Nazi Serbs like @FlotPSL are beyond retarded

[FlotPSL]

truth nuke

"truth nuke"
Bro retard just give it up and say you know nothing about slavs or history

 

[Gr8]

his father was french

so?
still western European and germanic by dna as north French are mostly germanic

 

[FlotPSL]

"truth nuke"
Bro retard just give it up and say you know nothing about slavs or history

@Gr8 And again for the last fucking time im asking you to post proof of genetic leftover of the turks in balkans

 

[FlotPSL]

still western European

and if he was spanish?

 

[Gr8]

and if he was spanish?
View attachment 4125916

I count Western Europe as north France and upwards and west of Norway

 

[FlotPSL]

I count Western Europe as north France and upwards and west of Norway

Ok but are spaniards white?

 

[hopecel]

Ok but are spaniards white?

yes

 

[FlotPSL]

yes

I was asking him if he considers them white
Dont they have moor blood?

 

[hopecel]

I was asking him if he considers them white
Dont they have moor blood?

they have Moor blood and Scandinavians have Sami/Finnic blood and East Slavs have Mongol-Tatar and Ugro-Finnic blood and Balkaners have Turkic blood and Poles have Jewish blood and so on and so on... nobody is pure

 

[hopecel]

they have Moor blood and Scandinavians have Sami/Finnic blood and East Slavs have Mongol-Tatar and Ugro-Finnic blood and Balkaners have Turkic blood and Poles have Jewish blood and so on and so on... nobody is pure

when I say Turkic I don't necessarily mean Turkish since Ottoman Turks aren't the only Turkic group that lived in the Balkans

do you know that Avars came to the Balkans together with Slavs?

 

[FlotPSL]

they have Moor blood and Scandinavians have Sami/Finnic blood and East Slavs have Mongol-Tatar and Ugro-Finnic blood and Balkaners have Turkic blood and Poles have Jewish blood and so on and so on... nobody is pure

I doubt balkans have turk blood i dont see genetic evidence
nor do i see swedes having sami blood

 

[FlotPSL]

do you know that Avars came to the Balkans together with Slavs?

Ah u were talking about those
Idk if we have any components from those

 

[hopecel]

I doubt balkans have turk blood i dont see genetic evidence

read the reply above

it's not only Ottoman Turks... Avars, proto-Bulgarians, Magyars, Kipchaks, Cumans and so on... all Asiatic peoples that impacted our DNA

nor do i see swedes having sami blood

Why do many scandinavians look mongolian?

Not only finns tho

looksmax.org

 

[hopecel]

Ah u were talking about those
Idk if we have any components from those

we do

if you have N or Q haplogroup, your paternal lineage is Asiatic

we're giga mixed tbh

 

[FlotPSL]

im sumadia

 

[hopecel]

im sumadia

as you can see, Sumadija is as diverse as any other subregion

you could have any of these Y-haplogroups

 

[Gr8]

Ok but are spaniards white?

some are but most are not

 

[hopecel]

some are but most are not

vite = European

Spaniards are vite no matter how dark they are

 

[Gr8]

vite = European

Spaniards are vite no matter how dark they are

no soil for your genes

 

[ropefuelplease]

chad doesnt care for his country's political state

 

[imontheloose]

For Hitler, ideology always served expansionist policy (Lebensraum), not the other way around. His statements about the British were almost exclusively tactical, aimed at neutralizing a powerful enemy so he could pursue his primary goal: the conquest of "Judeo-Bolshevik" Russia and its Slavic populations.



The Nazis did place the English within the broader "Nordic" family tree, but this was a distant second-place status. In Hitler's worldview, the German "Aryans" were the pinnacle of creation. The British were seen as a "degenerated" or "diluted" branch of Nordics who had been weakened by democracy, liberalism, and Jewish influence (especially in London's financial and political circles, which the Nazis relentlessly propagandized against).

Even in Mein Kampf, his admiration is backhanded. He praises the British Empire as a model for German expansion but attributes its success to brutal, Germanic-like ruthlessness that he believed was being lost in Britain due to pacifism and democracy. By the early 1940s, his private comments became vicious. In his Table Talk (1941-1944), he routinely referred to the English as "a class-ridden, racially degraded society" led by "un-Germanic psychopaths" like Churchill.


Hitler's entire foreign policy was based on a series of temporary alliances to isolate and defeat enemies one by one. The 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with the USSR (a state he considered the ultimate racial enemy) proves that ideology would always be discarded for short-term strategic gain. His desire for British neutrality was to avoid a two-front war, not to reunite the racial family. When Britain refused to play along and declared war, his "admiration" instantly turned into racial contempt.



His praise for Islam was purely functional, just like his praise for the British Empire. He admired the political structure and martial fervor he perceived in early Islam, which he thought could have been a more effective tool for Germanic dominance than "soft" Christianity. This is the exact same pattern:

Praise for the British: "Your empire is mighty because you once acted like us Aryans. Be pragmatic and let me have my way in the east."

Praise for Islam: "This religion created a warrior culture that conquered vast lands. I wish Germans had something that militant to inspire them."


In neither case was he granting them the status of Übermenschen. It was always admiration for a perceived useful trait that served his goals for the German master race.
Hitler's racial theories were flexible enough to justify any alliance (e.g., with Japan, whom he also praised strategically) if it served the ultimate goal of German expansion.

Sir, you mustn't have read what I stated for starters. Nonetheless, behind the word salad, this is simply you conflating tactics with taxonomy. In Nazism, tactics could flex (pacts, feelers, propaganda, and so-on), but the racial taxonomy didn't. And that very taxonomy yielded very different end-states for differing peoples. If your story was right, I'd expect at least similar end-states for Britons and Slavs. You don't.

In the East, the regime's long-term blueprint called for mass expulsion, enslavement, starvation, and literal annihilation of Slavic folks to clear land for German lebensraum. This quite literally was a target of tens of millions. As for Britain, there was no exterminationist master plan at all. Even when Germany planned for war with Britain, the preferred outcome remained neutralisation or accommodation of a Germanic people. If ideology always bowed to tactics, explain why the only place the regime drew up civilisation-scale extermination schemes was the Slavic East, not Britain. Simply put, you can't, because the taxonomy drove the divergence.

Günther, himself, explicitly treated the English as heavily Nordic (notably in the upper classes) and within the Aryan/Germanic family, despite ranking Germans as purer which I already made very clear. That's the party's own intellectual scaffolding regarding German supremacy, not their post-war gloss/plan(s). The planned Greater German Reich was conceived to absorb, or at least align, Germanic peoples (Dutch, Danes, Norwegians, etc.). Britain was consistently discussed as Germanic, a kindred people, even though we had political adversary with one another. Nowhere did I claim that Hitler viewed any other ethnic group as identical to the Germans, but they certainly grouped fellow Germanic groups as close cousins, envisioning a British West and a German East. Clearly not just a tactical praise. This is completely different to his relationship with the Japanese and Italians, even; certainly not close to the Slavs.

Read Hitler's Second Book, he lays out, very clearly, a sustained case that Anglo-German understanding/neutrality is natural: a kindred, empire-bearing people should hold the seas while Germany expands on the continent. That's a doctrinal model. This isn't some charm offensive. Weinberg has long, infamously, documented that Hitler's England policy was a great mix of ideology and strategy, but it rested on perceived racial kinship (his words) hence repeated overtures for neutrality even during war. You can call it cynical, but you can't turn written, doctrinal frameworks into random praise.

Again, like most Telegram-lurkers, you obsess over the Table Talk. By '42-'44, Hitler quite literally said nasty things about everyone considering he was fighting everyone. How do you think wartime propaganda works? Evans, Kershaw, etc. even caution against reading the Table Talk as gospel in German. You can't overthrow programmatic policy and doctrinal texts with the nosiest, least reliable source.

Ugh! Another M-R-adorer. Can you not perceive a tactical truce to set up Barbarossa? It never altered the goal (literal conquest and racial re-ordering), which was codified in planning and implemented on the ground as soon as feasible. Temporary pacts don't erase taxonomy; it buys time in a war.

Cultural/functional praise of Islam isn't racial reclassification. There's no doctrine that elevated Arabs/Turks into the Germanic kin-set, no colonisation plan premised on their equality either. You're equating utilitarian compliments with racial placement which the regime literally never did.

What you have to answer (and can't) is:

1. Where is the British equivalent of Generalplan Ost?
2. Why did Nazi institutions distinguish Germanic peoples for integration but not Slavs?
3. Why does Hitler's Second Book theorise an Anglo-German division of labour between kindred empire-bearing peoples?

Then what the fuck was the point of ur argument, Dalit nigger
No shit they are light skinned.

That white is a definition and thus inherently circular like all words, up to interpretation by the reader. They are viewed as white and not in several communities. You'd understand this if you comprehended the intentional, careful wording. Read again before responding.

I live in one of their countries, my point was that you said it’s reserved for North Sea folk due to their history, in which case it should be far more appropriate and applicable for Mediterranean people.

You have trouble understanding subjectivity since you think you can debate me on who objectively has a better history. I gave you my definition as asked; you disagree. Boo-hoo! Now, to the true facts, sir...

 

[LTNUser]

vite = European

Spaniards are vite no matter how dark they are

I can't believe this thread is still being pushed