The blueprint to get another world war going

American Thinker ^ | 30 Mar, 2022 | Paul C. Binotto

[Menes]

Germany has existed since the 9th century as a kingdom, being one of the three successor states of the Frankish empire, being called the East Frankish Empire at first, analogous to the Western Frankish Empire, which would become France. The third of these successor realms, Lotharingia, would later be divided between the others.

It was during the 10th and 11th centuries that the various duchies which made up the East Frankish Empire, united under one King, began calling themselves Germans. In France, a similar process occurred unter the first Capetingians, roughly at the same time.

The idea that Germany sprang into existence in 1871 ist simple and nonetheless wrong, just as France did not begin to exist in 1789.

It was the Second Reich created in 1871 after the First, the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted from 962, when King Otto I. was crowned as the first German Emperor, until 1806, when it finally collapsed, weakened by the Prusso-Austrian dualism and its own age (when modern states, as we know them, were emerging, supplanting by and by the older polities composed of estates).

And by the way, the hereditary enemy, as many Germans call the western neighbor, has made an excellent job of peddling the idea that it has been a peacelike nation throughout history.
I concede that its culture is appealing to many people throughout the world, including the Anglo-Saxon countries, though I am unable to see where this appeal is supposed to stem from.

[Menes]

Actually, sorry, I think I can see why French culture is loved by so many people, but I consider it a very “neurotypical” culture.
That said, I as a high-functioning autist, could never win any brownie points in any interaction with French people :-)

It is a pity, no doubt about it, but still, on a strictly personal level, it’s the elephant in the room to me.

And btw: the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine by the Bismarck administration had not so much been the wish of the general staff, but more that of the states of Baden, Württemberg and Bavaria (or rather the Bavarian Palatinate).
They wanted a buffer between themselves and France, having borne the brunt of the numerous French invasions between the Thirty Years War and Napoleon. Once bitten, twice shy...

[schurmann]

“Germany has existed since the 9th century as a kingdom...” [Menes, post 21]

So what?

If “Germany” was so unified from the 10th century, why did the various subparts split up, fight with each other, join other coalitions, and behave in otherwise hostile ways?

Your comments have all the earmarks of a self-cancelling argument, but I cannot be sure, because I don’t quite understand what your argument is, exactly.

Historical analysis ought to go beyond moralizing spats over who was in somewhat remote historical times the “senior party,” and victimologist one-upmanship.

Modern Germany scared all the players on the gameboard, not merely by competing or threatening them, but by actually making war against them. Especially during the 19th century. And by launching some pretty serious conflicts in the 20th century. Justifying their recent (post-1815) behavior by declaring their culture & society to be preferable to those of their victims doesn’t hack it.

[Menes]

“If “Germany” was so unified from the 10th century, why did the various subparts split up, fight with each other, join other coalitions, and behave in otherwise hostile ways?”

When was this supposed to be? After the Reformation?

“Modern Germany scared all the players on the gameboard, not merely by competing or threatening them, but by actually making war against them. Especially during the 19th century. And by launching some pretty serious conflicts in the 20th century. Justifying their recent (post-1815) behavior by declaring their culture & society to be preferable to those of their victims doesn’t hack it.”

You mean the three wars of unification? Well, the leaders of the Austrians, Danes and French should not have started these three wars.

And the causes for WW 1 are by no means clear-cut. Those for WW 2 in Europe were, granted (the one in Asia was a rather different conflict).

But there is no need to discuss this discussion. After all, history is always written by the victors, who later did what they did. And there is no need to repat what happened then.

You will live with your version of history, which was concocted by the assortment of the accursed Germanophobic scum of the Anglo and French nations’ ruling caste (names are not needed here), while I will continue to look at my side of the story as well.

Have a nice day, and a nice life.