I feel like those old people do not necessarily need to hate each other. For them might be just business as usual.
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2026
69 points (94.8% liked)
Europe
6443 readers
261 users here now
Europe
Rules:
- All sources allowed. Voting decides what is reliable unless
- Articles which have been proven false beyond any doubt may be removed
- No personal attacks
- Posts in English, translations allowed
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
The German Kaiser and Russian Czar were cousins, and called each other "Willy" and "Nicky" in their telegrams.
Then they sent millions of their subjects to kill each other.
Tsar and kaiser were more distantly related, their common ancestor was Paul I of Russia.
Also British king, kaiser and tsar's wife were first cousins, having queen Victoria as grandmother.
Wow what a heckin wise FUCKING NAZI
Who would have guessed a Nazi would engage in a "both sides" type argument?
Not just part of the Wehrmacht, but according to his Wikipedia description: "the most successful fighter ace in the history of aerial warfare" on behalf of them. Of all people to make this point, why would you choose a famous Nazi?
Hate is not paramount imo. Every war is a resource war.
yeah, probably more like disney+
Capitalization, brudi.
imo
Reading comprehension isn't your thing?
Well. You can easily Google what it means. Or should I dumb I down for you in whatever is your native language ☺️?
Okay, I’ll bite since jokes are funnier when you explain them.
You wrote:
Hate is not paramount imo. Every war is a resource war.
This is an important observation since quote in the image isn’t accurate in regards to the feelings of the old people towards each other. It probably wasn’t the best place to attach a ridiculous response.
But I did it anyway—purposefully misunderstanding your words to mean “paramount” is not “hate” and suggested “disney+” as being a better example of (something causing) “hate” than the Paramount streaming service.
Your response was:
Capitalization, brudi.
And I again chose to purposefully misunderstand your point that your use of lowercase “paramount” meant you were clarifying that your point was that hate wasn’t an important factor in the decision to go to war. Rather, I responded as if you were criticizing the lack of capitalization in my comment by replying with a quote of you writing “IMO” in lowercase to point out your hypocrisy.
It wasn’t that funny to begin with, so I appreciate the opportunity to increase the humor factor by spelling it all out.
Only by stretching "resource war" to the point it's meaningless.
Yes, every place that has people will have resources that can be taken when those resources are gone. But the people themselves also have economic value that is destroyed when they are killed, and many wars end in material losses for the aggressor. These "resource wars" mean destroying the wealth of someone else, where you can at best claim a remainder that is less than what you spent to destroy them.
The US invasion of Afghanistan was not profitable to the US state. The German extermination of Jews and Slavs was not profitable for the Germans. World War 1 was not profitable to any party.
Supremacy is far more important than resources. Violence by people who would rather suffer than see another prosper and grow more powerful than them.
Which quote are you referring to?
The one in the image
Sorry, it wasn’t showing up on my end.
Mine neither, as a thumbnail. Not sure what I did wrong, but glad it's viewable for some.
Nevertheless, violence is largely the domain of young (and often poor) men: crime, political violence, etc.