and if it DID happen

it'd be bad for Britain

THUS

something has never happened (because british influence) means it wouldnt happen without british influence

Based on WHAT

it is in Britain's interests to stop that

lol

british interfered with Napoleon

you could even mention the romans

british interfered with hilter

rome unified europe

both failed, im thinking the british did a good job.

invaded british isles

very true

see you can only conquor europe if you get britain <:hyperthink:462282519883284480>

nah

Britain was just stronk so it used that strength to destabilize

as any reasonable actor would

and HAM is retarded

what, i also think a unified EU under hilter leadership would be ideal!

[INSERT AD HOM HERE]

well, nothing else seems t oconvince you

Ham your proving too much

so what else is there left to do?

then call you a fag

and laugh at the autistic kid

who responds to well presented arguments with "nah-ah!"

"What you're saying is just a theory!"

fucking hell

your assuming b.c both invasions (napoleon and hilter) failed
then hilter would eventually fizzle out without British influence, but they both had british influence to stop them

Well considering you gave no argument beside "we might get invaded oh no" without proof that such a thing was possible or desirable

did britan invade?

,,,

The possibility of it is obvious The desirability of subjugation is also obvious.

A unified Europe has more then nuff resources to threaten Britain

this is OBVIOUS

and the benefits of subjugation are ultra-obvious

You don't need to subjugate something that's not a threat

Muh this is so obvious

hilter did nuffing wrong

you want to subjugate others because this is the best way to keep them from subjugating you