“However; I beg to differ on the question of how old Germany is: the German people was first mentioned by Tacitus in “Germania” around 95 A.D.”
There was no argument that the “German people” (more directly the core of “Germanic” speaking people) is very old and older than most nation states of Europe today.
The point I made was there was no unified nation-state of Germany until shortly before WWI, as far as history goes. The strictly German people were disunited among German princely states, Austria, areas conquered by Napolean and other spaces occupied by Germans but under some non-German ruler. That disunited state of Germans was one France and Britain sorely wished the German people had remained.
Why should the Germans - pre-WWI - have felt ethical or moral qualms or guilt at behaving no differently than the British, French, Russians and others had done in Europe for centuries? Why should what Napoleon conquered have remained as some inviolate status quo that if broken meant a rupture in a “balance of power”? Did “balance” really mean equity or parity, or just that Britain and France held the upper hand and that upper hand should not be diminished? Things did honestly look different, more than “wrong”, from a German perspective.
“BTW, the French kingdom evolved just at roughy the same time, between the late 9th century and the final French victory over the Angevin Empire in 1214.”
That was some 600 years before any whole state for the core German speaking peoples.
Very sorry for correcting you on this point, but the Holy Roman Empire had been predominantly the proto-nation-state of the German people, and yes, it was regarded as such by the Germans themselves. Countless German sources from the 11th to the 19th century can prove it.
Just in theory, it was not a “state of the Germans”, since it stood in the (theoretical) tradition of the supranational Ancient Roman Empire, but this didn’t stop it from being widely regarded as a German “state”.
Medieval sources from France and England as well as Italy and many other countries used the terms “German” and “Germany” and its equivalents liberally when talking of the HR Empire.
However, after the Thirty years’ War it went through a phase of disunity, especially with the fact that after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, every German prince was allowed to make his own foreign policy.
Still, the HRE stood together against the Turkish invasion in 1683, when Emperor Leopold I used the Estates of the Realm to rally support - but there was no such united stand against the incursions of the French other arch-enemy in the West :-)
Nonetheless, it was the Austrian-Prussian dualism with its conflicts of interests in the 18th century, which caused a structural crisis and eventually brought it down in 1806, when Napoleon came along (what is often forgotten: France was, at the time, and had been since 1648, the most populous country in Europe with the strongest economy).
And you are completely right about France having the upper hand on the Continent from 1648 to the fall of Napoleon. The dream of a newly united Germany was renewed, however, when N. had been defeated - but this time one across the line of popular sovereignty according to British - or even French (as per the ideas promulgated in the French revolution) - tradition. What they got, however, was a rehash of the princely absolutism of the years after the TYW...
A fascinating debate indeed. Thank you. And I am afraid that we really live in interesting times, as per the wise proverb - although it is AFAIK, contrary to received wisdom, not from China.