ULTIMATE WHITES, 2nd attempt

Made a similar thread before but got slided - Sup Forums, who are the /ULTIMATE WHITES/?

Only Europeans from these countries are up for consideration.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French_War_(1213–1214)
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

...

Austrians

>Chooses countries with the biggest black populations exclusively

>Ireland
>Southern Italy
Nearly perfect, nearly

French honestly

Anglos by far

Most historically relevant white countries in order
>France
>Britain (particularly England)
>Italy
>Spain
>Russia
>Portugal
>Greece
Compared to them Germany and Scandinavia are practically irrelevant. Germany wasn't even a sinlge country until 1871 and even then spend 45 of the last 146 years as two separate countries. This assumes that you don't consider Austria to be intrinsically part of Germany, if you do Germany was only united for about 7 years in its entire history.

Northwest Europeans and their descendants belong to the main "Northern European" genetic group, and are the least likely to have Semetic or Asiatic DNA.

Protestant north European culture formed greatly after the 30 Years' War (althought there were also inklings of it before that); and these nations led to the Industrial Revolution.

The 1800s were dominated by the UK, Germany, and USA.

I think it's between Anglos and SW Germans/Swiss, interested to see what people think and IF they can justify it!

So to me, Anglos are uniquely individualistic in Europe - think English humour, basically creating all modern sports, innovating a language with no pointless genders for nouns etc.

>counts Spanish but not Poles or Balts

Yeah, but the NW Euro component among Scandinavians is different to that of, say, England - I mean it's obvious, given how incredibly easy it would be to pick a Swede out from a crowd of Brits.

Western and eastern europe. Take out southern europe and you're good.

WTF are you talking about? The HRE was the most powerful force in Europe historically.

I personally don't count Spanish, I just chose a map of W. Europe as it's obvious that the greatest Euros are amongst them.

You, my friend, don't know your history, if you consider the HRE as a force.

/brazilian shemales/ are the ultimate (((whites))).

Irish

Superior Version

Even if Germany wasn't united for most of its existence, the German states and the German people played a huge role in shaping Europe and its civilization, especially in the 18th, 19th and early 20th century.

Austrians.

The HRE was the biggest continental power in the early and high middle ages. Only after that did it begin its steady downfall into geopolitical irrelevance.

In terms of world impact and empires no doubt.

west prussians are the master race

>The 1800s were dominated by the UK, Germany, and USA
They really weren't. Germany spent most of the 1800s shitting around in central Europe trying to form HRE 2.0 and didn't become relevant until the end of the century. The US in that timeframe was extremely isolationist primarily dealing with the Americans and only extending its reach deep into the Pacific following the Spanish American war. In reality the 19th century was primarily defined by Britain and Russia, with their conflicts over the middle east as well as the rise of modern democracy and the shifting away from old world systems that had been in place for nearly a thousand years (absolutism and more importantly serfdom). Furthermore Britain formed the backbone of European colonialism in Africa with its early colonies in South Africa and its overarching goal of controlling a strip of land from South Africa to the Suez (which they would accomplish after WW1).

Comparitively Germany and the US were pretty irrelevant Germany just fought some wars with Denmark and Austria before defeating France in the Franco-Prussian war in 1871 which was their first notable action. Their colonies were never as massive or as important as Britain or France's colonies were to their own empires. America meanwhile had the Louisiana purchase, Mexican American war, and Spanish American war, but those had little impact outside of the Americas.

>Greece
Ehh, Turkish rapebabies aren't white

what about France and Napoleon?

You shouldn't measure a nations relevance only by their activity and success in world politics. Science and the arts play an equally important role.

lol, who the fuck are you

The HRE wasn't a force for most of its history. Even then the HRE was formed from the remnants of the Frankish empire, which had far more effect on Europe with the halting of muslim invasions, the complete unification and Christianization of Germany, as well as conquering Italy resulting in Italy becoming part of the Holy Roman Empire.

As for the military power of the Holy Roman Empire it is vastly overstated by people who get their history from crusader kings 2.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French_War_(1213–1214)
In reality even when they could unite for a war the army was especially large or capable, they achieved their fair share of victories no doubt, but the Hapsburg Empire was far more powerful and relevant than the Holy Roman Empire at its height ever was and much of that power was due to its rule over Spain as opposed to its rule over Austria.

created civilization. What is mesopotamia.
ayy lmao.

and who the fuck are you

>The HRE was the most powerful force in Europe historically.

That would have been absolutely true if it ever was united into a single nation

In reality though it was so decentralized and divided internally throughout the entire millenium of its existence that we got BTFO even only by the french more often than not

Why are you so mad, you're green

Brits can be somehow white, but they were never really European, so I'd exclude them.

The German states really didn't have that big an impact. Germany had its fair share of scientists, musicians, and theologians no doubt but the impact of Bach and Beethooven is less than the impact of the British domination of North America or Portuguese exploration opening up the east, or the Roman Empire and Italian Renaissance.

My overall list may have been a bit too biased against older influences (eg. Greece and the Roman Empire) but the point is to show the influence of the entire people as opposed to individuals. After all if an entire nation accomplishes something it speaks far more of the people in the nation than if one guy invents the liquid fuel rocket.

The celts.

Albanians

Again, it wasn't a power because there was basically no centralisation. It's even worse than calling the Commonwealth a power.

The Frogs were tag teaming you guys with the roaches for 250 years. France the first anti-white nation.

Yes mesopotamia, teel me who created jury system in law, mechanics, basis for medicine, western art or tell me one philosopher from there(mesopotamia)?

never associate MY country with an island of inbreds, thank you! id rather ally myself with the people who care about european heritage rather than people who's royal family will probly will be niggers by the year 2050. fucking bucktooth brit

All Indo-Europeans are brothers, even the step-children like Iranians and North Indians (it's not their fault, they were seduced by a death cult when they were going through a bad time).

This nonsense is divisive and counter-productive to securing the existence of our people and a future for White children. We will never gas the kikes and race war now like this.

Assuming you can filter the population isolating whites only:

1) UK
2) France
3) Germany

OP clearly refers to people and not governments, so saying "it wasn't united under one government" isn't an argument.
Also interesting how you use "not being a unified state" as an argument against Germany but not for Italy. Either you are historically illiteral or just biased.

Name one truly accomplished Finn besides Sibelius (who, iirc, was of Swedish descent)?

That's stupid, you see Southern Italians as part of the same group as you?

Fucking burger education

In terms of accomplishment, for sure, but how much of that is due to those areas having larger populations?

Also, Germany>France every single day.

What's wrong in your prespective?

Might have discounted Napoleon, if anything France's main influence during the 19th century (as ironic as it is) may be its legacy of defeat. Napoleon's final defeat led to nearly half a century of peace within Europe when before that wars akin to a world war happened every 20 years or so (7 years war, Spanish Succession, Austrian Succession). Furthermore France's defeat in 1871 led to a united Germany which would become a dominant military and economic power in central Europe. That isn't to say France was failing in some way, Napoleon defeated numerous alliances that would make the allies v. Germany look fair and balance. Furthermore the French colonies and their colonial policy contrasted heavily with the rest of Europe and was in some ways a more successful form of colonialism. France certainly utilized the manpower from their colonies more effectively than most countries.

A lot of the reason for low Scandinavian achievement is because of their historically tiny population sizes. However, I do still think people like Anglos and S. Germanics in particular are a lot more intelligent.

I do feel that Germans lack the creativity that French have.

>Ultimate whites
Holy adjectives batman
Saged

Really? I completely disagree, what makes you think that?

Of fucking course I do, why wouldn't I?

Dead serious question.

there is little I have in common with an anglo or scandinavian, particularly after the reformation

different sub-race(s), different language family, different genepool, different culture altogether, etc... not to mention I find anglo culture abohorrent

count us out

>OP clearly refers to people and not governments, so saying "it wasn't united under one government" isn't an argument.
If I invent a new thing it doesn't mean my countrymen accomplished anything. If my country fought in a war, had millions of men fight, and won that speaks much more for the capabilities of the entire population. Same with great buildings or creating a successful form of government. Also Italy primarily was place where it was due to the influence of the Roman Empire whose legacy lived on in some form until the end of WW1 and the collapse of the last empires that claimed descent from Rome. The culture of Rome changed Europe far more than the culture of say ancient Germany or Gaul and a single unified empire adopting Christianity allowed for its spread. In all honesty Italy and Greece should probably be near the top, but as I said I am biased against the older achievements.

If we only look at countries after say 1600 I would probably place Germany in fourth place after Britain, France, and Russia. However its complete lack of colonization in America, its lack of a true European empire, and its short lived colonial empire mean that the German people didn't influence history to the same extent as the other peoples I mentioned.

Russians are shit-tier compared to W. Europe.

>yurocucks
>white
Go suck off Mohammed, yuroshits

The 1800s were dominated by Britain.

America and Germany didn't become economically or politically relevant until the end of the century. In the 1850s America was still a cultural and economic backwater compared to Europe, and Germany was a collection of internationally irrelevant states still dominated by France. Even after they rose to economic prominence in the 1880s, they didn't take a central role in world politics until the beginning of the 20th century.

The Russian Empire started the century strong after defeating Napoleon, but it rapidly became clear that economically and militarily it was slipping into obsolescence. The Crimean War was a wake-up call for the empire, as Britain and France gave it a humiliating defeat despite having serious problems with their own military command. Despite attempts at modernisation it never really managed it, and although Britain still regarded it as a threat to their Indian possessions, the Russian Empire was never a serious contender for the status of greatest world power.

France managed to stay relevant after Napoleon's crushing defeat, which is a mark of just how dominant it was in the 18th century. But during the 19th century it was clearly significantly inferior to Britain in terms of global power and economic development.

we aren't white so we don't count.

The French continue to dominate food/cooking, fashion, style, etc.

Hahaha

Following 1600 they had more influence on the world and history than any other country sans France and Britain. In all honesty 80% of European history was defined by France and Britain, everyone else just gets the scraps. If the English were content to sit on their little island and the French never bothered to form their own colonial empire and challenge the Hapsburgs the world would be a very, very different place.

Nonsense, the Irish are white, they simply aren't white people. Its an important distinction.

You are and you know it, in fact, the ones that should reclaim that for themselfs are italians.

...

reclaim what?

He's Italian mate
Guarantee you this is a shit index.

That's just a snapshot of today. We also need to factor in historical accomplishments. What have you done for the world, ever ?

Swedes are intellectually stunted imo, would you say that's an unfair statement?

...

So???

It seems hypocritical to me that you use modern Rome as an argument for Italy but in the same breath say that Germany wasn't as influencel because "it wasn't united under a government till 1871".
Either talk about states or culture but don't just change it around when it's covenient for your argumentation.

He's being pedantic, GERMANS have had a huge influence on history - probably only bested by us ;) (if you ignore Greco-Romans)

The clear answer is obviously the Swiss, Irish and the Scottish.

Of fucking course I do, why wouldn't I?
Dead serious question.
The Southern Wops are way more based than the Northerners in my experience, and have you SEEN the women?

Always the Swiss

That doesn't prove shit

You are the heirs to the Romans.

You are the Whitest of all.

Again, doesn't prove shit. Finland, for example, has basically never innovated anything.

Every. Single. Time.

Whiter than UK, literally, kek.

...

>Czech Republic
>Poland
>Baltics
>etc. etc.
>Not white
Inselaffe

The Swiss again!

.

...

Irish are top tier whites, also the English, Germans, Nordics and the French.

You do realize hes implying italians arent white, because italians are better than whites.

Fucking snow niggers.

>tfw austrian/italian/american mutt

and the Swiss, although they may as well be Germans I respect their culture, attitude and nation.

>Spaniards, italians and poortuegese are white
>Poles, Belarussians and Ukrainians are not
Lol.
Genetically incorrect.
Eastern europeans have some of the lowest non european admixture in europe.

Italians are white, just not north west Germanics is all.

not necessarily better, just different

Lol white is common but aryan is truly hard to find. What do you think being aryan is? Do you think its having a certain facial feature? Or having Caucasian skin and blonde hair? Or how about DNA? Well the truth is being Aryan is much more than just that

I didn't say that, the map is just because W Euros>E Euros

anglos, no other nation has done more to spread whites around the world, and all of the achievements of the us, canada, aus and nz can be indirectly attributed to their anglo heritage.

The fact you refuse to live in your own shit-tier nation really says it, Vlad. Way to inadvertently prove OP's point, dumb as a rock slav.

I think I'd agree