Er, yes, in the sense of "We win, you lose," (thank you Mr. Reagan). That was the same sort of "understanding" that Germany had to be brought to twice. It isn't a very optimistic pattern.
This business of the Holy Roman Empire of the German People (its full name) glosses over a couple of historical details - this was, with one divergence into the Wittelsbach family (Charles VII), an artifact of the Habsburg princes and the elections were mostly a matter of which one would rule. That got sticky in 1618 and they settled it in Westphalia after three full decades of burning Europe down. I'm not sure that's all that laudable a model.
Nowhere in this piece is the European Union mentioned, which strikes me as at least curious. Germany's hegemony over that organization is a source of constant complaint in the European media and one factor leading the British to vote to opt out of the EU. It is the EU, not Germany, that contains the impetus toward empire, and is notably suffering from a lack of investment in its own self-protection. That will be done at principally German expense especially in the absence of the UK, for that is the price of hegemony.
I do not see how Germany is not providing the impetus for empire. After all, the euro currency is based on the Deutsche mark and its headquarters bank is based in Frankfurt.
Also, when you have chancellors like Helmut Kohl saying “The future will belong to the Germans … when we build the house of Europe”, that implies empire.
In German, it was called the "Das Heilige Römische Reich Deutscher Nation."
Slight distinction there.
Regards,