No, southern Europeans have no reason to want to be northern Europeans.

[Sebastianus Rex]

Yeah, because Japan exists but Russia doesn't?

Russia received enormous logistical help from the USA, planes, tanks etc, the famous ship convoys. With the entrance of the USA into the war, Germany had to deploy more troops to the west and southern fronts, while if it was just England it wouldn't be necessary. If Germany concentrated all the efforts or the Russian front and Japan attacked Russia from East Siberia then the Axis would have won the war or at least force a very favourable cease fire with large territorial gains. All this would be only possible if the USA remained neutral.

I understand, people like to glorify their nation and the historiography contributes to the patriotic brain washing so they convince themselves of things Wich don't correspond remotely to the reality.

For example the French talk alot about the Resistance and how it was so important bla bla bla, this propaganda was so intense in the films, tv and schools that the younger ignorant generations think it's true that their grandparents were heroes of the Resistance and similar fantasies.

In reality the French Resistance is a myth, only 0,2% of the French population were active resistants during the war years until the Allied invasion of Normandy, and those were mostly communists and Jews. The French people resisted almost nothing, Paris was like the holiday amusement park for German troops, they even gave the German soldiers who went there on leave touristic book guides.

200.000 children were born out of consensual affairs between German soldiers and french women. It was a highly docile and cooperative country/people Wich the Germans retributed by treating them with civility...in contrast in the East, especially in Russia it was a war of extermination.

The numbers of the French Resistance only increased significantly after D day, then everybody suddenly was courageous and wanted to become a member of the Resistance to make shameful things such as humiliate defenceless women in public by shaving their heads, beating them and making thousands of summary executions to the so called collaborationists...must have been the Jacobite fervor still running trough their veins.

[Centurion]

[QUOTE=Sebastianus Rex;7202208]

There's not even comparison regarding the infrastructure, highways, train/transport systems, city planning, quality of public services etc...I really don't think you know well the two countries if you say such nonsense

I know well Ireland. And what you say is irrelevant. Each time I've traveled to Spain, I was finally glad to come back to Ireland because really you feel how much it is developed compared with Spain.

But interesting you mention Ireland, because some decades ago it was exactly the example given by Anglo-Saxon supremacists/eugenists to prove their superiority vs dominated Celtic peoples

I'm aware of this. But don't believe that the same Anglo-Saxons had a better opinions about the Iberians. And for good reasons. But the Irish have proven their value since then, not so much the Iberians.

You think Norway was rich before start exploring the northern seal oil?

Iberian countries and Norway had a similar GDP per-capita in 1890. So you have absolutely no reason to feel superior toward Norwegians, rather the reverse.

So? Many of those ex communist countries were more developed than Portugal by the mid 1970's by per capita GDP

So by the 1970s and despite communism many of these countries were still more prosperous than Portugal? This shows how much retarded and third-world was Portugal. But it's not surprising to me. I know tons of French of Portugal descent and most of them admit that their grand-parents or parents or event back-grand-parents came in France because Portugal was a shithole compared to France. And they still see no reason to choose to go in Portugal instead of France, because they still see the big gap of development between these 2 countries, even today.

Infact in most aspects the Portuguese colonies of Angola and Mozambique were more modern, developed and had a better standard of living than the mainland, unlike the French who left their colonies in a miserable state, Portugal actually developed its African colonies and applied the income/resources over there. You are an ignorant about our history so don't talk about what you don't know.

The more you speak the more you demonstrate your idiocy and your ignorance. In the early 1950s 10% at least of the French budget was dedicatory to Algeria and our colonies in Africa. It's precisely the considerable amount of infrastructure we built there, hospitals, schools, railroads, railway, ports, airports etc, are precisely one of the reason why these colonies were most costly than lucrative and also why these regions of Africa experimented a demographic burst. This is also the reason why we finally decided to get rid of these colonies.

Beside, Angola and Mozambique are miserable places compared with many French colonies in Africa. I have testimony of people who lived in Maghreb and in Senegal during the 1950s or before, they were unanimous to say that they were awesome places.

Just look at Algeria by the time it was ruled by the French, it was marvelous.



Nothing to envy to Black shitholes like Angola or Mozambique at least. Actually, if they were not very dark-skinned people dressed in Arabic style in these videos, many could assume that theses images are from Spain or Portugal.

Algeria and Tunisia today are the most developed countries of the African continent. Nothing comparable with Angola and Mozambique which are very poor even compared with other African countries. Algeria relied heavily on the income perceived from oil exportation for its development, and it could benefit of this because of the French prospecting in the Sahara and because we allowed Algeria to keep it despite the fact the Sahara had never been Algerian historically.

Even in Black Africa our colonies had nothing to envy to the shitholes you've mentioned, just take a look at Dakar for example:



Remember that the French army was winning on the ground in Algeria militarily, and that de Gaulle decided to get rid of it for economical, cultural, political and demographic reasons. Not all military understood it, they perceived it as a betrayal and tried to kill him.

Anyway, we are still heavily subsidizing these countries with money and often send troops to maintain some order there. So your claim like we don't support these countries or didn't support them is stupid as fuck

Remember also, that you Iberians have lost all your colonies and that you have nothing to brag about and have no reasons to claim any form of superiority over France or over any European country.

Cut the charade already, Jews are by far the most over represented ethnicity among Nobel prize laureates, this is a pretty well know fact.

Yeah, and Northern European are more represented than Southern European among Nobel Prices too, so I guess it proves the Northern Euro superiority above the Southern ones.

Yeah that book seems very credible.

You have no argument to oppose it, so yes.

Actually all the evidence points to the opposite, Germany was not able to win the nuclear race precisely because it purged Jewish brains who were key in German universities and research institutes.

Germany never needed the Jews to achieve anything. 3rd Reich Germany was prosperous and flourishing economically and scientifically, precisely because they had get rid of the Jewish influence. It was the most scientifically nation of its time, and it's because of German scientists that USA and USSR could later develop nuclear and spatial programs.

Germany was never able to develop a nuclear bomb

False. They were able to do it, the allies themselves knew it and fear it. Hitler just refused to create one. https://www.historyextra.com/period/...-wartime-fear/

It's two Germans (and not Jewish) scientist, Hahn and Strasseman who discovered the atom fission, and it's Hitler, afraid of the consequences, who ordered in 1940 the research toward nuclear bombs to remain sluggish, under the direction of Werner Heisenberg and his second Weisaecker. This slugishness itself was maintained by the traitor (and Jew) admiral Canaris. It's only after that the Manhattan project was created and that Jewish "refugees" took profit of germanic knowledges they learned while they were in Germany in order to create a nuclear bomb.

Where are the Iberians nuclear bombs by the way? There's none obviously, since Iberians are a joke scientifically compared with every others Western European nations.

What is the part of "Israel has a considerable nuclear arsenal" you don't understand??

They could develop a nuclear arsenal because they are supported financially and politically by Occident. What part of this sentence don't you understand?

Given the overwhelming demographic superiority of France compared to other European countries and richness of its soil, France was underachiever on many regards compared to Iberians, who comparatively did much more with much less.

Yes, that's why your GDP per capita was so much inferior compared with France. The French soil isn't particularly rich by the way, we just know how to take profit of it, and we have not looted a considerable amount of precious metal in the Americas like the Iberians.

We are so much underachiever that we are counted among the most productive workforce of Europe, unlike the Iberians: https://worldpopulationreview.com/en...tive-countries

Man, stop calling other countries underachiever. First, my initial claim was that Southern Europeans countries are less developed than Northern Europeans countries , so your comments about France are completely off-topic. But even in this case, everything shows that Iberians are underachiever compared with most countries of Europe, including France.

BMI index is not objective or reliable at all to measure if someone is obese, or else many athletes, bodybuilders and people in general with larger frames and muscular mass would all be obese.

Athletes, even the very muscular ones, are overweight sometimes, but they rarely have a weight corresponding to obesity. And when they are in that case, they often develop issues later, as they are ageing, like bones and joint paint or cardiac issues, sometimes as early as in their 30s. So yes, it's a reliable index.

You are unable to show indexes which proves that Iberians are less underachiever than France or than any country in Western Europe anyway.

No, it's you who ignore how advanced the Greek were in the fields of mathematics, astronomy, navigation, cartography, architecture, engineering, arts, literature, medicine, philosophy etc etc and all the aspects that are required to achieve a higher civilization Wich built the foundations of your precious Occident.

Are you even aware that the ancient Greeks knew already the Earth was round and calculated the length of its circumference with remarkable precision ?

As I've said, all of this is primitive compared with today's knowledges, and most of the progress accomplished since then is not due to Greeks.

Many of the knowledge Wich allowed Europe to advance from the medieval age to the Renaissance was not new but to a large degree just the recovery of ancient concepts and authors.

And which nations have accomplished the most since Renaissance? I sent you back to my previous posts to find the answer. One clue: it's not Spain, neither Portugal.

China will most probably be more developed/advanced and richer than all European countries in just 30 or 40 years,

Precisely. If we project ourselves to 2050, it's even more visible that Southern European countries will be even more irrelevant than they are today. So I would not be as arrogant as you are now if I were you. And no, nothing shows that these countries will be more developed than Northern Europeans ones, or even France.

https://www.businessinsider.com/pwc-...pp-2050-2017-2

Until the early/mid 19th century, the population of England, Spain, Portugal, and Austria or Netherlands combined would barely match the French population...you still think France did anything special?

Completely wrong. The countries you've mentioned altogether represented 55 millions people in 1800, 85 millions if we add the Russian Empire, against 28 millions in France during the same year.



So yes, if these 85 millions people needed 7 coalitions and 23 years to finally defeat France, that's revealing of the military value of the French.

On the other side, nothing impressive came from the Iberians. Because, for your information, struggling several years against a fraction of the Grande Armée, and with the support of UK is nothing impressive. It's obvious that if France had not been busy on so many other fronts, the Iberians would have been crushed like bugs. And today, Spain is a military joke, even Taiwan, with a population of only 23.5 millions people (significantly lower than Spain) is listed among the most powerful navies and most powerful military of the world. Spain is not, so the "big population" pseudo-argument you've used doesn't work.

[Jana]

Never been to Spain, but I've been to Ireland and it doesn't feel as wealthy as it is. Sure it looks like clean and developed western country which it is, but nothing special compared to my country, infrastructure was on nearly same level or slighty inferior to what we have here. Only drastic difference I noticed immediately was how super expensive Ireland was, most expensive country I've been to by than, more so than UK.

[Jana]

North Italy for example feels like space shuttle in infrastructure for both Ireland and Croatia.

[Centurion]

There's not even comparison regarding the infrastructure, highways, train/transport systems, city planning, quality of public services etc...I really don't think you know well the two countries if you say such nonsense

I know well Ireland. And what you say is irrelevant. Each time I've traveled to Spain, I was finally glad to come back to Ireland because really you feel how much it is developed compared with Spain.

But interesting you mention Ireland, because some decades ago it was exactly the example given by Anglo-Saxon supremacists/eugenists to prove their superiority vs dominated Celtic peoples

I'm aware of this. But don't believe that the same Anglo-Saxons had a better opinions about the Iberians. And for good reasons. But the Irish have proven their value since then, not so much the Iberians.

You think Norway was rich before start exploring the northern seal oil?

Iberian countries and Norway had a similar GDP per-capita in 1890. So you have absolutely no reason to feel superior toward Norwegians, rather the reverse.

So? Many of those ex communist countries were more developed than Portugal by the mid 1970's by per capita GDP

So by the 1970s and despite communism many of these countries were still more prosperous than Portugal? This shows how much retarded and third-world Portugal was. But it's not surprising to me. I know tons of French of Portuguese descent and most of them admit that their grand-parents or parents or event back-grand-parents came in France because Portugal was a shithole compared to France. And they still see no reason to choose to live in Portugal instead of France, because they still see the big gap of development between these 2 countries, even today.

Infact in most aspects the Portuguese colonies of Angola and Mozambique were more modern, developed and had a better standard of living than the mainland, unlike the French who left their colonies in a miserable state, Portugal actually developed its African colonies and applied the income/resources over there. You are an ignorant about our history so don't talk about what you don't know.

The more you speak the more you demonstrate your idiocy and your ignorance. In the early 1950s 10% at least of the French budget was dedicatory to Algeria and our colonies in Africa. The considerable amount of infrastructure we built there, hospitals, schools, railroads, railway, ports, airports etc, is precisely one of the reason why these colonies were most costly than lucratives and also why these regions of Africa experimented a demographic burst. This is also the reason why we finally decided to get rid of these colonies.

Beside, Angola and Mozambique are miserable places compared with many French colonies in Africa. I have testimony of people who lived in Maghreb and in Senegal during the 1950s or before, they were unanimous to say that they were awesome places.

Just look at Algeria by the time it was ruled by the French, it was marvelous.



Nothing to envy to Black shitholes like Angola or Mozambique at least. Actually, if they were not very dark-skinned people dressed in Arabic style in these videos, many could assume that theses images are from Spain or Portugal.

Algeria and Tunisia today are the most developed countries of the African continent. Nothing comparable with Angola and Mozambique which are very poor even compared with other African countries. Algeria relied heavily on the income perceived from oil exportation for its development, and it could benefit of this because of the French prospecting in the Sahara and because we allowed Algeria to keep it despite the fact the Sahara had never been Algerian historically.

Even in Black Africa our colonies had nothing to envy to the shitholes you've mentioned, just take a look at Dakar for example:



Remember that the French army was winning on the ground in Algeria militarily, and that de Gaulle decided to get rid of it for economical, cultural, political and demographic reasons. Not all military understood it, they perceived it as a betrayal and tried to kill him.

Anyway, we are still heavily subsidizing these countries with money and often send troops to maintain some order there. So your claim like we don't support these countries or didn't support them is stupid as fuck

Remember also, that you Iberians have lost all your colonies and that you have nothing to brag about and have no reasons to claim any form of superiority over France or over any European country.

Cut the charade already, Jews are by far the most over represented ethnicity among Nobel prize laureates, this is a pretty well know fact.

Yeah, and Northern European are more represented than Southern European among Nobel Prices too, so I guess it proves the Northern Euro superiority above the Southern ones.

Yeah that book seems very credible.

You have no argument to oppose it, so yes.

Actually all the evidence points to the opposite, Germany was not able to win the nuclear race precisely because it purged Jewish brains who were key in German universities and research institutes.

Germany never needed the Jews to achieve anything. 3rd Reich Germany was prosperous and flourishing economically and scientifically, precisely because they had get rid of the Jewish influence. It was the most scientifically nation of its time, and it's because of German scientists that USA and USSR could later develop nuclear and spatial programs.

Germany was never able to develop a nuclear bomb

False. They were able to do it, the allies themselves knew it and fear it. Hitler just refused to create one. https://www.historyextra.com/period/...-wartime-fear/

It's two Germans (and not Jewish) scientists, Hahn and Strasseman who discovered the atom fission, and it's Hitler, afraid of the consequences, who ordered in 1940 the research toward nuclear bombs to remain sluggish, under the direction of Werner Heisenberg and his second Weisaecker. This slugishness itself was maintained by the traitor (and Jew) admiral Canaris. It's only after that the Manhattan project was created and that Jewish "refugees" took profit of germanic knowledges they learned while they were in Germany in order to create a nuclear bomb.

Where are the Iberians nuclear bombs by the way? There's none obviously, since Iberians are a joke scientifically compared with every others Western European nations.

What is the part of "Israel has a considerable nuclear arsenal" you don't understand??

They could develop a nuclear arsenal because they are supported financially and politically by Occident. What part of this sentence don't you understand?

Given the overwhelming demographic superiority of France compared to other European countries and richness of its soil, France was underachiever on many regards compared to Iberians, who comparatively did much more with much less.

Yes, that's why your GDP per capita was so much inferior compared with France. The French soil isn't particularly rich by the way, we just know how to take profit of it, and we have not looted a considerable amount of precious metal in the Americas like the Iberians.

We are so much underachiever that we are counted among the most productive workforce of Europe, unlike the Iberians: https://worldpopulationreview.com/en...tive-countries

Man, stop calling other countries underachiever. First, my initial claim was that Southern Europeans countries are less developed than Northern Europeans countries , so your comments about France are completely off-topic. But even in this case, everything shows that Iberians are underachiever compared with most countries of Europe, including France.

BMI index is not objective or reliable at all to measure if someone is obese, or else many athletes, bodybuilders and people in general with larger frames and muscular mass would all be obese.

Athletes, even the very muscular ones, are overweight sometimes, but they rarely have a weight corresponding to obesity. And when they are in that case, they often develop issues later, as they are ageing, like bones and joint paint or cardiac issues, sometimes as early as in their 30s. So yes, it's a reliable index.

You are unable to show indexes which proves that Iberians are less underachiever than France or than any country in Western Europe anyway.

No, it's you who ignore how advanced the Greek were in the fields of mathematics, astronomy, navigation, cartography, architecture, engineering, arts, literature, medicine, philosophy etc etc and all the aspects that are required to achieve a higher civilization Wich built the foundations of your precious Occident.

Are you even aware that the ancient Greeks knew already the Earth was round and calculated the length of its circumference with remarkable precision ?

As I've said, all of this is primitive compared with today's knowledges, and most of the progress accomplished since then is not due to Greeks.

Many of the knowledge Wich allowed Europe to advance from the medieval age to the Renaissance was not new but to a large degree just the recovery of ancient concepts and authors.

And which nations have accomplished the most since Renaissance? I sent you back to my previous posts to find the answer. One clue: it's not Spain, neither Portugal.

China will most probably be more developed/advanced and richer than all European countries in just 30 or 40 years,

Precisely. If we project ourselves to 2050, it's even more visible that Southern European countries will be even more irrelevant than they are today. So I would not be as arrogant as you are now if I were you. And no, nothing shows that these countries will be more developed than Northern Europeans ones, or even France.

https://www.businessinsider.com/pwc-...pp-2050-2017-2

Until the early/mid 19th century, the population of England, Spain, Portugal, and Austria or Netherlands combined would barely match the French population...you still think France did anything special?

Completely wrong. The countries you've mentioned altogether represented 55 millions people in 1800, 85 millions if we add the Russian Empire, against 28 millions in France during the same year.



So yes, if these 85 millions people needed 7 coalitions and 23 years to finally defeat France, that's revealing of the military value of the French.

On the other side, nothing impressive came from the Iberians. Because, for your information, struggling several years against a fraction of the Grande Armée, and with the support of UK is nothing impressive. It's obvious that if France had not been busy on so many other fronts, the Iberians would have been crushed like bugs. And today, Spain is a military joke, even Taiwan, with a population of only 23.5 millions people (significantly lower than Spain) is listed among the most powerful navies and most powerful military of the world. Spain is not, so the "big population" pseudo-argument you've used doesn't work.

[Jana]

But yes, infrastructure doesn't always paint realistic picture. NYC and many American cities are great example, roads are often full of holes and in third world condition and we can't say USA is poor due to that. Sorry for the digression

[Luso]

Never been to Spain, but I've been to Ireland and it doesn't feel as wealthy as it is. Sure it looks like clean and developed western country which it is, but nothing special compared to my country, infrastructure was on nearly same level or slighty inferior to what we have here. Only drastic difference I noticed immediately was how super expensive Ireland was, most expensive country I've been to by than, more so than UK.

Agreed. Not sure what that guy means by Ireland feeling "more developed." Does he mean in terms of shops, or how industrial the cities are? In terms of how people communicate? In terms of how the areas look? Because Spain has not only a far superior overall architectural history, but beautiful natural lands, forests, farms, etc. it's a big country with many different scenes, and so there isn't really anything they are missing compared to a country like Ireland. I've never been to Ireland and I'm sure it's beautiful but if the topic is about the feeling of how "developed" a country is then I'm sure he is talking about this, if not then I am confused about what he is referring to. Nonetheless, Spain also is a great temperature all year long and is considered a very comfortable, lavish place to live contrary to the cold Northern Euro lands. Reading older replies by him I'm assuming he is obsessed about a countries economic inputs and outputs instead of quality of living... but again not sure. I still don't think the average person would argue Ireland is more of a beautiful experience to visit than Spain, but to each their own I guess- lol.

[Centurion]

Agreed. Not sure what that guy means by Ireland feeling "more developed." Does he mean in terms of shops? In terms of how people talk? In terms of how the areas look? Because Spain has a far superior architectural history, and as a result, it is a beautiful country to explore. It also is a great temperature all year long and is considered as a very comfortable, lavish place to live contrary to the cold Northern Euro lands. I don't think anyone would argue Ireland is more of a beautiful experience to visit than Ireland, but to each their own I guess- lol.

Food, climate, architecture are meaningless criteria to judge the development of a nation. A country can have good food, good climate and good architecture and still being poor.

You benefit of climate by chance, not because of your merits, and good architectures are old things, meaningless to judge today's level of development.

[Luso]

Food, climate, architecture are meaningless criteria to judge the development of a nation. A country can have good food, good climate and good architecture and still being poor.

You benefit of climate by chance, not because of your merits, and good architectures are old things, meaningless to judge today's level of development.

Okay, but then what are you basing your criteria on which makes you believe Ireland is a better, "more developed" country than Spain? I'm going to guess it... the GDP?

[Jana]

Agreed. Not sure what that guy means by Ireland feeling "more developed." Does he mean in terms of shops, or how industrial the cities are? In terms of how people communicate? In terms of how the areas look? Because Spain has not only a far superior overall architectural history, but beautiful natural lands, forests, farms, etc. it's a big country with many different scenes, and so there isn't really anything they are missing compared to a country like Ireland. I've never been to Ireland and I'm sure it's beautiful but if the topic is about the feeling of how "developed" a country is then I'm sure he is talking about this, if not then I am confused about what he is referring to. Nonetheless, Spain also is a great temperature all year long and is considered a very comfortable, lavish place to live contrary to the cold Northern Euro lands. Reading older replies by him I'm assuming he is obsessed about a countries economic inputs and outputs instead of quality of living... but again not sure. I still don't think the average person would argue Ireland is more of a beautiful experience to visit than Spain, but to each their own I guess- lol.

It's not realistic to compare Ireland with Spain or Portugal with France, because we are comparing smaller western Euro nation vs a major one.
For me personally Spain/Portugal offer maybe best quality of life in Europe, if one has decent job.

Irish climate is mild actually considering how northernly it's located, due to Gulf stream. They have cool summers and pretty mild winters in general.