.
>>1341432
>Which it seems increasingly likely you're just a shill for.
What do you think a shill is?
>Tell me more about your fanciful "will of the people", please, and about how you're not just acting like a petulant child throwing a tantrum over not getting his way.
What way am I trying to get?
I'm just saying that this election reveals that Scotland and England are on course for independence. People who live in Scotland want to be in the EU more than they want to be in the UK. If you supported the referendum on the UK's membership in the EU, on what grounds can you oppose a referendum on Scotland's membership in the UK, now that the situation has materially changed since the last referendum?
Thanks for posting that image, though.
>>1341454
>People who live in Scotland want to be in the EU more than they want to be in the UK.
That remains to be seen. A vote against Brexit isn't a vote against the Union and it's dishonest to suggest otherwise.
>>1341461
>That remains to be seen. A vote against Brexit isn't a vote against the Union and it's dishonest to suggest otherwise.
So we can find that out with an election. It's dishonest to say you know that Scotland wants to remain in the UK.
They voted to remain in the EU, England voted to leave. Can they remain as the United Kingdom with Scotland in the EU, and the rest of the UK outside it?
>>1341454
>What do you think a shill is?
Someone who pretends to be an impartial observer while really just being a sock puppet. Like you.
>People who live in Scotland want to be in the EU more than they want to be in the UK.
Which people? I'm sure you're not including the 38% of Scottish voters (which is a far cry from 38% of Scots, mind you) in that.
And the "independence" of the United Kingdom from a neofunctionalist patchwork of treaties (to which it was never even fully committed) is not comparable to the invention of a new state.
It's also worth mentioning that the belief that an independent Scotland would have a shot at joining the EU in the foreseeable future is laughable.
>>1341479
>So we can find that out with an election.
Sure we can but we haven't which is why it remains to be seen.
>>1341502
>Someone who pretends to be an impartial observer while really just being a sock puppet. Like you.
Then I'm not a shill.
>Which people? I'm sure you're not including the 38% of Scottish voters (which is a far cry from 38% of Scots, mind you) in that.
62% of people want to remain in the EU, and 50% want to leave the UK. I can imagine something between the two want to remain in the EU and leave the UK. We could find out with an election, but you go on to say that you don't support that:
>And the "independence" of the United Kingdom from a neofunctionalist patchwork of treaties (to which it was never even fully committed) is not comparable to the invention of a new state.
So it's more about preserving the status quo than allowing people self-determination to you? Okay, I disagree.
Should Scottish people not vote on their independence again, now that the situation has changed?
Or should they try to remain in the EU while the rest of the UK leaves?
Or should 62% of Scottish voters be ignored?
>It's also worth mentioning that the belief that an independent Scotland would have a shot at joining the EU in the foreseeable future is laughable.
Why? Who would block it? I can imagine that if they gained independence last year, the UK would try to make it difficult for them to join, but they should be able to join now without anyone obstructing it. If the UK actually leaves the EU, that is. The Parliament still has to vote.
>>1340269
All reliable numbers I'm sure.
>>1341513
Then you support another independence referendum, whenever Scotland gets around to organizing it?
>>1341524
>So it's more about preserving the status quo than allowing people self-determination to you? Okay, I disagree.
Ah, you can only see things in black and white. Silly me, of course it's the same thing to withdraw from a treaty in accordance to its provisions, as it is to invent a new country.
>Should Scottish people not vote on their independence again, now that the situation has changed?
It'd be rather funny if they did. I'd have preferred it pass the first time around to see how public opinion may have turned once the oil glut manifested.
>Or should they try to remain in the EU while the rest of the UK leaves?
That would be the UK's prerogative, and then the EU's. Scotland has no weight in this situation.
>Or should 62% of Scottish voters be ignored?
Since you revel in 50%+1 votes, it seems like it'd be appropriate.
>Why? Who would block it?
Is this a real question? Do you pay attention to the world outside of whatever gloomy crag you live in the shadow of?
>>1341536
They just had one but the situation has changed considerably so I'd be open to investigating further.
>>1341564
>Ah, you can only see things in black and white. Silly me, of course it's the same thing to withdraw from a treaty in accordance to its provisions, as it is to invent a new country.
It's the same thing to let people in the UK vote to determine if they want to be part of the EU as it is to let a region of the UK vote to determine if they want to be part of the UK.
>It'd be rather funny if they did. I'd have preferred it pass the first time around to see how public opinion may have turned once the oil glut manifested.
I'd be curious to see whether Cameron would have called a referendum about leaving the EU if he knew it would vote yes.
>That would be the UK's prerogative, and then the EU's. Scotland has no weight in this situation.
So Scottish people say they want to have some weight. Why can't they?
>Since you revel in 50%+1 votes, it seems like it'd be appropriate.
Where did I do this? Just link to the post and quote the part.
>Is this a real question? Do you pay attention to the world outside of whatever gloomy crag you live in the shadow of?
Okay, why do you think Scotland would be rejected for membership by the EU?
>>1341582
>It's the same thing to let people in the UK vote to determine if they want to be part of the EU as it is to let a region of the UK vote to determine if they want to be part of the UK.
Keep living in your fantasy land, then.
>I'd be curious to see whether Cameron would have called a referendum about leaving the EU if he knew it would vote yes.
If it meant keeping UKIP down as a rival right party, then I don't doubt he would have.
>So Scottish people say they want to have some weight. Why can't they?
There's no provision for it in the EU treaty structure. Nor is there any precedent. The European Commission doesn't seem likely to change their minds on this.
>Where did I do this? Just link to the post and quote the part.
>>1341417
>>1341358
Here's the posts. Scrolling was probably a waste of effort, it'd take introspection for you to realize your own convenient assumptions.
>Okay, why do you think Scotland would be rejected for membership by the EU?
Wow, you're not joking. Northern Cyprus and Catalonia have a better shot at EU membership than Scotland. If you don't understand why, then I suggest you navigate to the international section of a couple newspapers and start reading until you get it through your head.
