Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 4 days ago, 42 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,360,378
China obviously. Although, more than likely, India would get it first. Britain and India have a special relationship. First, the British colonized India. Now, the Indians want to learn from their British colonizers. The British should be flattered honestly. Game respects game.
Anonymous D replied with this 4 days ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,360,380
People from England are not quite human, the people from Nottingham are forest people. If a monkey made love to a man, that would be the forest people from Nottingham.
Anonymous D replied with this 4 days ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,360,382
@previous (tteh !MemesToDNA)
Well here’s an idea: if the British don’t want the brownies owning all their industrial capacity, why not let the Irish own everything. They’re white people, but they’re a difference race so it still meets the DEI requirement. Let’s sell British steel to the Irish and sell all the naval shipyards and distribution centers to Dublin!
Anonymous H replied with this 4 days ago, 35 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,360,408
@previous (I) > Britain created Israel.
Hmm, very debatable. Britain both supported and opposed the creation of a Jewish state. In the end they gave only just enough support for it to be possible.
Anonymous H replied with this 4 days ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,360,411
@1,360,409 (I) > that whole World War Two thing
That's a massive topic. Which part are you asking about exactly? Also, a huge amount has been written about it that you could just, you know, look up and read.
Anonymous H replied with this 4 days ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,360,415
@1,360,410 (I) > a world in which Britain doesn’t support the Jews is a world that doesn’t exist
How do you explain the fact that Britain reneged on the promise made by the league of nations and gave away 80% of the country initially allocated to the Jews to the Arab Palestinians (i.e. Jordan)? That doesn't seem very supportive to me.
Anonymous H replied with this 4 days ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,360,418
@previous (I) > The same way you’ll explain the fact that the UK granted $727 million dollars in arms export licenses to Israel.
No, see, what you described is Britain giving support to Israel. What I described is Britain not giving support to Israel. Do you see how these two things are, like, different?
Anonymous H replied with this 4 days ago, 5 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,360,425
@1,360,420 (I) > Jordan has a population of 11 million people. Them not supporting that probably has more to do with it being impossible to implement in the first place.
Well, now it's 11 million. In 1948 it was more like half a million. Britain had full control over the mandate - they were a super-power at the time, and the Ottoman empire, who used to be in control of the whole region had fallen. They had the choice to do whatever the fuck they wanted. The reason was far more likely because they were still in empire mode and perceived (wrongly) that transjordan would be easier to control in the hands of Arabs rather than Jews.